Nevertheless, abit's concerns are valid, in terms of what WE do to inform our partners to be ready.
Is it reasonable or neglectful to expect our partners to monitor proposal voting and set their plans accordingly?
If we were more respected we wouldn't have to go to them to make sure they were ready, they would just watch us and BE ready when necessary. I just don't think we should expect that, and we ought to make sure -- proactively -- that our partners are ready for any hardfork we might have in the pipeline.
As for testing, I agree some type of test plan should have been created, and any infrastructure required to implement the test plan put in place. Can xeroc's testnet serve that purpose? How much time should be given to test this feature?
I totally agree with you abit, we need to be **more** professional than we have been in the past. This just looks like yet another ad hoc roll out to me, perhaps motivated by schedule issues rather than any concern for partners preparedness.
Once we get to be a certain size or have gained enough respect in the crypto community this "hand holding" on our part to make sure partners are informed & ready will go away.