> > can we please put a stop to comments like these, that state or imply > > avalon is not stable, or backwards-compatible? The parts of avalon > that > > are marked as stable are almost as stable as software can get. If you > > disagree with this, please show some concrete examples why this is not > > true. Otherwise, don't say it. > > + A4 -> A5 proposal would have changed just about everything about > how you write and interact with components. (Instability.)
"would have changed". Not: "will change". Before avalon 5 goes alpha this will, highly likely, not be the case. > Do not confuse backwards-compatibility and migration paths with > stability. Backwards compatibility just means "jump later" as > opposed to "jump now". Migration path = I'll show you how to jump. probably true. I think most people do confuse the two. Hence FUD. > > On the one hand I see people talking about better branding and > > marketing, and on the other hand I see (the same) people marking the > > product as unstable. > > And these two things conflict in what way? How many people have mentioned to you over the last few days they are unsure of using avalon because they hear in places it is unstable? The goal of marketing and branding is increasing the user base (besides other things), marking products as unstable decreases the user base. regards, - LSD -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
