[discussion] Schema of Valentina server licensing

[Robert Brenstein]

>I don't get your point here... What you're criticising is just the name!!
>The 'beta' 1.9.8 beta x is nothing else as a bugfix-release for 1.9.7 -> so
>just rename your 1.9.8 beta to something like 1.9.7r4 and you have
>automagically gotten what you're looking for ;-)

Yes, you may call it hair-splitting and yes, I agree that this is of 
little relevance to core Valentina users. However, I am concerned 
also about the long-term viability of Valentina and thus the 
marketting in general. My original suggestion was for Ruslan to 
change the strategy of upgrades a bit to apease more people than just 
core developers. Unfortunately, it involves more than just changing 
name.

>  > Since beta releases can (and are) buggy (which is partly why there
>>  are so many of them), I should not be FORCED to join beta testing.
>>  Instead, a bug fix release for current official 1.9.7 should be
>>  issued.
>
>If you do NOT want to join beta testing, simply ignore the betas and just
>grab the one which fixes your bug, which is mostly few hours after you
>reported it -> I don't know of ANY other software-company, that gives you
>this amount of attention... I was always quite happy with this strategy!

I don't complain about the service and frequency of beta releases. 
Heck, I benefited from that myself a couple times when I was in a 
tight spot. So, no, I do NOT advocate to change this. I ask to offer 
some of same benefits to people who are reluctant for whatever reason 
to join the beta program by offering public bug fixes. One practical 
difference is that you can issue a PR about a public bug fix whereas 
it may be not appropriate to issue those for betas.

Robert