[Oberon] Identities of releases; was: Modules in ETH Oberon ...

[Michael Schierl]

Hello,

Am 09.09.2021 um 20:05 schrieb peter at easthope.ca:
> From: Michael Schierl schierlm at gmx.de, Sat Aug 7 22:22:59 CEST 2021
>
>> I am not aware of a 2.3.6 alpha release. There is a 2.3.7 alpha
>> "release", but 2.3.7 is not 2.3.6 :-)
>
> I don't recall seeing an explanation of the notation identifying
> releases.
>
> Read here hoping for some insight to the meaning of "alpha" and "beta".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

Ok, that is at least confusing. I know that many projects do not follow
semantic versioning, but in general there is some x.y.z-alpha-n followed
by x.y.z-beta-n, followed by x.y.z-rc-n followed by x.y.z. Then the next
cycle starts with x.y.{z+1}-alpha-n. Of course some stages can be
skipped and some projects never leave beta.


Codenames are a different story, but I would not use "alpha" or "beta"
as a codename for a release, just because it can be confused with the
software release phases.

> Will hypothesize that, for 2.3.6, "beta" was meant to indicate that it
> was tested more than 2.3.7.  For 2.3.7, "alpha" was meant to indicate
> that it was tested less than 2.3.6.

On https://sourceforge.net/projects/nativeoberon/files/nativeoberon/,
2.3.6 is not called "Beta", so I would have assumed it to be "the final
thing", and 2.3.7 alpha being some experimental stuff that never matured
enough to become a real release. Whatever that means in the context of
Oberon.


Regards,


Michael