[Bf-committers] 2.5 release

GSR gsr.b3d at infernal-iceberg.com
Wed Nov 18 19:38:31 CET 2009

antont at kyperjokki.fi (2009-11-18 at 0918.54 +0200):
> Knapp kirjoitti:
> > Agreed, as beta, is fine to release it but without all the planed
> > buttons? I have never seen that before on a beta.
> >   
> One definition of alpha and beta I've heard is:
> * alpha is when you're still missing features, have known bugs. often 
> not that interesting for end users, but has things that work.
> * beta is when you are kind of feature complete, and don't have loads of 
> known bugs / missing things - but those are expected to be found in the 
> wide user involving beta testing, before release candidates
> Based on that it would be normal to have missing buttons and stuff in an 
> alpha, but not in a beta which should start to look like the final 
> thing. I've no idea whether this is a common conception, just something 
> that was used in one project (probably the lead there got it from 
> literature) and which has seemed to make sense to me since.

I thought it was clear that definitions mattered nothing in Blender
land after releasing RCs that add features on top of previous
RCs... that or RC in Blender does not mean what is the common
expansion for the acronym: release candidate. Which would be an issue

Could someone explain me if common meanings of terms are going to
matter in future or not?


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list