On 3/10/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote: > > > That says the "Alpha" label cannot be applied to a release without a > > vote. Before that, it's only a 'proposed release'. (The notion of > > 'test build' is not in the bylaws.) It also says that alpha releases > > can be distributed. > > I think "proposed release" and "test build" essentially mean the same > thing, though I might prefer the use of "proposed release" a bit > simply because it makes it very clear that the build is not yet a > release. But I think that last phrase is the point. It matters > little what we call it on the user list as long as we make it very > clear that it is not a release.
We've been using "test build" for a while, we should stick with it. I'd prefer to see us announce them on both dev and user lists. As an aside, do you think that most people who are interested in > testing and playing with stuff like this would be subscribed to the > dev@ list anyway? If so, does the announcement really need to go to > the user@ list before it becomes a release? It would be cool if that were true (all of the interested parties would be subscribed to dev), but I suspect it is not. Indeed, if all you care about is knowing when cutting edge stuff might be worth trying out, and don't care so much about influencing what is changing (other than perhaps submitting some Bugzilla tickets), that's an understandable approach to reducing mailbox bloat. Greg Craig
