From: Jonathan L C. <jl...@so...> - 2005-02-15 14:54:35
|
[me] > >Do we have a distinction between "tested on" and "supported"? > > > >This is more than a theoretical issue: suppose someone later reports > >a bug running on an old(er) version of Linux which none of us > >still have installed, which we are unable to reproduce? > > > >It's probably going to be nothing to do with the OS, but we can't > >confirm that ... > > Good idea. You may need to restructure the information to make clear the > distinction that v15.56 has been tested on, say Mandrake 10.1, but the > latest known working version for Mandrake 8.2 was v15.53, which I think > is the corollary of what you are saying. Ok, I'll restructure it a bit. But it's worse than "last known working version" -- what if someone reports a bug in a "known working version"? If we *support* 15.53, then we do something. So maybe it's "tested: no reported bugs". I guess we only *support* three versions? Last stable release Next release candidate (i.e. beta test) Development version At the moment, I'd say L=15.53, N=15.6, and D=16.0 Although maybe, L=15.6, D=16.0 and we don't have anything in between. On Windows, L=15.53 - AFAIK, there is no 15.6 for Windows (yet?) (I think the differences are only in libraries, install scripts and structure of the libraries (which directories things go in). Jonathan |