R alpha/beta naming

[Kurt Hornik]

>>>>> Martin Maechler writes:

> Read this morning
>>>> R : Copyright 1998, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka
>>>> Version 0.61.2 Alpha (March 15, 1998)
> 		       -----
> So, there still is no  "R beta" around....

> - If I didn't know R, would I use a statistics software, if it was still 
>   in alpha testing state?
> - Is this really what we want to tell people about R?

> More to the point:
> 	I think, we could have called it beta, really.
> 	Even though there still are known bugs.

> 	S-plus 4.0 wasn't even called beta...

> ==> Should we plan to release  
>     0.61.3 Beta ?
> 	   ----  (with only very minor changes from 0.61.2)

> Other opinions?

stable releases        <=> BETA
development releases   <=> ALPHA

I.e., (btw, YES!),

	0.61.3 (BETA)
	0.62.0 (ALPHA)

which would be great anyway as then we don't have to worry about
even/odd version numbers ... (our numbering is the opposite of e.g.
the Linux kernel).

-k
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._