Hi Peter, @21-Dec-2003, 04:14 +0100 (21-Dec 03:14 UK time) Peter Ouwehand [PO] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck:
MDP>> ... They have been built for a single specific user with a MDP>> single specific problem to download to test a single specific MDP>> amendment. ... PO> So, there is some problem: Problem? PO> - it's not on the beta download site Correct. PO> - but still, people can find / download that specific version Incorrect. PO> - why? It is only visible publicly now because someone has indiscreetly shared a URL that should have remained private. PO> - hence there are comments, what's wrong about that? What's wrong is that the comments I replied to show a misconception regarding the the way the software industry works WRT beta versions. I was trying to set the record straight. You have now taken the argument to "another place" it doesn't belong. PO> Your comment is too simple. Not at all. It is *entirely* accurate. Your comments are trying to make an issue of something that is a non-issue. It is black and white. Please refer to the TBBETA rules. It says *very clearly* that: ,------/ From the rules of this list! \------ An "officially released" beta version is one which has been announced *by RITlabs* on the TBBETA list, usually with a list of changes. `------\ End /------ Period. End of argument. My "too simple comment" is no more, no less, than a rule enforcement. In future I shall do so with a trout flavoured accompaniment :-). PO> If it's meant for some specific use / problem / user, ... which it is ... PO> then it should not be available to the 'general' public / beta PO> testers / at any site. It is not. It is on a private URL. It just so happens that RITLabs put all test software on the one BETA source directory. But that's an irrelevant coincidence. Unless they publish the URL to *you*, you should not download the version. PO> Appearantly it's not a beta version, otherwise it should be on PO> the beta list. Precisely the point I'm making. It shouldn't be mentioned here. PO> So either it's an alpha or something between alpha and beta. Now PO> how are we gonna call that in the future??? We are not going to call it anything in the future. Why? Because it's none of our business. It is not the remit of this list to discuss non-released beta or quasi-beta or alpha or pre-beta (whatever you or RITlabs want to call them) versions. Since we're not here to discuss them, we don't need to think up a name for them, do we. >>> Anyway, I believe the term "nonpublic betaversions, which are not >>> finished and ready for testing" is a contradictio in terminis. MDP>> Not at all. PO> Just in opinion: there is no such thing as 'non public beta'. Perhaps that may be true elsewhere. Not in my world. I am a software developer too. Before I ship new beta versions to my beta team, we thrash the changes in-house to make sure there are no howlers. If I'm including a specific fix, I may pass a pre-release URL to the affected user. Once I know the fix is good, I'll release a public beta. This is all a part of the beta cycle of software. So, in my business model there certainly are builds of the software that can be classified as "non-public beta". They are beta builds, not for public release. While I respect your right to hold an opinion, I fail to see any logic in it. Sorry. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.03.10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 '
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________________ Current beta is 2.03.10 | "Using TBBETA" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
