On Wed, Nov 16, 2011, Scott Brozell wrote:
>
> Over the years there have been groups that have commented that
> keeping up with the master branch is a lot of work.
> It may be that testing has suffered overall because such
> groups retreat into mostly using their Amber or the released Amber.
> One could consider Dave's proposal as enlisting such groups in
> another layer of testing, probably best described as beta testing.
>
> Rather than a set periodic updating from the master to the
> cruise-control branch, aka beta-testers branch, updating
> could be under thoughtful human control to ensure stability
> and sensibility of the cruise-control branch.
I agree with both suggestions here: that what I called "cruise-control" might
better be called "beta-testers" (or similar, or maybe "alpha"-somthing), and
that decisions to update it be done "under thoughtful human control" (what a
concept!)
....thx...dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Nov 16 2011 - 06:00:16 PST
