Which version...

[Richmond]

On 15/01/15 20:31, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/01/15 16:34, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:56 PM, John Dixon <dixonja at hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:5.5 if you want stability; it is late-beta quality.
>>>
>>> Some report stability on 6.6, apparently.
>>>
>>> 6.7 and 7.0 are late and early alpha quality, respectively.
>>>
>>>
>>   I wonder how you work that out.
>>
>> Is that using any standardised criteria, or is that just your
>> opinion?
>>
> Pretty much standardized.  (although 5.5 should have been labeled "release
> candidate" or "silver master").
>
> Alpha releases execute and function, but are expected to
> crash/explode/whatever.  They are possibly feature complete, but the jury
> would still be out.
>
> Betas should generally function and be usable, but are still looking for
> bugs.  The big ones are supposedly gone.  Features are set for release
> (barring something catastrophic), andwon't be added or subtracted.
>
> An RC believes that all bugs are taken care of, and is only making sure of
> this.  Features are locked, and the release number will actually change if
> features are changed.
>

Why do I have a funny feeling that RunRev probably know that?

Although, having said that, they did "confess" that they test their 
Linux versions on
  a horribly outdated version of Ubuntu.

Richmond.