We haven't brought it out of beta yet because there were still a number of rough edges and improvements we wanted to make before then.
Let me compare this to how I decide if something should be released: Is it stable (ie: it doesnt crash frequently)? Did I add some features so I can tell users its better than the last version? If you answered yes to those questions, then fix any major bugs and ship the thing as stable.
You would have been on 3.0 stable a long time ago.
I also would package each of these fairly minor releases as 3.x.. so this release would probably be 3.25 or something.
Why? You mark it as stable so new users (who aren't aware of your process) know they can use this (and you can close the sale). You want people to feel like the project is active, and they're getting a good deal for the license.. which feels like a better deal to you?
- I bought ST2 and will get ST3
- I bought ST 3.0, and received over 30 releases from 3.0 to 3.30.
Yes, well over 90% of Package Control users are running Sublime Text 3.
This is a warning sign. You were so conservative with marking it stable, that the users have made the decision for you. The beta is now your product, and if you break it, that will be your reputation. You no longer have a real beta.
I would agree, but I would also say that they should err on the side of caution. Don't see all of these posts and just call the next release 3.0. Do an absolute thorough round of testing. Be sure that it is stable. Then bring it out of "beta".
As bad as breaking the beta would be, releasing a product after such a long beta period that isn't completely stable would be worse.
All that said, Sublime is easily the most stable piece of software I use on a daily basis. I prefer JetBrains IDEs for daily coding, but still do plenty of work in ST3 and have customized the heck out of it to fit my needs almost perfectly. I'd be very much surprised if it wasn't ready to exit beta today
ST seems to call the entire period through active development "beta".. and then when they've finished developing the entire thing and hit what would normally be the extended support period (bug fixes only), they call it stable.
It's certainly costing them money. And reducing the value of licenses (since its "stable" for a shorter period of time)
If I were them, I would wait a couple of weeks (so that they get the entire benefit from their announcement today of this new build), and then re-release their software as stable -- even if no changes were made to it during that period.
This thing has been in beta since 2013. It's been tested enough. It's ready.
(And to ST: if you want free advice on your release process, you're more than welcome to email me. Or at least talk/consult with someone with product management experience.. your software is great, but this release process needs to be fixed.)
Let me compare this to how I decide if something should be released: Is it stable (ie: it doesnt crash frequently)? Did I add some features so I can tell users its better than the last version? If you answered yes to those questions, then fix any major bugs and ship the thing as stable.
You would have been on 3.0 stable a long time ago.
I also would package each of these fairly minor releases as 3.x.. so this release would probably be 3.25 or something.
Why? You mark it as stable so new users (who aren't aware of your process) know they can use this (and you can close the sale). You want people to feel like the project is active, and they're getting a good deal for the license.. which feels like a better deal to you? - I bought ST2 and will get ST3 - I bought ST 3.0, and received over 30 releases from 3.0 to 3.30.
Yes, well over 90% of Package Control users are running Sublime Text 3.
This is a warning sign. You were so conservative with marking it stable, that the users have made the decision for you. The beta is now your product, and if you break it, that will be your reputation. You no longer have a real beta.