Pale Moon forum

So.. Do you?

I voted yes, because it would be interesting to see upcoming features. However, if it turned out to be a lot of work for very little return on your part, then I'd be fine with not having it.

It just seems to me that we already have unstable branding and a version number system that lends itself well to unstable builds, so it's more like I don't see any reason not to do it, except maybe disk space if you wanted to archive several unstable builds. But I really think you would only need to have one unstable build up at a time, since the purpose is testing and you're only ever testing fairly recent code.

I voted yes, but I would have chosen "Whenever it is worth to have one" since I don't like half-baked releases just because the schedule says it is time to have one.
The only unstable project I use is Interlink and I think it makes sense to try/test new features in a build whenever it is worth to have one, i.e., when the features are considered stable enough to be tested.

I voted X because Y<sup>*








*</sup> Brought to you by the department of redundancy department

Would rather wait until there is actually one new thing that's ready for proper testing.

Welp, that was inconclusive. Thanks for voting!