Current convention is that 0.* releases are by definition not-quite-1.0.
The word "beta" has become meaningless thanks to Google and others.
"alpha" clearly denotes dangerous territory. In the past I have seen
just "a" used to denote alpha, as in 0.7a4, but that might be my Mac
bigotry showing, and longer names are more readily understandable, so
keep them.
Users will be downloading non-alpha releases, whose quality should be
that of an old-school beta when we hit 0.9
So I would expect future versions to be (in chronological order,
making up future history as I go):
0.7alpha4
0.7alpha5
0.7alpha6
0.7
0.8alpha1
0.8alpha2
0.7.1alpha1
0.8alpha3
0.7.1alpha2
0.7.1alpha3
0.8alpha4
0.7.1
0.8alpha5
0.8alpha6
0.8
...
0.9alpha4
0.9alpha5
0.9 <--- start publicity? See Pieter's whiteboard photos for
details :-)
1.0alpha1
1.0alpha2
0.9.1alpha1
0.9.1alpha2
0.9.1alpha3
0.9.1
1.0alpha3
1.0alpha4
1.0
"Beta"? We don't need no steekin' "Beta".
Reid
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
