The blog post "Explainer: What's R1 and Everything Else?" clarifies the confusing terminology surrounding pre-production hardware, particularly for Apple products. It explains that "R1" is a revision stage, not a specific prototype, and outlines the progression from early prototypes (EVT, DVT) to pre-production models (PVT) nearing mass production. Essentially, an R1 device could be at any stage, though it's likely further along than EVT/DVT. The post emphasizes that focusing on labels like "R1" isn't as informative as understanding the underlying development process. "Everything Else" encompasses variations within each revision, accounting for different configurations, regions, and internal testing purposes.
This blog post, titled "Explainer: What's R1 and Everything Else?", by Tim Kellogg, delves into the intricacies of release management, specifically focusing on the nomenclature surrounding pre-release and release candidate software versions. The author aims to clarify the often confusing terminology used in this process, providing a detailed explanation of terms like "R1," "Alpha," "Beta," "RC," and "GA."
The post begins by establishing the context of software releases, highlighting the iterative nature of development and the need for various stages of testing before a product reaches general availability. It then introduces the concept of "R1" (Release 1), which signifies the first official, production-ready release of a software product. This is distinguished from pre-release versions, which are used for internal testing and feedback gathering.
The author proceeds to meticulously define the different pre-release stages. "Alpha" represents the earliest testable version of the software, often containing incomplete features and significant bugs. This stage primarily focuses on internal testing by the development team to identify and address major issues. The subsequent "Beta" stage involves a wider audience of external testers, providing valuable feedback on usability, performance, and stability. Beta releases are generally more stable than Alpha releases but may still contain known bugs.
Next, the post discusses "Release Candidates" (RC), which are essentially potential final releases. These versions undergo rigorous testing to ensure they meet the quality standards for general availability. If no significant issues are discovered during RC testing, the software progresses to the "General Availability" (GA) or "R1" stage. The author emphasizes the significance of GA, marking the official release of the software to the public.
Furthermore, the post explores the concept of subsequent releases, denoted by "R2," "R3," and so on. These represent major updates or new versions of the software, often introducing new features or significant improvements. The author also touches upon the idea of "patch" releases, which address minor bugs or security vulnerabilities within a specific release cycle (e.g., "R1.1," "R1.2"). These patches are intended to maintain the stability and functionality of the existing release without introducing major changes.
Finally, the post clarifies the distinction between marketing and engineering terminology. While marketing teams might use terms like "Beta" or "Early Access" to generate excitement and gather early feedback, the engineering perspective focuses on the technical readiness of the software, adhering to the defined stages of Alpha, Beta, RC, and GA. The author concludes by reiterating the importance of understanding these terms for effective communication and collaboration within software development teams.
Summary of Comments ( 49 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42827601
Hacker News users discuss Tim Kellogg's blog post explaining R1, a new startup accelerator. Several commenters express skepticism about the program's focus on "pre-product" companies, questioning how teams without a clear product vision can be effectively evaluated. Some see the model as potentially favoring founders with pre-existing networks and resources, while others are concerned about the equity split and the emphasis on "blitzscaling" before achieving product-market fit. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that R1 might fill a gap in the current accelerator landscape by providing early-stage support for truly innovative ideas, though these views are in the minority. There's also a discussion about the potential conflict of interest with Kellogg's role at Khosla Ventures, with some wondering if R1 is primarily a deal flow pipeline for the VC firm.
The Hacker News post linked has a moderate number of comments discussing the linked blog post about R1, a new programming language. Several of the comments delve into specific aspects of the language and offer comparisons to existing languages.
One compelling thread discusses the garbage collection strategy of R1. A commenter points out that R1 uses a tracing garbage collector, questioning its suitability for real-time applications due to potential pauses. This sparks a discussion about the trade-offs between different garbage collection methods and the challenges of achieving true real-time performance with managed languages. Another commenter mentions the use of "regions" in R1's memory management and how it might mitigate some of the issues associated with tracing garbage collection, though the specifics aren't fully explored.
Another interesting comment chain revolves around R1's syntax and its similarities to Rust. Commenters debate the benefits and drawbacks of borrowing concepts from existing languages, touching on the learning curve for new users and the potential for attracting developers already familiar with similar languages. The discussion also explores the idea of "modern" language design and whether R1's approach represents a genuine advancement or simply a rehash of existing ideas.
Several commenters express curiosity about the practical applications of R1, particularly in the context of web development. There's some speculation about whether R1 could be a viable alternative to JavaScript or other languages commonly used for web development, but no definitive conclusions are reached.
A few commenters mention the lack of readily available learning resources for R1, expressing a desire for more documentation and tutorials. This highlights the early stage of the language's development and the challenges of attracting a wider user base.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of curiosity, skepticism, and cautious optimism about R1. While many commenters acknowledge the potential of the language, there are also concerns about its practicality and the need for further development and community growth. Several commenters also point out areas where they would like to see more information or clarification from the language's creators.