On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:37:37AM -0700, Dan Ingalls wrote:
> Mark Guzdial <guzdial at cc.gatech.edu> wrote...
> >I'm trying to catch up after a couple of trips, too, and I'm also 
> >confused.
> 
> I'm trying to catch up after a couple of trips, too, and even I was confused for a while there.  But now things seem to be fitting into place again...
> 
> >It seems that 2.8 is in a "beta" state (i.e., not yet 
> >considered completed, but only bug fixes going into it) and 2.9 is 
> >the current "alpha" (i.e., test pilots can get into the update 
> >stream).
> >
> >Is this correct?
> 
> Almost.  2.8 is really in gamma, to use Craig's terminology -- merely waiting for me to "button it up" by condensing changes, etc.  I will do that this week so that we can at least advance the formal release.  We had planned to make a number of changes in the form of the image, but have since decided to slide this to 2.9 in which the new approach will be much more appropriate.
> 
> 	- Dan
> 

Maybe it is only my feeling, but these higher speeds of developing and
quick versions realeasing do not seems to me as the "stable" way for future.

There should be interesting also opinion of Mr. Piumatra, if he will release
stable 2.8 unix VM or will just skip to 2.9 alpha ... :)  


Jan Barger

http://www.barnett.sk