I wanted to explain our current naming conventions for releases.  Jon and I have pretty much started at Alpha 1.0 and kept counting up.  We will soon be at Alpha 3 in our iterative cycle.  The cycle will continue until the code is deemed beta [ 85 percent functional at least] and then release level.  The phases are a different story in that they concentrate on core features.

 Phase I is getting the new core and framework API's in and consolidating a lot of good code into better code.  We want to use phase I as the phase in which all the framework foundation is layed out.  We are using only jons dev folder to concentrate on one base.  IMO we are not ready to post something to test or devInt and most solidify this version.   Jon changes so many namespaces and refactors so much that I want to wait for a final code freeze on the framework before pushing code to test SVN.

 Phase II will be UI improvements such as skins/themes with master pages.   I personally dont like how themes break the portal and will see a better fix to this.  There is way too much UI code just to do a presentation layer.  I for one think that Rainbow should use a standard on presentation and soon go to XHTML Strict therefore letting CSS control full presentation.  This is a bit harsh for a first release so I chose the Traditional 1.0 way.  However, now at least we have a XHTML standard portal.  Rainbow 2.0 begins to evolve more and more away from Rainbow 2006 or former 1.1 versions with new improvments.  The coolest thing is that for upgrades, the only thing that need change is the assemblies and portals/design directories.
Phase II will also include .NET apis to be introduced such as Membership and Permission API.

 Phase III will be QA and more testing.  I want to really certify that rainbow is a stable product.  Of course there will be QA and unit testing along the way but I would like to bring in some users of rainbow to test before the release.