[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zigzag] GZigZag 0.5.0 has been released]
- To: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zigzag] GZigZag 0.5.0 has been released]
- From: Edward Harter <eharter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:19:04 +0900
- Cc: ZZ Development <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
No, I'm not. "Stable" is a common term in software development, and in
that context it means that the software is not a moving target.
Fine; stable is a long-established term and has a _number_ of uses in
software development, and in other areas of development. I hope you
don't want us to think that we would let you arrogate to yourself the
one and only meaning of 'stable', when it, and the concept and goals
implied in the use of it, is such a crucial factor in this project
from the point of view of the user? And as I have tried to point out
in some detail, we just don't agree with your definition as it stands.
The definition as I understand it was as described by the following:
"users - among them myself, Ted, Marlene, and (I hope) many others
now and in the near future - would like a usable text-entry and
editing tool, and that a quote >>'stable, branched version'<< (or
something, I believe, very similar to that) was discussed and agreed
to some months ago."
"- >>stable, from the user's point of view<<, in the sense of working
well; working smoothly; and when there is a crash or hiccup, to fail
gently and without destroying more than a smidgeon of user data when
it does so."
Is there something in what I am writing that isn't sufficiently clear
to you AJ?
Or do you feel that these desires on the part of the user are
unreasonable? Can that possibly be so??