Is there a reason why you took this off the list?
On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:52 AM, Mike Porter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2001 07:11, you wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:07 PM, Chad R. Larson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> wrote:
>
> > If anyone is taking votes, I disagree.
> > The -STABLE branch is not -BETA in any way that I can see. It's simply a
> > low key development branch. Changes are tested in -CURRENT before
> > being merged into -STABLE, therefore there's nothing -BETA about it.
> >
>
> While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree here. Just because
> *some* testing has been done, doesn't mean it isn't BETA. BETA software is
> generally believed to be pretty stable, just a few minor kinks to work out.
> At that point, getting it into the hands of the largest possible
> cross-section of users makes sense, becuase collectively they are more likely
> to excercise all of the features. Further, some features may work as
> intended when the user follows all the correct steps in the correct sequence,
> but how easy is it to get out of the sequence and break things? (Example (ok,
> its a bad/simplified example but it demonstrates the point):
Actually ... it's a good example.
> So BETA testing takes place after a good deal of
> previous "in house" development happens. This is the "alpha" test stage.
> Why do you think they use "beta" (the SECOND letter of the greek alphbet) to
> denote the SECOND test? It implies that there is an "alpha" or "first" test
> before. thus -CURRENT is ALPHA level code, STABLE is BETA.
That's also a relevent point. "alpha" and "beta" are generally used to describe testing
sequences in/out of the developer circle. In a company, alpha testing is done by the
developers or other employees of the company, while beta testing is done by providing
the software to a select group of customers who have volunteered to test the software.
This particular model falls apart when you have the FreeBSD development model.
Reasons:
1) anyone who wants to test -CURRENT can, thus it doesn't fit typical expectation of
"alpha"
2) the developers are generally also the users
3) The -STABLE branch is not *intended* to be for testing purposed only. It is
*intended*
to be a useable product. In the commercial world, a "beta" is NOT INTENDED for regular
use, but for testing only. Thus, renaming the -STABLE branch would be a misnomer.
> Of course, if you assume that STABLE is BETA level code, then you can expect
> some glitches, and sometimes things WILL slip through the cracks and cause
> major headaches...but *in general* you should have fairly stable code, with a
> few bugs in it. You EXPECT (or SHOULD EXPECT) there to be bugs in
> it....that's part of the development effort.
No, according the the handbook, you should not *expect* there to be bugs in -STABLE,
You should be wary, as the handbook warns you, but my experience with -STABLE over
the last two years is that it's generally pretty reliable. The handbook also states
that
you should subscribe to the stable mailing list if you intend to track -STABLE, so
anyone following the hanbook is going to be well informed when breakage occurs.
I believe the recent changes to the handbook did an excellent job of clearing this up.
-Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message