My big concern is that nightly installable builds will be a support nightmare. There are a large number of users that will always take the latest no matter what.
I realize there is an argument to be made for users being free to do hang themselves. But I question whether that is what organizational help desks are prepared to support. The real issue that needs to be addressed is how to produce supportable releases on a more frequent basis. In the past the consensus among the gatekeepers has been to move to a biweekly release cycle. Whatever is ready for a given release date gets pulled up and anything that isn't, doesn't. However, this requires having a much greater availability of release management and testing resources. Coupled with the biweekly release schedule, I believe it is important that the web site provide guidance to end users as to which release build is known to be reliable on which platforms. Otherwise, users will always go for the most recent build and frequently end up with something much less reliable than we would prefer. Jeffrey Altman On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:21:08 PM, Jason Edgecombe wrote: > Are there any objections to doing this for non-windows platforms? It > could be a nightly build. > > On 09/13/2012 12:35 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote: >> we talked about doing it for releases; this would be a generalized >> case of it >> >> possibly, but i can see it becoming a support nightmare. you're >> running what?? >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Ken Dreyer <ktdre...@ktdreyer.com> >> wrote: >>> Would it be feasible or desirable to have Buildbot actually provide >>> install-able packages (eg. RPMs on Linux, MSIs on Windows)? It could >>> help new users confirm "yes, this change fixes my bug". >>> > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > OpenAFS-info@openafs.org > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
