I understand the sentiment, but the implication is that our releases are
always identical to our betas. AFAIR we have never had that policy before.

The benefit to doing that is that we know we haven't added code that
hasn't been through an adequate release cycle, no matter how trivial a
change might be.

The downside, though, is that only really serious bugs tend to get
addressed during a beta cycle, because people naturally want to minimize
the number of betas that are released.

If we want to go that way, we should probably have a vote on it, IMHO.

Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> I'm more ruthless here, I'd stick it out and say 1.7.2. Otherwise more
> bugs come in and get patched in late.
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@(protected)