From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/34380 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "fdu.xiaojf@gmail.com" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: ConTeXt versioning model critique Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:31:28 +0800 Message-ID: <4628B2A0.1040902@gmail.com> References: <823522955.20070414142904@gmail.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1177073749 28743 80.91.229.12 (20 Apr 2007 12:55:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:55:49 +0000 (UTC) To: Yatskovsky , mailing list for ConTeXt users Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Apr 20 14:55:40 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HeseK-0000mm-Pg for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE308200E1; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:38 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23672-03; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D84200DB; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B33200DB for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:30 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22889-05-2 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from sunm.shcnc.ac.cn (unknown [159.226.128.8]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 941D5200CD for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:55:26 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sunm.shcnc.ac.cn (4U Message Server) with ESMTP id CE409E4806C; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:41:09 +0800 (CST) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [202.127.19.74]) by sunm.shcnc.ac.cn (4U Message Server) with ESMTP id A1748E48067; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:41:08 +0800 (CST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) In-Reply-To: <823522955.20070414142904@gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:34380 Archived-At: 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.