On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:43:08AM -0600, LuKreme wrote: > On 31-Aug-2009, at 23:56, Henrik K wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 06:23:22PM -0600, LuKreme wrote: >>> On 30-Aug-2009, at 22:28, Henrik K wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:10:23PM -0600, LuKreme wrote: >>>>> On 29-Aug-2009, at 11:47, R-Elists wrote: >>>>>> have many, or any of you folks on the list migrated your >>>>>> production >>>>>> servers >>>>>> to the 3.3.0 alpha 2 or later release? >>>>> >>>>> Er.. hopefully no one did this on a production server. Or if they >>>>> did >>>>> they are not really understanding 'alpha' and are willing to lose >>>>> mail, >>>>> or worse. >>>> >>>> How is SA going to lose your mail? >>> >>> Dunno, but it is ALPHA. You know what that means? I specifically >>> means >>> it is not ready to be relied upon. BETA means that it is not ready >>> for >>> production servers, and ALPHA is pre-beta. >> >> Yeah normal users obviously should just use "stable" OS packages > > Actually, you have that backwards. As a USER I use beta or alpha > software all the time. I have no problem with that, it's only my data I > am risking. As an admin, however, it's rather irresponsible. And as a > CUSTOMER if I saw my mail being marked up by an alpha release of > anything, I'd be shopping for another host.
So is using own rules allowed? Other peoples rules? If they are not marked alpha/beta in any way, are they supposed to be production quality? How long of a period must you test them before moving into production? SA is basically a bunch of rules. How long do you have to test a "stable" SA version before moving into production? Sorry man, but you are still FUD. Whether it's SVN/alpha/beta/gamma/superstable doesn't matter. If it works and is tested before putting in production, it's fine.
