From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 5 17:12:51 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA29082 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:12:51 -0700 Received: from spooky.rwwa.com (rwwa.com [198.115.177.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA29076 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:12:47 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spooky.rwwa.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA27656 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 20:16:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199510060016.UAA27656@spooky.rwwa.com> X-Authentication-Warning: spooky.rwwa.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Another rushed beta test? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 20:16:27 -0400 From: Robert Withrow Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk >From what I can gather we are going to have another rushed beta test. By that I mean that there will be something like a week beta test of the final product before it is pressed onto CD. Is this correct? And, btw, I don't think that SNAPs qualify as beta-test targets, since they are activly developed between their releases. They are more like alpha releases. A beta test is supposed to test the final product to verify the *non-existence* of critical bugs... I don't have the resources to test alpha-quality software whereas I *can* test beta-quality software, give adequate time (which means more than just one week). Testing software implies *cost* for many otherwise willing people who *could* give valuable input if this were handled differently. This is disapointing because I was led to believe that things would be different this time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430 Net: witr@rwwa.COM R.W. Withrow Associates, 319 Lynnway Suite 201, Lynn MA 01901 USA