From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12817 invoked from network); 29 May 2000 18:01:50 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 29 May 2000 18:01:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 24025 invoked by alias); 29 May 2000 18:01:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3108 Received: (qmail 24017 invoked from network); 29 May 2000 18:01:19 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1000529180104.ZM1751@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:01:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to James Kirkpatrick "Re: Stable?" (May 29, 10:21am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Stable? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 29, 10:21am, James Kirkpatrick wrote: } Subject: Re: Stable? } } OK, I'll play "straight man" in this exchange. } } If it's changing so fast, how can it be called stable :-) It doesn't crash or behave in a destructive manner, i.e., a particular installation can be stable if you're not trying to follow every little change via the CVS server on sourceforge.net. } Perhaps one needs to distinguish between "stable" and } "production-quality". If the changes are bug fixes then I'd not call it } production-ready. If the changes are additional new features, or the bugs } are extremely obscure, then I might. Most of the bugs are obscure. Occasionally one becomes less obscure in the course of attempting to fix the obscure ones. But new features are still being added, too, which means still more obscure bugs. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net