Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: Stable?

>>>>> 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

Thank you for listening.


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

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author