Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
Someone has updated ShareX's listing to present a beta version, is that allowed?
Nowhere in that listing is the word "beta" mentioned which makes it look like a stable "official" version.
If it's not allowed, the FAQ should reflect that.
Nowhere in that listing is the word "beta" mentioned which makes it look like a stable "official" version.
If it's not allowed, the FAQ should reflect that.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
If I recall correctly, although Beta versions aren't welcome in the database, some exceptions are allowed -- I'm sure webfork can further substantiate that.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
It's not a beta. It out and released by the dev, a pre-release... he likes to wait a week or so before triggering the auto-updater to the masses in case any critical issue are found just to be safe.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
As already mentioned by Special, it's not beta.
Every release of ShareX is marked as "Pre-release" for few days.
Of course we can wait, but TPFC always must be in the avant-garde!
Every release of ShareX is marked as "Pre-release" for few days.
Of course we can wait, but TPFC always must be in the avant-garde!
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
Yes, we accept beta software into the database. I haven't added it to the FAQ just because it's not frequently asked about.
There are a few reasons:
- Novelty. When there's nothing else like it in the database, early stage stuff is fine. I definitely would have added Exselo if it were portable, even though it was definitely in early development (not sure of the status now). Camstudio was in beta for a very long time
. - Quality. We've seen a lot of software listed at "beta" that's really at a release-quality level. If it doesn't crash and does everything you need it to do but is still beta because the dev is a perfectionist, it's fine. Kompozer is *still* in beta and I've easily spent at least 200 hours with it. It very rarely crashes.
. - Lack of standard. Developers aren't really following the alpha-beta-release standards anymore, which used to be:
- Alpha - buggy, outline of a program, maybe a vague proof-of-concept.
- Beta - mostly works, some bugs, a little crashy
- Release - bugs resolved, features work, few crashes
. - Safety. Some tools (I suspect) stay in perma-beta status to avoid anything resembling liability. "Oh your whole company broke while using beta software? Sounds like bad judgment."
. - Other - Some exceptions that have come up over time:
- 7-zip - critical security issue
- Everything - at one point the release version lagged way behind the beta so we listed both.
To be clear, I do lean away from beta since portable software maintains a "just works" approach (one of the advantages of being self-contained). I try to test them thoroughly before adding or voting them in.
Related:
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-does ... ally-mean/
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
Thanks for detailed write-up.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
I agree with billon: as it doesn't come up often and the term "beta" just doesn't have the same meaning it once had, a separate field probably isn't necessary.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
ProgramX v2.00 final released!!!!
2 days later...
ProgramX v2.01 released, fixed a small bug.
lwc: omg why was this not posted as a beta.
2 days later...
ProgramX v2.01 released, fixed a small bug.
lwc: omg why was this not posted as a beta.
Re: Are betas allowed to be listed or must only stable versions be listed?
No...and even if I did, it's not relevant to my point that I think programs' authors should be respected for their choices. If they chose the term "beta" then I'd trust they had a reason.
If "version" here included the word "beta" I'd be all for it (e.g. v2.3 beta).