R alpha/beta naming

[Peter Dalgaard BSA]

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

0.61.3 beta 

(with the solemn vow that the patch branch never enters an alpha
state!)

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk)             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: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._