Template talk:Latest preview software release/iOS 11
Dev and public beta
[edit]We should cover both branches using the {{Multiple releases}} template, but I'm aware that the OS version infobox cannot stack the layout. We could do this:
| Dev | 11.0 beta 2 update 1 / June 26, 2017 |
|---|---|
| Public | 11,0 beta 1 / June 26, 2017 |
Thoughts? Hayman30 (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support: I think that's the best idea. And, in my opinion, we must replace the public beta version with the developer one, because the latter is the main beta, while the public follows behind. --User:Dimsar01 talk 10:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dimsar01: Can I ask you to write this in a different way? Either I'm misunderstanding you or the sentence structure isn't quite right. Right now, the developer beta is the first one in the list, followed by the public beta on the second line. Is that what you suggest or the opposite? LocalNet (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @LocalNet: To write it more clearly, I suggest using the above-mentioned list in the template. However, in case we keep the existing template format, I suggest using the developer beta instead of the public one. –User:Dimsar01 talk 15:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Dimsar01: Thank you for clarifying. As evident by my vote down below, I personally object to tracking two types of releases, and I agree with your statement about using the developer beta version. LocalNet (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi everyone! First off, full disclosure: I was given a notification to come here by Hayman30, but I was not given the instruction to vote in any specific matter. Just wanted full openness in that regard. As to the actual discussion, I have a comment before voting: Historically, during iOS 10, public beta versions were issued quite soon after the developer beta version, in most cases on the same day. Examples include 10.3.2 beta 3 and beta 4. Given that the major time difference only concerns this early in the life of a brand new version, is it necessary to differentiate? LocalNet (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @LocalNet: Yes, take a quick look at what we're doing on Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome. Hayman30 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hayman30: Alright, fair enough. But one more question: If it's true that the OS version infobox doesn't support stacked version layout, wouldn't it look quite bad aesthetically? After all, what's written above looks great, but that's not how it would appear on the iOS 11 page, is it? LocalNet (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Haven't received a reply on this. But I think I'm ready to vote. I am going to vote Object to this proposal. The combination of poor design due a lack of stacked version layout, and often simultaneous or fast release to both developers and public testers, I don't think there are sufficient grounds to include both versions. I vote to maintain the one we have, and only use the developer beta version. LocalNet (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @LocalNet: I guess we should go for dev beta then. Hayman30 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Haven't received a reply on this. But I think I'm ready to vote. I am going to vote Object to this proposal. The combination of poor design due a lack of stacked version layout, and often simultaneous or fast release to both developers and public testers, I don't think there are sufficient grounds to include both versions. I vote to maintain the one we have, and only use the developer beta version. LocalNet (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)