Vyatcheslav Yatskovsky wrote:
> Dear Patrtic,
>
>
>> ... ConTeXt would probably stabilize, which IMHO is not a good thing.
>> One thing I really love ConTeXt for is the speed new techniques are
>> adopted (pdf features, luatex,...) One day we might have a ConTeXt
>> MKII book for those who are afraid of swithing to pdftex2.
>>
>
> ConTeXt should be eventually stabilized so that someone can make some use of
> it. But, there is a way for rapid adopting of new techniques too.
>
> My experience of using open-source products (I'm best familiar with Moodle)
> suggest that there should be overlapping cycles in development:
> 1. Allocate new version number and start implementing new features. Many
> things are broken at the moment and the version becomes unusable for
> production purposes.
> 2. Stabilize this version and make definite release (number x.x.). Now it can
> be used for production.
> 3. Continue resolve bugs in this version AND perform Step 1 IN PARALLEL.
>
> Moodle follows this model and I always wandered how smooth it was to migrate
> between releases. Everything is completely predictable.
> Please, look at http://download.moodle.org/ to get the idea of their
> versioning.
>
> I think ConTeXt needs similar versioning model badly. Now it has rather naive
> model (release dates) that doesn't help in deciding about stability at all.
>
>
I strongly agree that ConTeXt needs an improved versioning model.
_______________________________________________
ntg-context mailing list
ntg-context@ntg.nl
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
