Re: [Evolution] Version numbering explained

["Michael Leone" <turgon mike-leone com>]

> > > Still... I use it every day for in > 250 mails.  It  handels it well
for
> > > pre-beta software...
> >
> > "Pre-beta"? It's at 0.8, out of 1.0 (which will be the first offical
> > released version). I'd call that "late beta".
>
> Software version numbers are not real numbers. The next version will
> be 0.9, and the one after that will be 0.10, etc, etc. There is no
> implication (from the version number alone) that we're nearing 1.0.

My presumption was that .1 would be the same as .10. And  that the current
.8 is the same as .80, and not really being 0.08, as you've explained.

So, if you're still planning an official 1.0 release early in 2001, then
we've got MANY releases to go thru yet? Or many numbers to jump over (as we
just jumped over .7 to get to .8)?

Still, if that's the case, then my respect for Evo has gone up tremendously.
I figured it was a product nearing (within a few months) official
completion. If it hasn't even entered beta-testing yet (does this mean then
that it's still alpha-stage?), it's quite a robust product.

> Evolution IS pre-beta. We've been calling these releases "preview
> releases", and each one starts up with a big warning message saying
> that it will "lose your mail" and "embarass you in front of your
> friends and co-workers". Yes, it crashes if it doesn't like your Gtk
> theme. Yes, some features are really annoying to use. That's because
> you're looking at a development snapshot of incomplete software. Some
> day, all of this stuff will be (almost) fixed, and THEN we'll call it
> beta.
>
> -- Dan