Skip to content

R alpha/beta naming

5 messages · Martin Maechler, Friedrich Leisch, Kurt Hornik +2 more

Original
Martin Maechler
# 
Read this morning
-----
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?

Martin Maechler <maechler@stat.math.ethz.ch>			<><
Seminar fuer Statistik, ETH-Zentrum SOL G1;	Sonneggstr.33
ETH (Federal Inst. Technology)	8092 Zurich	SWITZERLAND
phone: x-41-1-632-3408		fax: ...-1086
http://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/~maechler/

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Friedrich Leisch
# 
MM> Read this morning
MM> 		       -----
MM> So, there still is no  "R beta" around....

MM> - If I didn't know R, would I use a statistics software, if it was st=
ill=20
MM>   in alpha testing state?
MM> - Is this really what we want to tell people about R?

MM> More to the point:
MM> 	I think, we could have called it beta, really.
MM> 	Even though there still are known bugs.

MM> 	S-plus 4.0 wasn't even called beta...

MM> =3D=3D> Should we plan to release =20
MM>     0.61.3 Beta ?
MM> 	   ----  (with only very minor changes from 0.61.2)

MM> Other opinions?

Hmm, as long as we have a major version number of 0 I think we could
omit any ALPHA or BETA declaration, because the 0 implies that this is
not considered to be a final release. Then we could restart thinking
about alpha/beta statements once 1.0 is out ...

That's also the reason why I removed the text ``alpha and beta
versions'' from the CRAN main page and replaced it by a simple
``R source code''.

Just my 10g (=3Dsmallest coin in Austria),
Fritz

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Friedrich  Leisch                            =20
Institut f=FCr Statistik                      Tel: (+43 1) 58801 4541
Technische Universit=E4t Wien                 Fax: (+43 1)  504 14 98
Wiedner Hauptstra=DFe 8-10/1071      Friedrich.Leisch@ci.tuwien.ac.at
A-1040 Wien, Austria             http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~leisch
     PGP public key http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~leisch/pgp.key
-------------------------------------------------------------------

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Kurt Hornik
# 
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Peter Dalgaard
# 
Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik@ci.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
No... The next release is 0.62.0, at which point we start patching
0.62.[1234..] while putting new features into 0.63.0. We simply don't
use the stable/unstable model, but a release/snapshot one. 

I'm with Fritz: Just forget about the alpha/beta designations, they
belong in another world. 

They *might* be used meaningfully as follows:

0.61.2 is the current release

0.62.0 alpha is the current snapshot
0.62.0 beta is the current snapshot when a code freeze is announced

Currently, the state of the patch branch is unavailable between
releases, which I'm not really sure is a good thing. If we made it
accessible then it could be

0.61.3 beta 

(with the solemn vow that the patch branch never enters an alpha
state!)
A.J. Rossini
# 
Until we get 1.0, I don't understand what the alpha/beta designations
mean.  I.e. from one view, it's beta, since the interface is
reasonably solid, and just some fixes need to be done.  Then one could 
consider that a whole new module will show up (implying alpha-status).

I think that stable/unstable would be better labels.

best,
-tony

---
Anthony Rossini
Manifold Graphics / Epimetrics
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._