what kind of problems did you hear?
jmvalin has asked that people now use mainstream pre-1.1 builds and not the babyeater build. The Babyeater builds were an experiment in variable frame sizes; jmvalin and NullC needed some feedback on their experiment, people responded, some major issues were found, and there's a good bit of work to be done before they ask people to test that again. In the meantime there are plenty of other innovations etc in the master builds that need more testing.
I can't reproduce your problem on mainline builds. Haven't tried with the babyeater build.
This again highlights the need for very visible instructions and warnings for prospective testers and an up-to-date link to builds (and possibly source snapshots/git revision numbers) the Opus devs would prefer people use for testing. I've proposed before that this be done with a sticky in the Opus subforum- indeed that's one of the main reasons I pushed for having a dedicated Opus subforum. When those instructions and warnings aren't very visible, we all have to keep correcting misconceptions. When people who want to help test don't know which builds to test, they may be wasting their time, and responding to their reports may waste developers' time. Simple steps to improve communication can go a long way to help.
Actually, I recommended that people stop testing babyeater, but testing of 1.1-alpha and git is still very appreciated.
Regularly updated builds would indeed be great, though.
Quote from: jmvalin on 08 April, 2013, 01:20:51 PMActually, I recommended that people stop testing babyeater, but testing of 1.1-alpha and git is still very appreciated.I'm confused. By starting with 'Actually,' you give the impression that I said something false which you're correcting, but you apparently go on to repeat what I just said. Maybe by "pre-1.1" you thought I meant "1.0.x"? I meant "development versions leading up to 1.1," as could be seen from my mention of the innovations in git master.