From: mfp+@CS.CMU.EDU (Michael Polis) Subject: Re: SLS: Additional problem & questions. Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:49:09 GMT
In article <1993Jan22.200436.7161@wuecl.wustl.edu>, ask1@cec2.wustl.edu (Andrew Scott Koransky) writes:
|> Peter "SLS" MacDonald writes:
|> >>Also, some remarks for Peter. First of all, great work! I can't imagine
|> >>the amount of time you spent getting all this together so nicely. Second, a
|> >>suggestion: Is it possible for someone or a group to test SLS releases so
|> >>that the bugs may be eliminated by the time the new release gets to the
|> >>public? It may cause some delays, but I think it would be well worth the
|> >>wait. Perhaps a "beta" SLS release?
|> >>Anyhow, keep up the good work!
|> >
|> >I do. You are that group :-). Seriously, when I announce an upgrade, I
|> >expect people to respect it and wait a week unless you are intrepid
|> >(or just a good samaritan).
|>
|> This is fine, but I believe this should be announced somewhere in the readme
|> maybe and when it is stable enough, modify the readme or something like
|> that... just so we know. The main problem here is simple communication.
|> Newbies to Linux SLS are downloading it unaware that a new "buggy" SLS has
|> been uploaded and suffer for it.
Yes, you should put something like this in the README:
This is the SLS Linux distribution, v 1.0, uploaded January 18, 1993.
New users should wait about a week until the release has been checked
for bugs.