Why not call it alpha testing (or something else) then? Beta has a meaning associated with it - and projects decision makers will be better informed of the viability of 4.0 in near-term projects.
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Menard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:16 PM To: Tapestry development Subject: Beta Status [Was Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate the action service] On Aug 18, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Jonas Maurus wrote: > > No offense, but the rate at which Howard changes Tapestry's > implementation means that "beta" in Tapestry jargon does not > mean "feature complete" as it does in my company :-). I actually had been thinking about that recently, and while I initially thought it was a bad thing, I realized it really wasn't. Like many others I'm sure, I didn't really give Tapestry 4 any consideration until it had hit beta status. That means up until beta, it was mostly just the devs using Tapestry 4. Since the betas, a lot of the wider user population has been using it and they've been turning up a lot of ideas of how to improve things. Shrugging them off because Tapestry is in "beta" status now just seems short-sighted -- you have suggestions from actual users on how to make things better, so why churn out something that's not as good now simply to adhere to some process? Obviously I'm not advocating tossing out every design decision made and I'm not saying there should be an endless development cycle, but if there's something better floating around, I wouldn't let the little "beta" modifier hold things up. -- Kevin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
