Do you guys want regular(ish) unstable builds?

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2019-12-01, 13:42

So.. Do you?

athenian200 · Unread post by **athenian200** » 2019-12-01, 14:15

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.

andy80 · Unread post by **andy80** » 2019-12-02, 01:44

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.

Unread post by **Moonchild** » 2019-12-02, 07:34

I voted X because Y^*

^* Brought to you by the department of redundancy department

Bilbo47 · Unread post by **Bilbo47** » 2019-12-03, 15:28

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

New Tobin Paradigm · Unread post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2019-12-07, 17:31

Welp, that was inconclusive. Thanks for voting!

Pale Moon forum