After beta testing for oh I don’t know, about 18 years, one thing has begun to strike such a nerve that I just had to blog it.
I’m in this particular beta from a very large software company, I won’t mention names or say anything that may violate any NDA’s that I may or may not be under, so we will call this "Acme Toaster". On this beta we are testing a new software, it is kinda cool but its really early beta stuff and this is what got me off on this tangent. It is in what is called "Beta 2" cycle which used to mean it is damn near ready to hit the shelves. Beta 2 used to mean "feature complete, now lets fix the bugs". This Acme Toaster is more like EARLY Beta 1 because even in Beta 2 of "Acme Toaster" they are adding some new features that are said to be pretty raw. I was flabbergasted. Beta names used to mean something
Alpha. Concept complete, code sorta working, features and fixes are added.
Beta 1. Code nearly complete, bug fixing to make way for a couple rounds of new features and ballancing. Bug bashing.
Beta 2. Code complete. Find and fix ALL bugs.
Beta 3. If issues found in beta 2 cause core code changes in beta 2 then beta 3 was brought on for feature freeze and finalizing.
RC 1. If it passes this, it is on the shelves in a few months. rarely did they go past this.
RC 2. rarely made it here, but this is the final shoe. Next stop RTM
RTM . Release to manufacturing. This is where the code is sent to the duplicators and the technical reference material is sent out for printing.
This is how it USED to be. Now it is feature change right up to RTM and then we all wonder how there is 957 patches needed over the period of the life of the software.
If for what ever reason the old beta names don’t represent the current "milestone" goals then don’t use them any more, come up with new names.
Craig