I think we are seeing something I like to call deadline creep. When a plan to execute a strategy starts to lose traction then there is a change to allow more breathing room. But the change has to be done in a way that nobody loses face, and it has to be done in a way that makes it look like it was part of the big plan all along.
 
This is how I see the early release program. Monthly releases were getting hard to do so now we have almost monthly releases supplemented by an early release program. When monthly releases started the message was that things were in place months before they were released. Now it seems that maybe it's not quite like that.
 
The monthly release is now a blurry deadline and that makes it hard to hold people accountable. What is considered as missing the target now? It's April 4th and no official release. Is it late? Depends on who you ask. Once you cross that line then you may as well change the policy to say that releases will be dropped as they become available.
 
I see this as a pure management issue. It's not a cheap shot at Cakewalk. I've been there. All we can say for sure, is that this release will come sometime before the next one.

FWIW....  the company I work for also uses "EAP" for pre-commercial release builds.  They used to be referred to as betas years ago, but as Craig pointed out the builds tend to come later during the cycle, hence EAP vs. Beta.   Not necessarily something many outside of the software world might know though since the term "beta" has been around a lot longer. 
 
Either way, one of Noel's posts in some other thread mentioned a fix already based on some analytics issue someone found in the first EAP.   I read that as a worthwhile EAP!   
 

I'd like to call it Lucille.
 
But John says I can't.
 

bapu
I'd like to call it Lucille.
 
But John says I can't.
 

I was thinking of calling it Charlie but then, you know, I thought better of it.  BTW Charlie is the Army's phonetic for C. 

bapu
I'd like to call it Lucille.
 
But John says I can't.
 

Do not anybody tell you what you can and cannot call it You can even say it loud (to yourself)..
What everybody else calls it might differ

 

FanCake
There was already another thread about this and I think the reaction was good.

If I was to nitpick I would say make sure at least basic release notes get supplied simultaneously and don't be afraid to call it a beta rather than an Early Access Program. The ezine was supplied however within 24 hours of release. It wasn't a bad first run at it so QDOS to Cakewalk.

 

John
"Don't be afraid to call it a beta"? 
 
It isn't a beta so it shouldn't be called that. All you are doing is confusing the definition of terms. That is not helpful. 

John
I already said "if I was to nitpick" and now you edit that out to emphasis your point, make me look as though I am pushing it hard, and call me "not helpful" without giving any real reason whatsoever. Why can these forums be sometimes so aggressive?
 
From my pov, there is nothing derogatory whatsoever about assigning a status. Calling it a beta does not make the product inferior, and that's why I said "don't be afraid". It could also be called a "release candidate" but that doesn't really encourage a call to arms. I observe fixes have already been put in place before final release, and that is to be expected and is actually very good news indeed. What actually matters is the final release.
 
But as I said I was "nitpicking", I also gave a point of view, and you appear to think I should not be allowed to give it. I also said QDOS to Cakewalk, just in case you forgot, because I think they've handled all this pretty well. You decide however to make a "silly argument" out of it. Can we avoid this in future please as it is not constructive and a total waste of time. If you have another pov then fine, but there's no need to be rude.

 

FanCake
I don't care what your reasoning is its called early release.  Nor do I care much about your point of view.  All you have done is put that idea in the minds of the readers. Its so much like what went on when the membership program was introduced. It caused havoc and required constant education on what the program really was. This thread is meant to prevent that kind of thing from getting started.  
 
I believe that is your intention here. I ask you to act responsibly and refrain from posting false information.
 
Instead try helping with a problem a member is having. Answer questions that you know the answer to. Be a helpful member. If that is not why you are here then you may be asked to leave.  

So there it is in your own words, I am not allowed to express opinion unless you agree with it. I've already stated several times these releases are a good thing and Cakewalk have handled it very well.  It's a good step forward. I am a big fan of the release schedule as well, so none of the above is making any sense for me  whatsoever.
 
I also don't understand you banging on against being factual, what actual facts are actually being discussed here? I was expressing an opinion on how the release should be labelled. That has nothing to do with what I think of the software or facts?? I even called my OWN point of view "nit picking" because I regarded what I was saying as fairly trivial. It's a pity you didn't take it as intended and decided to make some big deal out of it.
 
I assume you have some sort of big problem with people mentioning the word "beta" as though it is somehow derogatory, it actually isn't, it is a technical term and is often used for pre-releases. Please try to understand what I'm explaining to you and stop taking unnecessary offense when there is none intended. Beta software can actually be VERY stable.
 
... and now I am being threatened with a ban again? Really?

Anderton
As to beta vs. early release vs. release candidate vs. whatever, the reason for any confusion is basically the same problem we had with membership vs. subscription - something was being done that didn't fit into a conventional definition. The traditional progression for a release is:
 
beta > release candidate > official release
 
Cakewalk has modified that to:
 
beta > release candidate > early access release > official release
 
Given the above, it's not really a beta, it's not really a release candidate, it's not the official release, and in theory, changes won't be made to an early access release (although in this case, they were).
 
So, I'm fine with doing the neologism thing and calling it "early release."

And I totally respect this opinion. Thanks for not breathing down my throat.

I'm gonna go with process improvement. I feel no need to defend my choice. I think these guys are good. I was in commercial software dev. and in large corp orgs. Now I am just a retired hobbist "Walter Middy" type maybe. The constant ringing in my head makes me question my mixes so never trust me on any of that. I know a bit about process. They are good and for me (pre paid discount) they are cheap. I'm too old to be called a fan boy.
 
Improved customer interaction/input and increased definition for quality of an official release.
 
If your life doesn't depend on it try the first chance you get, just like always for my experience, only better.
 
Jerry

It is unbelievable that the beginning of such a thread would start firing up some anger and word twisting to the point of some members getting mad. 

I'm on the fence ;) Bata OR PreLease? Taamatooz Toomotooz
it's still not ready for the bakers to release it yet.
 
Seems the debate has started here in some way... ;)