Re: My first message... more of a mad mans rant...

["Steven Maddox (Cyorxamp)" <s.maddox@cyorxamp.info>]

Stackpole, Chris wrote:
> > To be blunt... -Fail-
> > That is not what I have suggested what so ever in any way shape or
> >     
> form.
>   
> > I could re-explain but I won't... you just wasted 8 reading paragraphs 
> > of my life listening to you arguing against a suggestion I didn't make.
> >
> > Please re-read what I suggested in my -original- message and not the
> >     
> one 
>   
> > with the highlights for the other person that totally misunderstood the
> >     
>
>   
> > purpose of original message.
> >     
>
>
> OK. I will. I quote from your original email:
>
> "If we had Alpha releases, say 'lenny-alpha1' release at a point where
> there's no major block/crash-like problems being caused then people
> could download that milestone release.  'lenny-alpha1' could then not
> update until 'lenny-alpha2' is released"
>
> Sounds like you want to have pre-stable release to me. It's called a
> Release Candidate.
>
> I still see no reason to have separate releases or stages within
> testing. I think it is more trouble then it is worth for the developers.
>
> Chris Stackpole
You're gonna get tired of me telling you that you don't read.

What I also put was this...
"These milestones don't have to affect the way it is developed, just 
someone keeping an eagle eye out for a weekly generated ISO that -kinda 
works OK- that can be relabelled Alpha 1, 2, 3 etc... and with a tweaked 
apt so it doesn't update until the next Alpha."

I'm _NOT_ on about a pre-stable release like a RC, you might have your 
first alpha only a couple of months after work on lenny as "testing" 
first began.

I think you're just closed minded - sorry