Re: [CORE] Restore-reliability mode

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On8 June 2015 at 17:03, Claudio Freire </span><span dir="ltr"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<ahref="mailto:klaussfreire@gmail.com"
target="_blank">klaussfreire@gmail.com</a>></span><spanstyle="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It's not about the 5 minutes of compile time, it's about the
signalling.<br/><br /> Just *when* is git ready for testing? You don't know from the outside.<br /><br /> I do lurk
herea lot and still am unsure quite often.<br /><br /> Even simply releasing an alpha *tarball* would be useful enough.
What<br/> is needed is the signal to test, rather than a fully-built package.<br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><divclass="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">​I can see that,
andcan absolutely get behind the idea of a nightly being flagged as an alpha, since it should involve next to no
developertime.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_default"style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I may be overestimating the amount of time
thatgoes towards producing a release; the fact that the full-on alpha releases were stopped did imply to me that it's
notinsignificant.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Geoff​</div></div></div>