The latest build is not always the best. Anyone remember NH2.1.1 and the quick fix NH2.1.2?
As Fabio said at the time: > Friends we have a problem. > I have updated NHV from NH2.1.0 to NH2.1.1 and all integration tests now > running 3 time slower. It's called bleeding edge for a reason. Richard On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Seif Attar <[email protected]> wrote: > Howdy, > > Maybe I am hanging out with the wrong crowd, but the people I have spoken > to will either use the latest stable release, or the latest build that has > a feature they really want. > > Is there really 3 types of users? Speaking for myself, I know I would go > into a pre release if it fixes a major issue I am having, or add > functionality which I need, if tests fails with a named pre-release(alpha, > beta ...) and I really want to start using that feature, then I would > download the source code and hope that some commit after that release fixed > the failing test I am facing. So even if there were this intermediary > release which the developers of an OSS project believe is release worthy, I > would still need to go get the latest source code. > > I agree with Diego that this is a problem of accessability, if the nightly > builds were as easy to get as the beta, rc1 ... then we would not have the > extra type of user, and it would make things simpler. What makes an RC1 > more stable than RC1++? I know I would trust RC1++ more than RC1 because > whatever commits happened after RC1 were solving a problem. > > When it comes to how versioning different aspects, I like having the > informational version match the nuget package version and the assembly > version to just be X.Y.0.0 which makes dropping in assemblies easier for a > patch release and removes the need for binding redirects. > > > > On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 15:30:00 UTC+1, Alexander I. Zaytsev wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> >> I think that it would be greate if our CI-builds would be available at >> the nuget. >> >> What do you think? >> >
