Author: Nicolas Carrasco
Date: 14:51:37 09/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
Interesting! On September 28, 1999 at 08:53:06, Shep wrote: >On September 28, 1999 at 00:56:39, James Robertson wrote: > >>On September 27, 1999 at 21:23:39, Nicolas Carrasco wrote: >> >>>When I hear about Zeta versions, are they suposed to be very stable? >> >>If: >>alpha testing is done by people in the company, and >>beta testing is done by people in the community, then >>gamma (release) testing must be done by people in the world. > >Here's how I name my program versions during development: > >X.YZ [alpha/beta/gamma/release] > >where >X denotes a huge step (major rewrites, lots of totally new features) > for example "moved to MTD(f)" or "ported to Windows" >Y (<=9) denotes a moderate step (several new features or one big new feature), > for example "added null-move" or "added EPD support" >Z (<=9) denotes a small step (new function added) > for example "tuned check extensions" or "adjusted piece values" >alpha - means testing by myself until considered bug-free >beta - means testing by my company until considered bug-free >gamma - means testing by external personnel, e.g. dedicated individuals > at our customer's site >release - is the one that finally is unleashed to the world > >In general, it is a good idea > >- not to step X too often (because people will say "was this product so bad > you come up with a new major release every month?" > [yes, it actually happens that people react that way!]) >- not to step Y too often once you're in gamma (see above) >- if you have to step Z very often, use "X.Y.Z" notation, allowing Y and Z > to be greater than 9 without confusion > > >--- >Shep
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.