Change release version naming from Stable to Release

[Flavelius]

This might sound like a swing against godot (it's not), but it's interesting to note that other major game engines and other software don't typically use the term 'stable' in their release naming. It implies heavy QA and only minor outstanding issues. But most software, especially when open source or maintained by voluntary effort can and should probably not imply this by default.
A likely better fit would be to use 'Release'. This softens the expectation that quirks here and there may occur but that the reasonable assumption of a general usability with minor misbehaviours is given in this state where it's being released to the public.
It also conveniently follows the 'Release Candidate' nomenclature.

[AThousandShips]

I don't agree with the notion that "stable" implies anything of the sort, and "stable" indicates that no changes will be done to that specific version, which "release" does not

[Flavelius]

Wikipedia's definition mentions that software with this label typically has passed all stages of verification and tests and that remaining bugs are considered acceptable and that it's ready for production. In the case of such a big open project it's very subjective whether things are acceptable or production ready. But for the sake of progressing forward, in my opinion, every release is more a confident snapshot, even more with godot's accelerated release cycle now. LTS releases like 3.5, in my opinion warrant a 'stable' label.

[AThousandShips]

So you're using "stable" just to mean LTS, but we already call them LTS so what's the difference?

[Flavelius]

None. I didn't want to propose changing them, LTS is fine. But stable has a different meaning to a constantly changing target, that is 4.x in this case.

[AThousandShips]

But 4.x isn't claimed to be stable? But 4.1.0 is, it's equally stable to 3.5.2

[Flavelius]

Then seeing all the 'stable' occurrences in the name of each minor 4.x sub-release is definitely confusing https://downloads.tuxfamily.org/godotengine/ if they don't claim the same stablility as a full 4.1 or 3.5 / LTS release.
It basically comes down to the semantics of stable being stretched a bit much or it being applied too liberally (this way beta1 could be considered stable as well, as it doesn't change anymore after beta2 is being worked on)

[AThousandShips]

4.1.0 has the same stability as 3.5.2 by the definition given, not the assumption of any given individual

Stable as opposed to under development, as opposed to pre-release

[dalexeev]

This change could break CI and similar tools of third party projects, distribution repositories, etc., so we shouldn't change this unless absolutely necessary. This might be acceptable at the very beginning of the major release cycle, but it's too late to change it now, in my opinion.

"stable" in this context is a synonym for "release". The term "release" is used more frequently, such as the name of the category on the blog. "stable" is more of a technical term that can be confusing to new users, indeed. But I don't think this is a problem, as new users usually start selecting the Godot version on the website's download page and don't see the technical term at all. If we need to improve something to help users choose the Godot version, then we need to look there.

Also note that "stable" does not mean "more stable" or "less stable" relative to other releases. This means "stable enough" compared to dev, alpha, beta, and release candidates. We consider the 4.x releases to be "stable enough" to be used in many cases. Even if 3.x releases are "more stable". This is emphasized by the "LTS" status, not "stable".

[Flavelius]

That's a good explanation. Maybe my issue finds a good description in the way that official communication for godot is not specifically designed (as opposed to the marketing of other engines) but just flows naturally between technical and non-technical in the godot community by the nature of being somewhat connected to the internal engine development.

[Calinou]

stable can also be understood in the context of "not changing" rather than a lack of bugs, similar to Debian's terminology.

[Flavelius]

That's where a part of my issue comes from, as godot is constantly changing (apart from the LTS). If not-changing applies to 4.0.2, 4.0.3 etc. then the semantics of not-changing as stable become meaningless, as any beta[X] is also not changing anymore after beta[X+1] is being worked on. But it does make sense as a technical label for internal management as the op here said.

[AThousandShips]

"4.1-beta1" doesn't exist in the codebase though, there's no "4.1-beta1" tag, it only exists as a blog post and similar, the repository only tags things as "4.1-dev", "4.1-beta", "4.1-rc", etc.

[Flavelius]

Maybe my wording was bad, it doesn't change the meaning i wanted to convey. I've adjusted the text.