ORIGINAL: puresimmer
ORIGINAL: JimboJ
I'm a little confused about the difference between beta versions and release candidates. I was under the impression that release candidates would be the same code as the release version, and only bug fixes would be made from that point until the official release. But it seems like the last couple of release candidates have added new features. Not that I have anything against adding new features, but it seems to defeat the purpose of having a release candidate.
Having said that, I would like to offer a suggestion. Send the beta versions out to a selected group of testers. Then when you feel the game is stable, then offer the release candidate to the public. From that point, don't make any changes other than bug fixes. I think this would be a good compromise. I just think the game would benefit greatly from opening up the testing to a wider array of users and machine configurations, but only after it has been stabilized and the features set.
You are 100% right. I screwed up by trying to sneak a feature into an RC.
If I might offer my advice - I think you get a lot of benefit, both in appearance to the community and in testing the game, from the open/public betas.
I think this particular instance was
a.) A 'major' feature that you might have been better off to 'hold back' for 2008; and
b.) A feature of sufficient scope to warrant being the 'first build' of a new beta/RC cycle rather than an addition to a late, stable RC build.
Both of those feel more like a 'release process' thing with this particular release than a problem with the open beta patches.
I'd counsel giving it a week or three, and making a final decision about this when you're less keenly feeling the 'egg on the face' effect, and really weight the benefits vs the risks; closed beta, open RC might be a good path, or maybe a cycle like 'closed alpha, open beta', with your hand-picked comrades on the alpha cycle and the entire community getting to see the betas.
