Re: ConTeXt versioning model critique

["fdu.xiaojf@gmail.com" <fdu.xiaojf@gmail.com>]

Vyatcheslav Yatskovsky wrote:
> Dear Patrtic,
>
>   
>> ... ConTeXt would probably stabilize, which IMHO is not a good thing.
>> One thing I really love ConTeXt for is the speed new techniques are
>> adopted (pdf features, luatex,...) One day we might have a ConTeXt
>> MKII book for those who are afraid of swithing to pdftex2.
>>     
>
> ConTeXt should be eventually stabilized so that someone can make some use of it. But, there is a way for rapid adopting of new techniques too.
>
> My experience of using open-source products (I'm best familiar with Moodle) suggest that there should be overlapping cycles in development:
> 1. Allocate new version number and start implementing new features.  Many things are broken at the moment and the version becomes unusable for production purposes. 
> 2. Stabilize this version and make definite release (number x.x.). Now it can be used for production.
> 3. Continue resolve bugs in this version AND perform Step 1 IN PARALLEL.
>
> Moodle follows this model and I always wandered how smooth it was to migrate between releases. Everything is completely predictable.
> Please, look at http://download.moodle.org/ to get the idea of their versioning.
>
> I think ConTeXt needs similar versioning model badly. Now it has rather naive model (release dates) that doesn't help in deciding about stability at all.
>
>   
  I strongly agree that ConTeXt needs an improved versioning model.