<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Earnie Boyd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:earnie@users.sourceforge.net">earnie@users.sourceforge.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Quoting Bill Fitzgerald <<a href="mailto:bill@funnymonkey.com">bill@funnymonkey.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
><br>
> But, whenever possible, avoid using alpha/beta/dev/rc releases.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>If everyone followed this advice then these releases would never get<br>
tested.</blockquote><div><br>Not remotely true. There are any number of ways to test from development servers. Testing from production is a contradiction in terms. In most cases, it would not be considered professional.<br>
<br>But, as several people have noted, stability varies and labeling is inconsistent. Some features will not directly affect site visitors (as opposed to administrators), or will seldom be encountered, so some judgement on the part of the developer as to when to break the "if it isn't a production version of a module, it probably shouldn't be on a production website" rule, is appropriate.<br>
<br>And having said that, I would still fall back on the knowledge that in the web world, updating is continuous. In most cases, you are far better going live with some features that really work, and adding new features as they are ready, then going live with stuff that is in alpha(!!!!) or beta, or even RC. If there is any complexity to the site, even with supposedly stable modules, you will probably discover things to be fixed post-launch. By keeping variables to a minimum, the likelihood of discovering something that will give people a negative impression of your professionalism or website can be lowered considerably.<br>
<br>My two cents,<br>ari<br></div></div></div>