From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24275 invoked from network); 30 May 2000 06:51:40 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 30 May 2000 06:51:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 910 invoked by alias); 30 May 2000 06:51:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 3109 Received: (qmail 902 invoked from network); 30 May 2000 06:51:11 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: kempelen.iit.bme.hu: airwin set sender to airwin@inf.bme.hu using -f Sender: airwin@inf.bme.hu To: "Bart Schaefer" Cc: zsh-users@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Stable? References: <1000529180104.ZM1751@candle.brasslantern.com> From: Nemeth Ervin Date: 30 May 2000 08:50:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of "Mon, 29 May 2000 18:01:04 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> 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."