R alpha/beta naming
Martin Maechler writes:
Read this morning
R : Copyright 1998, Robert Gentleman and Ross Ihaka Version 0.61.2 Alpha (March 15, 1998)
----- So, there still is no "R beta" around....
- If I didn't know R, would I use a statistics software, if it was still in alpha testing state? - Is this really what we want to tell people about R?
More to the point: I think, we could have called it beta, really. Even though there still are known bugs.
S-plus 4.0 wasn't even called beta...
==> Should we plan to release
0.61.3 Beta ?
---- (with only very minor changes from 0.61.2)
Other opinions?
stable releases <=> BETA development releases <=> ALPHA I.e., (btw, YES!), 0.61.3 (BETA) 0.62.0 (ALPHA) which would be great anyway as then we don't have to worry about even/odd version numbers ... (our numbering is the opposite of e.g. the Linux kernel). -k -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._