Keep in mind that I RUN off of nightly for all my production
development, so it's usually not going to be but SO broken or I can't
get any work done :)
ms
On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Thomas wrote:
> Mike,
>
> that's a great idea. I for one would happily change from a
> fingernail-biting "nightly" user to an excited "preview" user.
>
> But I just want to say thanks for your careful work. I haven't
> updated my nightly often, but it has never left me stuck and unable
> to deploy a new version of my live customer applications.
>
> Regards
> Thomas
>
> On 01/03/2008, at 8:32 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>
>>> Apologies... stable.equals(nightly), stable != nightly. So yes,
>>> at this instant (well not anymore, because i committed to nightly
>>> already), stable is the same as nightly, but stable is stable, and
>>> will be for a while. Stable was stable for 8 months before this,
>>> it's just that Leopard sort of ruined messed everything up.
>> I'm thinking there should be a "stable," "preview," and "nightly"
>> build. "stable" would be where everyone who just likes things to
>> "work the work they work" can use. People who like cool new
>> features, but don't want TOTALLY broken stuff can update off of
>> "preview," and "nightly" is like dudes chasing oiled pigs. This
>> new classpath stuff is a good example. I actually have mostly
>> working patches for a large part of it, so I can commit that to
>> nightly, get it integrated, promote it to preview for daring folks
>> (who still need to get work done) can update from and work with
>> it. If there are any issues, they can always go back down to
>> stable, but I can still continue to add riskier features on nightly.
>>
>> ms
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 17:26:51 EST