I guess I wasn't all that clear from a short IRC conversation about this...
I propose testers@ to be a very narrow intersection of dev@ and [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
the sort of place where "XXX doesn't work" isn't answered with RTFM, or
"that's a users@ questions", but with a question like "this worked in the
previous version?" or "how did you configure new feature XXX?" or "what
problem were you trying to solve exactly? I thought new feature XXX would
address most of these cases."
So sure, some questions will be pushed off at dev@, or users@, but if the
individuals who join (read: promote this properly) come from a solid httpd
users background and want to play on the bleeding edge, ask the stupid Q's,
request something more specific in terms of new features and so on, this
would be promoted as the place for all that.
The traffic is difficult on dev@ because some users are intimidated by this
forum, while users@ is difficult because we are dealing with many newcomers
who would be further confused by explanations/discussions of features that
aren't even in the versions they've downloaded.
Comments?
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Wayne S. Anderson wrote:
Ok... so lets say we stop pushing the RC idea for now. What about
clearer marking of "beta" or interim branch releases?
Perhaps better advertising, as well, of testers@ as it's own 'community'
of those living on the bleeding edge? Something similar perhaps to the
way we've positioned the httpd-docs subproject?
Perhaps add 'Flame-Free Zone' to the email footer? Allow testers to feel
that they can ask the 'stupid question' that they might be too intimidated
to ask on the dev@ list?
Bill
