Re: [AMBER-Developers] Proposal for a new git branch

From: David A Case <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:46:22 -0500

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


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Wed Nov 16 2011 - 06:00:16 PST
Custom Search