Thank you.

--- "James E. Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I realize that this list usually contains short
> questions and answers. I just 
> thought Greg's questions required a more exhaustive
> (exhausting) response.
> 
> Gregory Forster wrote at 15:17 on 8 Oct 2005:
> 
> > What are the differences between the different
> versions? 
> 
> Without looking at the documentation I can't tell
> you what was changed in any 
> particular release. But ...  
> 
> > O.K. now there was all the different beta versions
> of 2.0, which I understand
> > were pretty much "bug fixes" of their
> predecessors. 
> 
> As I understand it, testing of new releases of
> software generally involves 
> three phases. The first testing phase is Alpha
> testing which is performed by 
> the developers. The user community will only see an
> Alpha version of software 
> if it contains an urgent fix for a problem that user
> has reported. After the 
> rough edges get knocked off the product, it enters
> the second testing phase -- 
> Beta testing. This may be performed by a select
> group of users or may be made 
> available to the general user community with the
> understanding that this is 
> software that has not been fully tested but with the
> further understanding that 
> those who download it will provide feedback as to
> the problems encountered as 
> well as the successes that occur. Once the Beta
> testing reaches a certain level 
> of stability the testing enters the third phase -- a
> Release Candidate (RC). As 
> the name implies, this is a version that the
> developers believe may be ready 
> for release but that may still contain a problem
> that needs correction or 
> documentation prior to release. It is still not the
> official release. Any 
> problems found at this "last minute" stage are
> scrutinized and a decision is 
> made as to whether they warrant being fixed prior to
> release or whether it is 
> sufficient to simply list them as known problem
> areas. In the case of OOo, the 
> version 2.0 Beta versions were labeled as 1.9.x. The
> Release Candidates have 
> been labeled as 2.0.0RCx. The final release probably
> will be labeled as 2.0.0.
> 
> Version 1.1.5 would have been a minor feature
> upgrade of 1.1.4 while 2.0.x is a 
> major feature upgrade.
> 
> > Then there was finally 2.0rc1, an actual non-beta.
> 
> 
> "Finally" is not an appropriate word here. It is
> "non-beta" but it is still a 
> test release.
> 
> > Now, I just learned from your users group and then
> I downloaded 2.0rc2. 
> > What's the difference between 2.0rc1 and 2.0rc2? 
> 
> As outlined above, this would have very minor, "last
> minute," fixes to version 
> 2.0.0 but it is still a work in progress toward the
> final release of 2.0.0. 
> Anyone who needs a rock solid version should avoid
> Beta versions unless 
> specifically directed to use them by the developers
> and should use RC versions 
> with caution.
> 
> > I now have 2.0rc1 up and running good. Is there
> somewhere where I can see the
> > different upgrade features? Now that we have
> non-beta versions of 2.0, when
> > can we expect them to be just as stable as 1.1.5? 
> 
> In general, software developers will tell you that
> the final (stable) release 
> of their product will be available "when it is
> ready." Tentative schedules may 
> be published but no self respecting developer will
> release his/her software 
> just to meet a published schedule.
> 
> -- 
> Jim
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to