On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 07:33:11PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > >As to the points about testing the wrong image, the fact is that this is >already often a problem; users download the daily build, burn it to a >CD, and then get distracted for a day before installing it, or sending >in a report. Or users happen to be in Australia[1], download the daily >build before lunch, and test it after lunch, during which a new >"nightly" build happened. Or nobody gets around to responding to an >installation report for a day or two. It seems to me that the only >actual fix for this is better reporting of the actual build date of the >installer, and of the versions of the udebs used, which >installation-report tries to do. OK. As I said on IRC (in case anybody didn't see it there) I've also tweaked the CDs to try and be clearer about exactly which build they are from by adding the build time to .disk/info and to the boot messages where possible. Let's see how things go from here. If the concerns about user confusion are vindicated, then of course we will be able to drop back to one build per day later. I hope that's sufficient for people. In the meantime, daily and weekly builds are now both running on farbror rather than bla, and I've disabled the builds on bla altogether for now. It'll still be possible to fall back to bla if needs be, but farbror is significantly faster for us which should be a boon for the panic on release day... *grin* >I'm now running my i386 builds twice daily to match the CD builds, at >10:50 and 22:50 GMT, FWIW. Cool. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature