On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:

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?

I definitely don't think it being left to an unofficial 3rd party is a good idea. What we had though was work towards creating the 64-bit build and backporting that to the 0.48.x branch, but, to the best of my knowledge not checking on the packaging of it. So we could definitely still provide the zip & 7z files that would match the 32-bit builds for the new architecture, but an installer is the big question. So, to be clear, I'm in favor of us providing parity for the builds if possible (match all ways we make the Win32 builds available), we'd just give the additional info about it being new, less tested, and likely having it's own unique quirks.

Cheers,

Josh