On 15/01/15 20:31, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 15/01/15 16:34, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:56 PM, John Dixon <dixo...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:5.5 if you want stability; it is late-beta quality.
Some report stability on 6.6, apparently.
6.7 and 7.0 are late and early alpha quality, respectively.
I wonder how you work that out.
Is that using any standardised criteria, or is that just your
opinion?
Pretty much standardized. (although 5.5 should have been labeled "release
candidate" or "silver master").
Alpha releases execute and function, but are expected to
crash/explode/whatever. They are possibly feature complete, but the jury
would still be out.
Betas should generally function and be usable, but are still looking for
bugs. The big ones are supposedly gone. Features are set for release
(barring something catastrophic), andwon't be added or subtracted.
An RC believes that all bugs are taken care of, and is only making sure of
this. Features are locked, and the release number will actually change if
features are changed.
Why do I have a funny feeling that RunRev probably know that?
Although, having said that, they did "confess" that they test their
Linux versions on
a horribly outdated version of Ubuntu.
Richmond.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
