On Thursday 30 January 2014 18:23:41 Martin Graesslin wrote: > > Is Alpha unstable code? A release that contains known critical bugs? why > > do > > we release them? Are distros going to package Alphas? > > Is Beta unstable code? A release that contains known critical bugs? why do > > we release them? Are distros going to package Betas? > > > > I'm sure that the answer to those questions depends on the user, and no > > matter what communication effort we do people will continue having their > > definitions of betas and alphas. > > > > Personally I think we should do a number of pre-releases without any > > special name, and the moment we think Plasma2 is stable we tag RC1. > > I like this idea! +1
I don't, personally. I think that words have meanings between people, and that names are an opportunity to communicate. "Alpha" and "Beta", while perhaps not the most strictly defined words in the language, have a lot of associated meaning among the members our audience. It gives them utility, e.g. for mana- ging expectations and communicating the relative position of a release in its release cycle. I also think that whatever definition wiggling room these words do leave doesn't really run much risk of creating misunderstan- dings, either. "Do these words say what we wish to say?" would be a different argument, but not communicating at all is not an improvement over using available words that carry significant meaning. > Cheers > Martin Cheers, Eike _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
