bdelmee wrote:
Edmund Wong wrote on 2016-12-15 08:36:
bdelmee wrote:
Hello, I keep seeing people mentioning unoffical dev builds
and encouraging us to try those and report any issue before
2.46 comes out.
I am still using 2.38 as 2.40 had an annoying regression for me,
which i'd like to check on the next beta and report if still present.
But - will there be a beta ? 2.38 is 15 months old by now.
Still works wonder for all i can see but security-wise,
this is getting a little old.
Hi,
There will be betas.. just need the following to happen:
1) 2.46 is released
2) figure out if the next release is a beta (2.48) or
release (2.47).
3) do a post-mortem discussion as to what the smeg went wrong
with 2.46 and why hell broke loose and if it's the
guy who did the release... he should be sacked!
oh wait.. that's me. *sheepish look* ermm.. umm.. Move
along...... nothing to see here. :P
Seriously, we'll need to do #3 and perhaps we'll need to
repeat the same patches to 2.47 or 2.48. I dunno as
right now, I'm still fighting 2.46...
Thanks for your patience.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
thank you for replying, and of course for your continued work.
No need to apologise, we know the high standards the SM devs have
kept through the years. It'll be ready when it is ready, fine.
But ... I am confused: are you saying there won't be a beta for 2.46,
perhaps there will for 2.47 and surely for 2.48 ? For which "releases"
is there a public beta, for which isn't there, and then what are the
implications: is a release without beta any less reliable or "official"
than one with one ? Can one file bugs against unofficial release
candidates ?
I am not complaining so much about slowness as enquiring about current
release and testing lifecycle.
Thanks again,
Bernard.
I think comm-releases in the Tinderbox builds are a bit beyond beta, and
they are working.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
