FC2 test2 is a beta

[Sandy Pond]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 08:39 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'm not disagreeing.  my point was that it was understandable that the 
> inability to even *install* the beta software might explain the higher
> frustration level among some of the folks who have posted on the subject.

I'm one of those who can't boot and I'm not frustrated.  It's a new
release of beta software with several new things.  If I wanted I could
have waited a few day for some of the initial bugs to get flushed but I
didn't.

I really think there's just some trolls out there (or newbie testers).

> in addition, in a lot of cases, when the installation fails, the poor user 
> is left wondering if it's something *they* did wrong, and they spend a lot
> of time trying again before they finally realize that it's not their 
> fault.

Welcome to testing :)

> one final point.  traditionally, the whole testing cycle suggests that, as 
> one gets closer and closer to the official release, beta releases are 
> theoretically supposed to get more and more reliable.  put another way, 
> it's a bit unnerving to suddenly discover that something that worked just 
> fine in test1 is broken in test2, *especially* something as critical and
> fundamental as installation.

Well I think the release announcement say it all.  There are several new
things that weren't in FC2T1.  And I don't want them to freeze the
release to soon.  If they do they'll be getting even more static about
not updating packages. 

> anyway, i'm not ranting about this, just making some observations about 
> why some of the previous posters on this topic might be just a bit edgy
> about it, that's all.

I wouldn't underestimate the troll factor.

:)