R alpha/beta naming
Peter Dalgaard BSA
25 Mar 1998 11:32:13 +0100
Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > 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).
No... The next release is 0.62.0, at which point we start patching
0.62.[1234..] while putting new features into 0.63.0. We simply don't
use the stable/unstable model, but a release/snapshot one.
I'm with Fritz: Just forget about the alpha/beta designations, they
belong in another world.
They *might* be used meaningfully as follows:
0.61.2 is the current release
0.62.0 alpha is the current snapshot
0.62.0 beta is the current snapshot when a code freeze is announced
Currently, the state of the patch branch is unavailable between
releases, which I'm not really sure is a good thing. If we made it
accessible then it could be
(with the solemn vow that the patch branch never enters an alpha
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (firstname.lastname@example.org) FAX: (+45) 35327907
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: email@example.com