Re: yet another undesired 3.1.5-pws-15 change

[Timothy J Luoma <tjlists@bigfoot.com>]

Replying to message of Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:13:33 -0700
	from Wayne Davison <wayne@clari.net>
	regarding ``Re: yet another undesired 3.1.5-pws-15 change ''
	
> Timothy J Luoma writes:
> > ps -- there seem to be a LOT of these types of changes in
> > 3.1.5.... I wish there were more consideration given to keeping
> > things consistent for those who upgrade...
>
> It sounds like you aren't aware that all the 3.1.x releases are in
> development.  The release code-base is currently 3.0.x, with 3.0.6
> just about to be released.  There are bound to be inconsistencies
> (that certainly need to be found and fixed) in the most recent
> development code, so if you're expecting a nice, safe upgrade (rather
> than helping out with the development), you should be using the
> 3.0.x source.

I understand that they are "in development" but are you suggesting that I  
wait until the release has been "finalized" to note "hey, this upgrade breaks  
stuff"?

When the "final" release comes about, it should be (imo) ready to drop in as  
a replacement, meaning that users will _not_ notice any changees unless they  
want to take advantage of them.

The "default" behavior should not change between releases.  For that to  
happen, there need to be people who are not only checking how new features  
work, but how old features work.

Waiting until development is "finished" seems foolish.... after all, are the  
ZSH folks going to want to go back in and start patching things again?  Are  
sysadmins going to be happy when they install the newest "final" version only  
to find out that it isn't backward-compatible, and they either have to a)  
have all their users change the way they work or b) reinstall an older  
version?

Maybe I have some assumptions which are not shared by all:

Don't we want people to use the newest version of zsh (when ready, not beta  
version), assuming it will have fewer bugs?

If NO, why not?

If YES, then does it not also follow that the latest zsh ought to be  
backwards-compatible?

	If NO, then how do "we" expect sysadmins to respond (and users for
	that matter)?  Do we expect them to tweak their various files
	because things have changed?
	
I can tell you that I'm not as apt to install the latest version if it is  
going to break ENV settings, functions, etc.

TjL