+1 for the sake of +1...<br><br>What's wrong with nightly tarballs?<br><br>Robin<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">James Walker</b> <<a href="mailto:walkah@walkah.net">walkah@walkah.net
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On 12/14/05 7:52 AM, Tim Altman wrote:<br>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:30:22 +0100, Dries Buytaert
<br>> <<a href="mailto:dries.buytaert@gmail.com">dries.buytaert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>> On 14 Dec 2005, at 11:41, Bčr Kessels wrote:<br>>>> I am confused, I assumed beta 1 was just following head, in other
<br>>>> words beta1<br>>>> == head.<br>>><br>>> beta 1 is a snapshot of HEAD, taken 1-2 weeks ago. It is not updated<br>>> automatically, although I could set it up such that the beta gets
<br>>> repackaged on a daily basis. At the moment, beta 1 lacks a number of<br>>> important fixes.<br>><br>> I'd prefer that TAR files always remain static snapshots and not update<br>> automatically. When we talk about
4.7 beta 1, we know what state the<br>> code is in. If it's a moving target, it's much harder to tell if<br>> something is a new problem or existed when the release was first created.<br><br>+1<br><br>--<br>James Walker ::
<a href="http://walkah.net/">http://walkah.net/</a> :: <a href="mailto:xmpp:walkah@walkah.net">xmpp:walkah@walkah.net</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Robin Monks,<br>CSL Web Administrator<br><a href="mailto:robin@civicspacelabs.org">
robin@civicspacelabs.org</a>