Author Topic: "RC" naming was probably wrong  (Read 2569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Member
  • Posts: 82
    • My own Hackintosh page
"RC" naming was probably wrong
« on: June 17, 2009, 11:10:21 AM »
Just a little note to those who released 2.0 RC1: An "RC" is supposed to be a version that's fully complete, ready for release. It's usualy given out to see if there are any issue with the entire package, e.g. forgotten documentation, or if the installer (not the actual software that gets installed) has issues.

Here, however, it appears to me that this RC1 release is far from meant to be the final release. Therefore, it should be called a beta (if it's feature complete and only bugs are sought and fixed) or even an alpha (features are still worked on).

Using the wrong terminology only hurts other products in the future, so please stay with the common conventions.


  • Administrator
  • Posts: 265
Re: "RC" naming was probably wrong
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2009, 01:40:09 PM »
You're right. Instead we could have used a "Snaphost Release" or "Techonolgy Preview" term or something like that. Since the r431 version, we fixed many issues but also added some new features, also polished the installer but the documentation is still unifinished.
ASUS P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 | i5-2500k | 16GB RAM | GTX560 | Keyboard | Mouse | Devilsound DAC


  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 233
  • Root Down
Re: "RC" naming was probably wrong
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2009, 01:54:42 PM »
^ we're here to help zef :)
Stop bitching, start coding or documenting or both..

P5Q-EM : Q6600 : 8GB RAM : 8800GT : SATA Drives