Re: Stable?

[Nemeth Ervin <airwin@inf.bme.hu>]

>>>>> Bart Schaefer writes:

> 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.

So far I've learned that zsh-3.1 is very stable, contains a dosen of new
features and deveoped since a couple of years.

May I suggest closing the 3.0 series declaring it "obsolote" -- no more
bugfixes in it, and "freezing" the 3.1 series to a distibutable package --
probably with versioning 3.2.*.

It would have the advantage that the "development" and "stable" series would
have a smaller Eucledian distance, facilitating the patching of both versions.

I'm only a humble user so I haven't got any word here.  It's up to you, dear
developers.

Thank you for listening.

-- 
Ervin

	"Natura unum os et duas aures nobis dedit, quasi admoneret, ut multa
	audiremus et pauca diceremus."