Talk:Software release life cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Engineering builds don't stop at alpha[edit]

The article implies that "Pre-alpha" activity (Engineering Builds/Development Releases/Nightly Builds, whatever the term) stops once the product reaches the Alpha release. This typically isn't the case. Typically, these "Engineering Builds" continue throughout the lifecycle of the product - at least until it hits GA. While the picture isn't quite as nice, I'd suggest we remove the "Pre-Alpha" state, and introduce a "Engineering Build" state that pre-exists "Alpha", but also exists between each of the Alpha/Beta/RC/GA states. ChrisRing (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just yet another specific release life cycle?[edit]

I have the feeling that a specific release life cycle is described here but in a way suggesting that it would be the only one. I consider this wrong. It should be named which cycle is used or by which project or foundation it is defined, for example by calling it lets say "the Apache release life cycle" or so. -- Steffen ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software sucks?[edit]

How would a new user see previous versions of an article to revert if necessary? Jo3y (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to rename article to Software release lifecycle[edit]

I just tentatively named an article about what is beta version, how version numbers are used and so on as "development stage". If you come up with better wording, I will appreciate. -- Taku

I would call the page "Software development stages" or something similar to that. "Software" to show what it's about and "stages" because that the article is really about different stages, not just one stage. -David Björklund
I think Software development stages is a much better name; development stage can redirect to it. However, Software release lifecycle might even be better, since arguably there is a whole bunch of work that goes on before an application ever makes to the alpha stage. Complain if you don't want this, I'll probably go ahead and do it. --Chris Pickett 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, perhaps software release lifecycle should be created and then software release merged into it. --Chris Pickett 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I did the move, now I'll do the merge. One question: why does what links here show all these rock band pages? --Chris Pickett 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge from "Software release"[edit]

Software release as it stands would help make the introduction to this article better. --Chris Pickett 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Chris Pickett 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old discussion[edit]

What about POC? Proof of Concept? -- 13:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked this up out of curiousity to see how the idea of greek letters denoting development cycles originated and where it originated. My guess would be "alpha" as in "first look" and then "beta" came after as in "after alpha" but that is just specualtion and what i came here to find out.

I've noticed that in recent years, developers have been doing less releases like "gamma" and "delta", and more like "-beta1", "-beta2" and/or "-rc1" and "-rc2" for testing releases. I personally blame open source for allowing updates to happen more frequently than in the past, as well as the increased vigilance of developers vs. exploiters. Can someone write something that details this phenomenon better than I could explain/opine? 03:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs and update re the Linux kernal naming. The odd/even business was introduced at some point (not initially), and have been (officially?) lost with 2.6 production where there is no 2.7

It might look that way, but I from what I can scoop from Google, they have every intention of making a 2.7 when the time comes; it's just that development has bghghhghggeen going so fast that a 2.7 fork would involve a lot of patches that are already being submitted for 2.6, which means things wouldn't get too far. It could change, though. 03:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beta - a note on pronunciation would not be amiss. BATE-AH and BEET-AH are used by different communities and individuals (probably a link to a discussion - Hackers Dictionary?, alt.englist.usage? - would be appropriate)

I don't think so, BAY-tah is the correct pronounciation, as is the letter in the Greek alphabet. It's not that important to this article as it is the Greek alphabet. Totalirrelevance 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gold Master[edit]

I believe, but cannot yet source, that we stole that from the music industry, in which I believe the vinyl stampers were gold-plated.
--Baylink 00:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard a sort of urban legend (which I believe may be true) that the original final copy of the CD, once complete, is made primarily of pure gold, for its reasons. So 'going gold' is when they ship off that copy to the producers. Totalirrelevance 09:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that REALLY needs to be taken out becuase im like 98% sure its untrue i dont believe a cd can be made out of gold and corrosion isnt an issue with cds but with a gold cd the cd would be destroyed so easily could somebody who knows for sure confirm or unconfirm it.
I've always though it refers to (gold-coloured) CD-Rs, which are/were often used as master discs for release to manufacturing etc. Letdorf 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Of course a CD is never made entirely out of gold, but CD-Rs and DVD-Rs with a gold reflective layer are readily available (just do a search on Gold media is excellent for archival purposes and would, therefore, be a logical choice for a master disk. 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, folks, you're all wrong. In industry the term "Gold Master" only refers to a known-good reference object, be it hardware or software. It has nothing to do with use of precious metals. Marketing departments may apply alternate meanings to the use of word "gold", again, not having anything to do with the use of precious metals. — QuicksilverT @ 19:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The first time I ran across the alpha/beta/final development stages was in early Macintosh documentation from Apple. But where did it originally come from?

I first saw beta being used in software releases on the Internet in the late 80s.. since there was no particular tradition on how to name versions I saw releases of 'beta' versions, because their authors claimed the new version to be better than the one before. So my impression the word 'beta' arose as a joke, and alpha/gamma was subsequently introduced by people who didn't get the joke (a lot later in fact). But of course the Mac manual sounds like it's older than my story..  ;) --lynX —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:33:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

What about "General availability"?[edit]

I just wrote an article about General availability release, another common term for the "Gold" release. That article should probably be deleted and incorporated into here.

I put a tag to suggest a possible merger. -- Taku 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I merged the two articles. Feel free to correct me if you think I did a bad job (there were not that much from General availability release to reuse). cheers David Björklund 13:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of GA, I had always thought a release that is dubbed "Generally Available" is exactly that: the most generally-available version, i.e., the GA version of PHP would be the version of PHP that most hosts have, and therefore it is the most generally available version of PHP. Have I been assuming wrong? j_freeman 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article[edit]

This is a good article! It is! It's simple, it doesn't drawl on for pages and pages and it's very explanatory! Crazy Eddy 12:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, I love the chart at the top right! --Qode 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not from where I stand. Four years later, and I'd still rate it Start Class.—QuicksilverT @ 21:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software release cycle?[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong: I think patches and updates do also belong into the software release cycle, as well as the idea, proof-of-concepts and designing the software itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Missing steps[edit]

Before: planning/proof-of-concept. After: patches and updates, replacement/migration, legacy support, and end-of-life. This article implies the software is released perfect and does its job forever without ever needing a replacement. Since many companies stop the cycle at Box Copy, the other steps would appear to be optional.--danhausa 04:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Gold release"?[edit]

In 24 years of programming work for major corporations I've never heard the term 'Gold' used. The common terms are 'production version' or 'live version'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yea ive never heard of it either i think that should be taken out.

It's used at IBM quite commonly [1] Kaicarver 10:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard of 'RTM Gold' — Gary Kirk // talk! 11:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never heared of a "Gold release" either (although Gold/Pro versions are used quite often, and therefore this term is confusing). Usually we call it "Release version" and that's quite obvious: release comes after release candidate. -- 17:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've heard 'gone gold' used quite frequently for the last 5-6 years, at least. Often, I find it used onPC gaming sites to denote that the product has been "RTM'd".

The term is used quite frequently. See [2] and, for example, [3]. --Svetovid 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone please write the subsection for beta testing? Thanks!--Ioshus (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Beta section[edit]

The page repeatedly mentions beta as the period after alpha, but there is no section on it -- the meaty sections jump from alpha to RC (post-beta). Considering the plethora of beta software (heck, it seems like there's more "beta" software these days than release software sometimes), it ought to be enough to flush out its own section. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I just said the same thing about 20 minutes before...--Ioshus (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, an hour and 20 minutes...--Ioshus (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Beta section was missing due to incompletely reverted vandalism to this page. It's now corrected. --Clay Collier 06:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha! Thanks!--Ioshus (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article goes into the post-Netscape use of the term "beta" and talks about open beta, which Netscape called public beta. But given that beta has taken on a lexical definition that differs from the established technical use, there's not much in the article explaining the logistics of a traditional beta test and how companies use(d) it. The term is particularly muddy these days because the traditional cycle included a non-disclosure agreement, distribution of pre-release software, documentation, and pre-release hardware when appropriate, and an agreement to test and report specific aspects using a defined feedback channel not available to the general public. Beta tests also had/have multiple releases so problems reported in the first beta could be addressed in the second beta, etc. and there was an implicit or explicit expectation that feedback from the testers would be addressed between beta releases.

As the term is generally used today, often "beta" software is made generally available, there is no mechanism provided for reporting bugs or giving feedback that differs from that for GA, and in many cases is for software that will be available for free once released, such as Gmail. Although some products such as recent versions of Windows have pushed the definition of beta, at least they were commercially available at retail prices once released. But for products where the user isn't even asked to test, the word "beta" simply shows up when a user goes to get a copy of the software (or the software prompts all users to download the latest update, which is labeled "beta"), there's no special feedback mechanism in place, and there will be no charge for the software once the "beta" label disappears, then the software is not "beta" by definition in a traditional sense. It's generally available and sometimes is the only version offered, or a "beta" version of a website may be the one the user is taken to by default. Yet it's "beta" in the generally understood end-user sense of the word.

There should be something to explain what the mechanisms and expectations of traditional beta tests are, how this differs from "open betas" and how that differs from software that simply has the word "beta" tacked onto its name to mean "unstable." (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article end-of-life (product) should not be merged into this article[edit]

The article end-of-life (product) should not be merged into this article, because end of life is a very common term for computer hardware. Andries (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I oppose the merge since the term end of life is applied to all areas of product design, not just software. This is especially true nowadays in the context end-of-life disposal (e.g. recyclability). Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I object to the merge proposal because of the same reasons written above. --pabouk (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lifecycle" is a misnomer[edit]

As described, there's nothing cyclical about this process. Rather, it's a finite state machine. You start and then you finish. A "Product lifecycle", as used by Microsoft, describes the cyclical nature of product development and improvement over incremental releases. The industry at large has accepted this naming convention, and it has crept into all manner of related disciplines.

I suggest that we begin to stem this mis-use right here. Call it a process, framework, etc. It's not at all different from a manufacturing process, in which one engineers, prototypes, finalizes specs, goes into manufacturing. This process can be *part* of a product lifecycle; but, by itself, is not cyclical.

Take the life of a frog, as an analogy. An individual frog has a *lifespan* in which it procreates; thus, the species has a lifecycle. But, the frog is born and dies. Even in a re-incarnation scenario, the mortal lifespan of the frog is part of a broader cycle.

In summary, I suggest that we re-write the whole article. JW googler (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a cycle. It's the product's life cycle, and it repeats for each product that is developed. (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Gold" release?[edit]

This is used almost never now. If someone can back up the claim that's it's used frequently, then specify this here, otherwise someone will have to change it. (By backing it up I mean a notable computer software company). Jaymacdonald (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the wisdom of the hive (google)

software "live version" 263,000
software "production version" 247,000
software "gold release" 39,500

It seems overwhelming now, I have made the change (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google tests are a bad idea. There's no way of accounting for the differences between sources inside and outside the industry. That said...

software "gold master" 81,700

I don't know whose idea "gold release" was. I've never heard it used. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contradiction with alpha[edit]

The header summary claims that in the alpha stage, features are still being added. The pre-alpha section claims that "In contrast to alpha and beta versions, the pre-alpha is not feature complete." In practice, most alpha software is not feature complete. How to resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also spotted this. Personally, I use 'alpha' in the not feature complete sense, and this is how I believe most would use it. But someone needs to do a little research on what is the most common meaning of the word, and then change the article accordingly. (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alpha testing is a form of acceptance test and should be feature complete. See: Alpha_testing#Alpha_testing. It's defined like this by the international testing standard ISTQB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The confusion is there because of the evolution of the industry, technically both are right. The feature freeze is what separates Alpha and Beta. Software is "in Alpha" while new features are being added. Nowadays there are often releases in the middle of Alpha (not feature complete yet) with the last Alpha release being feature complete due to the feature-freeze happening right afterward; but in the old days the Alpha test was at the end of Alpha so it was feature complete unless there's a problem. 2600:8800:2B00:7C50:75EF:BEC4:2FB8:F9D1 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linked from BBC[edit]

[4] < This article is linked from the BBC Website. :) - JVG (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)  Done I add this with the correct template at the head of this page, but the stats don't really show any differences... mabdul 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horrible article[edit]

This article needs a lot of work. It's really muddled, only presents one lifecycle, and gives no sense of how software architecture fits in among other roles like testing. (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamma testing needs more explanation or details[edit]

It could use more details about what it is, what happens during, and then the finale to what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separate application and game life cycles?[edit]

There seem to be a number of phases listed here that are not general software development phases, and are instead particular to the production processes of games. My feeling is that the article is intended to be a generic one, and should cover the alpha->beta->release life cycle as the "typical" life cycle, and delegate discussion of specific variants, such as game production, and things such as "pre-alpha", "gamma", etc. into subsections, or possibly even separate articles. Trying to discuss all possible variations at once is very distracting, and makes it difficult to discern when each nuance is applicable. Since I don't understand the details of game development myself, I must disqualify myself from making these changes, however. What are others thoughts on this? Is there a reasonable consensus? (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myopic, parochial article[edit]

Where does it say that software or products go through the various stages — pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc. — described here? It should be pointed out that this is but one possible naming convention and work flow model, albeit a rather unsuccessful one. As a matter of fact, if one arrives at the computer hardware or software industries from elsewhere, the terminology and concepts laid out in the article will seem somewhat, er, laughable, and a recipe for business failure. Silicon Valley is littered with the bones of companies that followed this model.—QuicksilverT @ 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's true, it would help the article considerably if you would provide references to that effect. (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing term: GDR (General Distribution Release)[edit]

Windows often comes in RTM and GDR flavors. And if you link from there (GDR (disambiguation)) you will end up here, with no explanation what a GDR is, nor will you get any idea of what the differences between GDR and RTM are. -andy (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could this Article please clarify what "Stable Release" means?[edit]

The Article currently describes the term "stable" as meaning "relatively bug-fee" (See Section "Release," Subsection "General availability"). However, many Articles on various software applications refer to a single "Stable Release" date in the InfoBox as part of the version history. Could this Article please be edited better to clarify what that "Stable Release" date means? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second this motion, and would like a definition of stability wrt software. In this article alone it is used both to describe the lack of variation in features and the absence of "crashes." Imo this issue would require a separate article describing the property. (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Many articles use Template:Infobox software in a way that causes the phrase "Stable release" in that infobox to link to this "software release life cycle" article. What does that mean? You would never know by reading this article, because this article never mentions "stable release". --DavidCary (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's get the template changed instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even after we get the template changed, I think this article should at least mention the phrase "stable release", even if it's only to link to the same article that the template was changed to link to. p.s.: Do you have any suggestions as to a *better* article for that template to link to? --DavidCary (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They refused to remove the link so we're stuck with fixing the issue here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Code complete", a.k.a. "code cut"[edit]

I have always heard the term "code cut" instead of "code complete", or occasionally "branch off". Once I heard "code twig". I can't find any reference to this though. Is it just me? (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pre-alpha, alpha section is a little messed up[edit]

A majority of this section doesn't make any sense, making things worse, there are no sources for this section. I'll run by a few of the issues I see.

In the pre-alpha section it says, "Pre-alpha refers to all activities performed during the software project prior to testing." All software goes through testing at all levels. The programmer that coded the first hundred lines of code for the software will use whitebox testing before proceeding. Usually pre-alpha refers to a conceptual piece of software with no actual functioning parts.

For the Alpha section, it has always been my understanding that the alpha version was any number of software versions while the software is still in development. To me, this seems like the pre-alpha section was written for what should have been the alpha section. The only source currently in this section links to a PC Mag webpage that doesn't collaborate with what the wiki says.

I understand this can be a difficult issue. You can ask five different people and get five different answers as to what these terms mean. It seems like these sections are written with a colloquial but still incorrect perspective. I will find some sources backing up my claim when I'm not so tired, but as the sections stand there are no sources anyway. -- (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed - this article is all wrong, and it appears to be written by people outside of the software industry. Most outsiders have heard the term "beta test", and so they understand these industry milestones in relationship to testing. But that is not what the milestones signify at all. Pre-Alpha refers to any build (version) of the software (not activities or testing) that is in development, but not feature complete (usually this is determined by referring to a product requirements document). Alpha = feature complete, but not debugged or optimized. Interaction design should be completely implemented (user interface controls), but visual design elements may be missing or incomplete (look and feel) at the Alpha milestone. The Beta milestone refers to a version that includes all of the final visual design elements, and all critical or serious bugs (severity = 1 or 2) have been resolved. This build should be good enough to allow selected people outside the company to do some beta testing, but it is not tested and debugged to the level required for First Customer Ship. (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened to FCS???[edit]

Alpha Beta FCS <- First Customer Ship This is what it is called before the version number is assigned.

akc9000 (talk · contribs · count) 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it supported by a reliable source? I for one have never heard of this term. -- Nczempin (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Used by many companies, including Prime Computer (now Computervision) and Dynamic Software Corporation.
Documented here:
akc9000 (talk · contribs · count) 00:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, akc9000
The phrase ("First Company Ship") is not even meaningful in English. Beside, your sources are no good. One of them just expands "FCS" into a completely different acronym and the other, written in very bad English and full of typos, explains a single company's practice. WP:RS and WP:GEVAL do not approve of such contents.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of it being meaningful that is what the lettering stands for, just because you don't like the content does not change its value.
Here is a reference from 2006:
akc9000 (talk · contribs · count) 19:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Akc9000, the source you provided is not reliable as all it is a definition of the name. Also I have been an active software developer for nearly 7 years and I have not came across the terms FCS hence in my opinion, it is not notable enough to be used. There are no notable or reliable sources to prove this. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just want to say FCS is totally accurate. It stands for "First Customer Shipment" but is shortened to "First Customer Ship". It might be considered slightly more academic or anachronistic, but it is still widely used. Googling "First Customer Shipment" yields thousands of press releases from the likes of Cisco and Microsoft. It represents the date a product is first shipped to customers. This can precede mass manufacturing and general availability. Thus it is as close to a demarcation of "done" as possible. It heavily connotes the start of marketing activities pertaining to the product. It is different than successive fix releases for a product. It is used no less than 35 times in Steven Blank's Four Steps to the Epiphany (the de facto bible of lean software entrepreneurialism). See page 3 <>. Lunalot (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles[edit]

As this article deals with version stages, I hope I can adress you here: I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Wikipedia with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible. Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your contribution. Jesus Presley (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

time-based and feature-based release cycles[edit]

We should mention the two possibilities; e.g. LibreOffice is having a time-based release cycle and Apache's OpenOffice a feature-based release cycle. See also Release early, release often. mabdul 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EOLA, LOD, EOL[edit]

In "General availability" section, in the "Various Milestones in Producr Life Cycle" image, EOLA, LOD, EOL are not defined. Please define them, or put hyperlinks in the acronyms or at least expand the acronyms. (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've improved the caption for the image. Mindmatrix 15:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add terms "dev" and "indev"[edit]

I wanted to know if "dev" had a specific software/etc meaning. Searching WP for "dev" brings up this line under Technology uses:

But neither "dev" or "indev" are mentioned in this article. I think they should be mentioned at least once, such as a line starting with: Development (or "dev" or "indev")... Squish7 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dev" is, in my experience, commonly short for "development" or "developer". (See also wiktionary, and I've added those two to the disambiguation page for dev.) I don't remember hearing "dev" nor "indev" used in the sense of pre-release software, software still in development. --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Gold" in different, conflicting phases of the release period[edit]

The Software release life cycle map in the top corner has Gold as "Production or live release", and shows that as being two phases later than RTM. The text, on the other hand, puts gold in the RTM phase.

Unless I've misunderstood, this is a conflict.

--Mathieu ottawa (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on your point of view. For the developer "Gold" is the last RC (sometimes "Silver") version that's been OK'ed ("Going Gold") to be sent off to the customers. But it takes time for the release to be put on the web or copied onto CDs and shipped to retail stores; this is the RTM phase. The Gold release "Goes Live" at the end of RTM, the moment the software can be bought or downloaded by the customers, often pre-scheduled to be on a Tuesday. (This is the traditional flow, of course, nowadays it's all become a bit blurred with pre-ordering, early access, and programs being able to be updated over the web). Ikmxx (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading as to the scope of applicability of the information[edit]

I second the comment in "Just yet another specific release life cycle?" There is no standard release life cycle. Virtually every organization has significant variants or completely different approaches. This article needs to make clear the source of the information and the scope to which it is applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Falkowitz (talkcontribs) 09:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the information in this article is centered on commercial software and freeware, and ignores FOSS entirely in its scope. (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add content related to free and open-source software, particularly in how it differs from other software development processes, provided that it is sourced with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

early access[edit]

Early customers purchased a "pioneer edition" of the WordVision word processor for the IBM PC for $49.95. In 1984, Stephen Manes wrote that "in a brilliant marketing coup, Bruce and James Program Publishers managed to get people to pay for the privilege of testing the product."

Amusingly this is now very common in the video game industry... they call it "early access". It might be worth mentioning in the article.

AnonymousAuthority (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terminology also used for hardware[edit]

I believe the alpha and beta terminology is now quite commonly used for hardware, not just software. It seems that Wikipedia should incorporate this somehow, whether in a "hardware release cycle" article or changing the title of this article to "technology release cycle" or something like that. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Creating pages. If anyone has any advice, i need all i can get. Thank You Hmercer1976 (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"RC3" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RC3. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#RC3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge of Feature complete into Software release life cycle[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Software release life cycle. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current WP:DICTDEF and overlap with main topic. Also suggested on talk. Widefox; talk 19:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.