Question about the "unstable" builds

[JoeyG]

I've just re-read the page https://www.palemoon.org/unstable/ for the umpteenth time, and I get the feeling I've been reading it wrong again and again.

I had interpreted the page to mean that the "unstable" builds were similar to what other platforms refer to as "betas". That is, they're future-looking versions made available for "testing purposes". In other words, they include and introduce changes, major or minor, to an opt-in audience of early adopters with the intention of having them test these changes prior to their being included in the stable version for the "mass-market" user base.

Given the significance of the change regarding the extensions introduced in 29.2.0, which - to the best of my knowledge - never made it to the unstable build, my current impression is that my previous impression was wrong.

Or am I missing something?

Thank you.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

The are like nightlys just not built every night cause that would be insane at our scale. Basically, think periodic trunk builds. It isn't a difficult concept.

As for your assumption.. You are completely mistaken.. The build conditional and ifdef'ing for the Dual-GUID system was done 8 months ago. Pale Moon Unstables had it disabled shortly after that and it was only kept on for release builds until it was completely removed in early March.

Are you missing something? Well a large number of IQ points and a well developed attention span as well as a long-term memory.

HEY, you asked and I suspect you will do so again.

[JoeyG]

Thank you Mr. Tobin. I guess you're right about my (lack of) intelligence because I see exactly zero direct relevance between what you wrote and what I asked.

I found this especially perplexing: "As for your assumption.. You are completely mistaken.. The build conditional and ifdef'ing for the Dual-GUID system was done 8 months ago. Pale Moon Unstables had it disabled shortly after that and it was only kept on for release builds until it was completely removed in early March."

Ummm, OK, if you say so, but - if you'll take another look at my posting - I never used the word "assumption". Furthermore, I don't have the faintest idea what "The build conditional and ifdef'ing for the Dual-GUID system" means or why you linked it to my question. This alone proved to me beyond doubt the astuteness of your observation about my deficient intelligence.

As always, I appreciate your taking the time to reply.