Jeremias Maerki wrote:

On 15.11.2005 10:28:19 Chris Bowditch wrote:

Sorry to be picky, but the word "alpha" gives the impression that the release is alpha quality. I'd say it was beta quality by now. Anyway, I thought in the past we had agreed on calling it 0.90pr1, with "pr" meaning preview, which in IMHO sounds better than "alpha"

On the release plan we had "0.90 alpha 1" [1].

True, I didn't notice it until now.

It's the first release of
a totally new codebase so without more (positive) feedback from users
(so far we only have bug reports) I'm more inclined to an alpha release
right now, soon followed by a beta release when we have more feedback.

I don't feel that strongly about this, but I do think the word "alpha" will put a lot of people off using it. By naming it "beta" or "preview", I think we are putting the message out that its ready for testing by the public.

For example, we don't have any experience of FOP working in a
multi-threaded environment. I haven't had time to do testing in this
area lately. Furthermore, memory is still quickly eaten up in the
current state. It would make me very uneasy to use something like this
in a production environment right now. I agree, from the feature POV,
it's at least beta quality but that only covers the layout engine due to
its many tests. But if the majority believes a "beta" is better, that's
fine with me.

Most sensible folks wouldn't use a "beta" or "preview" release in production either. But there are always exceptions to the rule.


Reply via email to