On 3/9/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do agree that we should make sure people understand that it's not a > release, but I don't think we need to assume that the user@ audience is too > dumb to recognise the distinction between a Test Build and a Release.
I wouldn't use the word "dumb", but I do think it is cavalier for us to assume that most users are aware of the distinction between a "test build" and a "beta release". The term "test build" is something we made up, and it's doubtful that many other people actually understands what it means. Whether a build is a "release" is an important distinction to an Apache project, and I would not want to make a practice of doing anything that might dilute the concept of an Apache Release. We understand that a test-build is not a release, but people seeing an announcement on user@ might not share that understanding. If people are not ready to vote a test-build to GA, then there is no harm in voting it beta first and announcing it. (Especially since we aren't voting on the plans.) We can vote on a build as many times as we like, to either upgrade or downgrade the quality. If we are going to announce unsanctioned builds to user@, then, please, let's at least call them *ALPHA* builds, so that these unilateral "trial balloons" are not confused with an actual beta release, approved by the PMC. (And, here, I'm just speaking in the general case, not to any specific build.) -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
