Misunderstanding developer previews versus release candidates

[Richmond]

On 3.11.2013 20:01, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 11/3/13 10:52 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> The title really says it all.
>>
>> LC 6.0.0 went through 5 developer previews and 7 release candidates.
>>
>> LC 6.0.1 went through NO developer previews and 1 release candidate.
>>
>> LC 6.0.2 went through NO developer previews and 1 release candidate.
>>
>> LC 6.1.0 went through 2 developer previews and 3 release candidates.
>>
>> LC 6.1.1 went through NO developer previews and 6 release candidates.
>>
>> LC 6.1.2 went through NO developer previews and 3 release candidates.
>>
>> LC 6.1.3 to date has NO developer previews and 1 release candidate.
>>
>> LC 6.5.0 to date has 2 developer previews and 1 release candidate.
>>
>> So, what with all the "funny numbers" after the 6, the developer
>> previews and their numbers,
>> and the release Candidates and their numbers.
>
> Increases in the third number position are minor bug fix releases with 
> no new features or major changes. If they've proved stable in-house, 
> they are apt to go directly to release candidate for final testing.
>
> Changes to the second-postion number indicate more significant changes 
> and/or feature additions. They need to go through more testing and are 
> usually first released as developer previews.
>
> Changes to first-position numbers are significant rewrites with lots 
> of major changes and additions. They go through lots of releases in 
> both previews and release candidates.
>
> RR has spelled this out before but I can't remember where. I suspect 
> that 6.5 had fewer developer previews than usual because they received 
> fewer bug reports on it. That's just an assumption on my part, based 
> on my own experience, because I didn't even download a version of 6.5 
> until yesterday; I didn't have time to test and it wasn't ready for 
> real work yet. (And I haven't found anything significantly wrong since 
> last night either, but who knows.)
>
>> ------------------
>>
>> I am sure that will get the expected sententious answer to this message
>> from one of RunRev's
>> uncritical cheer-leaders, and it will just trot out the official line.
>
> I suppose that's me, quoting the "official line", but it seems 
> sensible. It's how most software versioning and release cycles work. 
> In fact, I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is; the system is 
> normal operating procedure.
>

Somehow, Jacqueline, I find it hard to describe you as 'sententious'.