On Saturday 10 May 2008 19:14:42 Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Alpha releases are not usually advertised in the users lists and people > > in the devel certainly know how to compile from svn. > > i stand corrected then. > anyway its strange to have announcement of alternative win installer of > alpha1 without any tarball or offic installer being announced too.
Again I think that this was an honest mistake too. :-) > > So an alpha version for windows clearly stating the alpha status was > > not adverse to the development. > > in the thread after alpha1 discussing this, more people felt the same way > as me and you didn't give any clear statement. You are right that what makes a release official is an announcement sent by the release manager (me in this case) to the appropriate mailing lists (devel for alpha and beta, devel and users for rc, and devel, users and announce for stable releases). Everything else is an attempt to avoid brow bag releases. :-) Since I have sent none I did not intend to publicize the release. Uwe has made some mistakes in the process, but so have any of us. :-) The important thing is to learn in the process. BTW please don't tell anyone about 1.2.2 or 1.4.5. Officially as a project we deny the existence of such releases. ;-) > > PS: Unless someone is opposed, I intend that the next release be the > > first beta. > > +1 > > pavel -- José Abílio
