New 1.14 RC date?

[Ben Finney]

Andrew Bennetts <andrew.bennetts at canonical.com> writes:

> This trades one set of work and problems for another. Are you
> volunteering to make this happen? Are you volunteering to help
> support users confused about which version they need to download and
> install? What about to help support users that installed the
> development version to play with and then forgot they did so and
> then get burned?

Since I'm clearly not personally in a position to do any of this, and
I must assume you know that, I can only conclude you're raising this
rhetorically in an attempt to dismiss my argument.

Moreover, I'm not the one who raised the need for which “build the
developemnt branch regularly” was presented as an option, so it
hardly seems appropriate to ask me if I'm going to support it.

> It's possible for misunderstandings to lead to bad outcomes even
> with fully supported features

Of course. But if those features aren't in a released product, they're
not susceptible to the blanket “it's been deliberately released so it
must pass the ready-for-release threshold” perception that I've
alluded to and think is quite a reasonable perception.

> It's (close to) ready for a beta release. I honestly don't think the
> danger of having a hidden-by-default option with --development in
> the name is going to harm a user

I think more assurance is required than this; the default assumption
should be “if it's not clearly ready for release, it's not ready”.

You obviously have a different take on that, though. My arguments are
on record, so it's for others to decide what to do from there.

-- 
 \        “The industrial system is profoundly dependent on commercial |
  `\   television and could not exist in its present form without it.” |
_o__)        —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The New Industrial State_, 1967 |
Ben Finney