Unless, of course, you don't need the thing that he needs... in which
case, you might never know :)
On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> Keep in mind that I RUN off of nightly for all my production
> development, so it's usually not going to be but SO broken or I
> can't get any work done :)
>
> ms
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Thomas wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> that's a great idea. I for one would happily change from a
>> fingernail-biting "nightly" user to an excited "preview" user.
>>
>> But I just want to say thanks for your careful work. I haven't
>> updated my nightly often, but it has never left me stuck and unable
>> to deploy a new version of my live customer applications.
>>
>> Regards
>> Thomas
>>
>> On 01/03/2008, at 8:32 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
>>
>>>> Apologies... stable.equals(nightly), stable != nightly. So yes,
>>>> at this instant (well not anymore, because i committed to nightly
>>>> already), stable is the same as nightly, but stable is stable,
>>>> and will be for a while. Stable was stable for 8 months before
>>>> this, it's just that Leopard sort of ruined messed everything up.
>>> I'm thinking there should be a "stable," "preview," and "nightly"
>>> build. "stable" would be where everyone who just likes things to
>>> "work the work they work" can use. People who like cool new
>>> features, but don't want TOTALLY broken stuff can update off of
>>> "preview," and "nightly" is like dudes chasing oiled pigs. This
>>> new classpath stuff is a good example. I actually have mostly
>>> working patches for a large part of it, so I can commit that to
>>> nightly, get it integrated, promote it to preview for daring folks
>>> (who still need to get work done) can update from and work with
>>> it. If there are any issues, they can always go back down to
>>> stable, but I can still continue to add riskier features on nightly.
>>>
>>> ms
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 17:30:55 EST