Re: Milestone and general naming, terminology

Current convention is that 0.* releases are by definition not-quite-1.0.

The word "beta" has become meaningless thanks to Google and others.

"alpha" clearly denotes dangerous territory. In the past I have seen  
just "a" used to denote alpha, as in 0.7a4, but that might be my Mac  
bigotry showing, and longer names are more readily understandable, so  
keep them.

Users will be downloading non-alpha releases, whose quality should be  
that of an old-school beta when we hit 0.9

So I would expect future versions to be (in chronological order,  
making up future history as I go):

		0.7alpha4
		0.7alpha5
		0.7alpha6
	0.7
		0.8alpha1
		0.8alpha2
		0.7.1alpha1
		0.8alpha3
		0.7.1alpha2
		0.7.1alpha3
		0.8alpha4
	0.7.1
		0.8alpha5
		0.8alpha6
	0.8
...
		0.9alpha4
		0.9alpha5
	0.9   <--- start publicity? See Pieter's whiteboard photos for  
details :-)
		1.0alpha1
		1.0alpha2
		0.9.1alpha1
		0.9.1alpha2
		0.9.1alpha3
	0.9.1
		1.0alpha3
		1.0alpha4
	1.0

"Beta"? We don't need no steekin' "Beta".

Reid

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general