> So maybe the VM are not blessed, but I don't expect less stability than the
> "officially" blessed.

Okay, that's what I really wanted to know.  Thanks, I'll upgrade to
today's built version.

> Anyway, do we care of "official" blessing?

Like you said Eliot is in a separate branch with the new GC'er.  I
assume he created a separate branch because the changes are bound to
cause breakage for a while.  I wanted to know whether any similar
experiments in the main branch could impose similar risks.

> What we need is more testing rather than more blessing, otherwise how could
> we certify anything?

More testing of which version?  New versions are popping out every
day, upgrading becomes something done when there's a reason to, not
because there's a new version.  Within 24 hours of upgrading, it'll be
just another old version -- unless it was blessed.

Some situations need to emphasize stability, it seems like it would be
nice to have a baseline version that is known not to have have any
halts or debugging stuff or experimental stuff, and so it could be
more easily accepted into wide usage and testing in those production
situations.




>
> Of course, it may seem cavalier to ask production guys to be the
> beta-tester, but you know that nothing help more...
>
>
> 2017-02-01 21:51 GMT+01:00 Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de>:
>>
>>
>> On 01.02.2017, at 21:25, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is it safe to use the latest?  Or, if not, is there a blessed version
>> > since 5.0-201608171728?
>>
>> nope :(
>>
>
>
>
>