On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 18:00 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 1/11/2012 5:51 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 14:41 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > > >> cycles have taught us users aren't adopting our 2.odd releases. Sigh. > > > > This is likely a carry over from the old days of the kernel, no-one dares > > run a major.odd > > on production boxes :) > > Which is why I've been hinting at 2.4.0-beta, but I don't the the message > is received. Maybe I'm being too opaque? >
I'm all for that, better to nut out as much as possible before declaring a new version as "recommended GA". Please lets not get into the mindset of certain distros where release often is a policy even when its not ready with bugs - release when stable and proved, is far far far better. Also, in relation to the windows stuff, I think Jim's suggestion is most appropriate in the absence of more windows users to test.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
