I disagree in general, though I agree at this instant. When that
build moved to stable it was for a very valid reason -- namely that I
ripped out the entire component editor and replaced it. It just
happens that it stabilized fairly quickly (stable is only two weeks
off of nightly!). I think that we can probably move the stable build
to the current build, though. It may be that we should default
stable to move along with nightly unless someone is about to commit
something broken, then maybe we turn it off so it forks for a while
until nightly stabilizes.
ms
On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Steven Mark McCraw wrote:
> I think maybe all reverences to "stable" should go away. It tricks
> newcomers (guilty myself a few months back) into thinking that's
> the safest one to get. "Nightly build" sounds very risky compared
> to "stable". Who in their right mind would jump into "nightly
> build" when there's "stable" around? Maybe the drama kids.
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>>
>>> These instructions need a good old fashion refresh ... If you're
>>> installing from the "nightly" build server, you don't need
>>> anything from Callisto, so you can totally ignore that part,
>>> which might solve your problems. If you're building from the
>>> "stable" build server, then you still need that. But no cool kid
>>> uses that build.
>>
>> I think even the shy, introverted, geeky kids are not using that
>> anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
>> overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve
>> specific problems.
>> http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jun 21 2007 - 19:58:09 EDT