[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: release methodology
- From: John Belmonte <jvb@...>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:23:24 +0900
We try to use quite similar rules, but with different names. What you
call "alfa" we call "work", your beta is our alpha, your "rc" is our
beta, and "gold" is our "official" release. (Except that in no release
we have "bugs expected and accepted" ;-)
These terms are open to interpretation, but please allow me to offer my
view. What you call "work" is normally called "development". That is,
you're trying new features, and not sure which will be selected to be
released. It's similar to the odd versions of the Linux kernel. The
way I've normally seen "alpha" used in software is to mean a
feature-complete version. In other words, you've decided on the set of
features you would like to make into a stable version. "Beta" is
usually a debugged version of alpha, with maybe a few adjustments to the
features. A "final" release is strictly bug fixes to the beta version.
Usually "update" is not used-- when there is some bug fix you just
make an incremental "final" release.
A problem with Lua's past release, for example, were the feature changes
between 4.0 alpha, beta, and the final release. This made things
difficult for people who decided to put a beta version in their project,
possibly with customisations, and expected only small bug fixes going
into the final release. I know because it happened to me.
OpenPGP encrypted mail welcome.