Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 19:06:13 +0100:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:52:39PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I wonder if we should delay the release announcement until we can link
> > to a bunch of .deb/.rpm/GUIs/* from it. This way, once we do announce@,
> > we can hope for a higher proportion of readers to act about it.
> >
> > (I'm not proposing to change the "no official binary releases" policy;
> > just to wait until downstreams have made their own binaries available)
>
> I don't think our own release announcement has any bearing on this.
> We can just announce when we're ready. Once binaries become available
> they can also announced on our lists (e.g. by replying to the release
> announcement mailthread, as has often been done).
Announcing binaries on the users@ list only reaches users who subscribed
to the support questions firehose. Our target audience for the alpha
announcement is users who are willing to run alpha code on their wc's.
I assume some of these people are on announce@ but not on users@.
> If we do this, it would be good to know upfront what kind of binaries
> we can expect and should wait for. And that might complicate things.
That's just a synchronization problem and is easily solved. I'm more
concerned that we'd need to come up with objective criteria for *which*
third parties we do or don't include in our own annoucnements.
Received on 2017-01-24 20:10:26 CET