XFfm issue

[edscott wilson garcia]

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 22:46, Biju Chacko wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:39:51 -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 22:36, Lionel Laratte wrote:
> > 
> > > Also, I didn't realize betas were for testing.  Thanks for the info. 
> > > Problem solved.
> > 
> > 	This is one of the things that's getting very prevalent these days.  By
> > that I mean that completely blurred lines between what is really alpha,
> > beta, gama and release.  In the olden days, alpha was the designation
> > used when the initial proof-of-concept version was being worked on. 
> > Generally it was only available to internal developers and was extremely
> > unstable.  Beta was when you had the basics fairly solid but testing was
> > needed for usability and feature development.  This was tested by more
> > people but still in a fairly controlled way.  Gama was what we now call
> > release candidates.  They were for bug squashing only and were released
> > to an even wider test audience.  Then came the production release.
> 
> Nit-pick of the day: 'Gamma' has two 'm's.

Or just one letter, if you live in Athens ;-)

> 
> -- b