"Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > what frustrated me the most in this last cycle was the confusion > regarding beta release names and mailing lists. the first beta > was called "limbo" and there was a limbo mailing list. fair > enough. > > but the second beta was *also* called limbo, and it used the > *same* mailing list and the same bugzilla name. so how was one > to know whether a bug was part of the previous or current beta, > short of looking at the component version number (which, i submit, > we shouldn't have to do.) This was true for roswell and skipjack as well. I really hate this! It made me ignore the names completely. Now I only refer to RHL x.y. :-(( > to make matters worse, the third beta had a *different* name > (null), yet continued to use the *same* mailing list (limbo), > which was completely inconsistent. > > anyway, in a nutshell, i like being part of the beta testing > process. i just wish red hat made the rules and policies > clearer on how this worked and what it meant to be part of > the process. and i also wish i had some real coffee at the > moment, and not just decaf. I hope the caffeine in the attachment helps... ;-))))) Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 7.3 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
