Re: Support for listing the beta versions

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 15:16, Jonathan Abdiel Gonzalez Valdebenito <
jonathan(dot)abdiel(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> To complement my previous email, since people may be using the file in
> different ways, and probably will affect to add a new version
> I propose to add an argument "beta=true" to the URL, which by default will
> be false, keeping the same behavior, but if is added, will also
> list the beta versions on the json file, allowing backward compatibility
> and an easy way to include the beta versions without adding a
> new file or entry in the json file.
>
> Regards!
>

Hi!

Sorry for a very late feedback on this.

I think this is the way it has to be done, more or less. I was trying to
think of a better way back when you sent it, and then didn't but forgot to
reply :)

Now, beta isn't enough. We technically have alpha, beta and rc. Should we
make it something like "?include=beta,rc" and a chance to list them? Or
should we have "testing=beta" and have it basically do "if you say alpha
you get all, if you say beta you get beta and rc and if you say rc you get
rc"? Which would make more sense?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>