pre-beta

[Bernard Devlin]

I have been starting to have the same suspicion myself.  It does seem a bit
strange to have announced 2.0 (along with screenshots) in November.

I know that I bought my license for 1.1.1 on the basis that the release of 2.0
was imminent.  And a friend who I introduced to Rev has written an application
that really needs some features in 2.0, and she bought the her 1.1.1 license on
the basis that 2.0 was imminent.

If we are talking about a pre-beta of 2.0 that is two months late (with many of
the promised features not yet implemented).  I do not see how it is possible to
have issued a public statement in October that Rev 2.0 was "to ship in November"
if by the beginning of Feb all that is available is a "pre Beta".  To my mind
"to ship" means "to be able to fufill orders for a product", suggesting that the
beta and testing stages are over.

Looks like there has been some bad marketing or some bad project management.
Seems rather out of character for Runrev.

Bernard

> hi:  i am sorry to say this, but i am feeling as if i was taken for a 
> ride here.  wasn't the story in november that the reason for not 
> releasing 2.0 as scheduled was thorough testing and what not?  and 
> now i am reading on the list that the pre(!!)-beta cannot open some 
> stacks properly, and some stuff (apparently a lot) is not even yet 
> implemented!  that doesn't sound like a product in testing phase 
> (thus *pre* beta).
> 	i would really encourage you guys up there in scottland to 
> tell us what the real problem is.  i cannot believe this "testing" 
> argument any more.  honestly, i don't care whether it takes another 
> year to release the final version (because the current version is 
> working for me) -- just put the cards on the table.
> 	best, olli.