At 18:24 08/12/2000 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
>Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >
> > Currently, www.mozilla.org indeed encourages the use of milestones and
> > makes nightly build appear scary. Rather than asking potential users
> > (who might also be potential contributors!) take a hike, the importance
> > of milestones could be downplayed and links could be made to good
> > nightlies.
>
>I absolutely agree with this. I don't have time to do regular
>installations of nightlies, but I do use debian where upgrades of most
>things are as simple as apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade. If
>packages were made for nightlies (which I imagine they would be if the
>importance of milestones was downplayed enough) I could be a much better
>tester.
>
>As it is, when I find a bug my only resort is to search for closed bugs
>as well as open ones (looking for a fix since M18) and add a note
>explaining that I'm filing the bug as UNCONFIRMED only because my build
>is old.
>
>I'd much rather be using a nightly, but it is certainly harder work to
>do so, in my situation. The lack of "officially recognized" good
>nightlies (other than the once-in-a-blue-moon milestones) is an
>additional hindrance.
>
>I wonder if replacing the link to M18 on http://www.mozilla.org/ with a
>link to a "best recent build" (updated weekly, but allowed to stay the
>same on an update just in case every build of that week has regressed
>since the last "best" one) would be a low-maintenance way to deal with
>this. The buildbar already has information about the last week's worth
>of builds, so it shouldn't be much work to identify the best and update
Some weeks we'd have to have votes as to which was the best/worst though,
'You the weakest build, Goodbye' (UKcentric comment).
Simon
