On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:32:20PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
The 64-bit builds should really be considered "beta" at this point, which is why we didn't hold off announcing the release for them. The testing on them is minimal at best and it is a new architecture (for us, on windows) with the potential for it's own quirks which we aren't yet aware of. It's difficult for us to say something is a recommended "stable" release if it's really not as mature as the other releases we have available. So, while users may just see 64-bit or 32-bit, they would likely want to know that one is less tested.
I totally agree with all your points, and you're 100% right. That said... I notice the 64-bit windows builds are quite popular. I hazard to bet that a lot of Windows users are going to be looking for 64-bit specifically and either not understand or not care about the potential quality differences between it and the 32-bit build.
But I'm not sure that leaving them to be provided unofficially 3rd-hand is necessarily the ideal solution either, largely for reasons Brynn highlighted. Is there a way we could provide them but labeled in big red letters that it's untested, experimental, or etc.? So if they grab the 64-bit version and find it too buggy, that they don't just assume this is a buggy release but instead go and try the 32-bit version?
Bryce