pre-beta

[Kevin Miller]

On 3/2/03 3:04 pm, Oliver Hardt <hardt at u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> 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.

We called it a pre-beta because there are still a handful of features being
completed.  But when you look at the entire feature set and what *is*
present, you will note that just about everything *is* there now, and its a
long list of new features, present and correct.  The stuff that isn't
included is a very short list.  That long list of features has been in
testing for some time, and the time it is going to take us to wrap up those
features that aren't yet present is insignificant in comparison.  Some of
the features not present in this version simply weren't built because we are
making changes to them when we did the build - they have been included in
the private alpha tests we have been doing.  Those changed components will
be included soon.  We have enough there now for it to be worth testing the
overall design and stability.

Kind regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller <kevin at runrev.com> <http://www.runrev.com/>
Runtime Revolution Limited - The Solution for Software Development
Tel: +44 (0) 870 747 1165.  Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707.