no ... *really* ... any ETA for updated beta?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Pat Gunn wrote:

> 3) There happens to be a lot of important software that's near its next
> 	major release right now, and it makes sense for RedHat to do some
> 	delays in order to make sure that 9.1 will have the current stuff.

this brings up an interesting point.  what does it mean to say you're 
doing a beta test if the final release may contain newer releases of
software that are not in the current beta?

that is, some interpretations of the word "beta" imply that a feature
freeze is in effect, which might also include upgrade freezes.  

at the very least, it would seem reasonable that the final beta release
should be almost indistinguishable from the subsequent official release.
if any major software upgrades are incorporated at this point, it would
seem that, in the extreme case, the entire beta testing process should
start over, no?

NOTE:  --> i am *not* taking a position on this either way.  i'm just
curious as to what people think of a "beta" release that may differ
substantially from the official release, and what this implies for the
testing process.

> I personally expect, when beta2 comes out, that the only thing that'll
> be different when I install it is I'll perhaps have a 2.6 kernel,

oooooh ... i'm not sure that's going to happen, but it would be nice if
the 2.6 kernel source was at least somewhere on the CD.  i think there's
still some work to do on 2.6 before it gets adopted, and i don't think
that will happen before RH 10.  but i could be wrong.  no, no, wait ...
no, i couldn't. :-)

rday