On 05/01/17 18:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
> If that is the case, shouldn't just say "beta: 3.2 (71)"? Aren't we
> otherwise leaking the concept of "tracking" from the developer to the
> end user?
It's useful as an end-user to know if there is actually a beta in
progress or not. So please do show it as closed, explicitly, if its closed.
On 05/01/17 18:39, Facundo Batista wrote:
> If that is the case, shouldn't just say "beta: 3.2 (71)"? Aren't we
> otherwise leaking the concept of "tracking" from the developer to the
> end user?
It's useful as an end-user to know if there is actually a beta in
progress or not. So please do show it as closed, explicitly, if its closed.
Mark