[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>, Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zigzag] GZigZag 0.5.0 has been released]
- From: Edward Harter <eharter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:34:25 +0900
- Cc: ZZ Development <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20010122184422.A25496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <20010122183729.B29619@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20010122184422.A25496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > This, after stating in the previous sentence that "We...acknowledge
> that there may be problems", strongly suggests to me that you mean a
> version _other than_ 0.5.0
No, I mean 0.5.0. Stable, after all, means "not moving". By nobody's
(except, perhaps, the marketer's) definition does it mean "bugless".
Of course, there have not been any "rock solid use this to guide your
nuclear missiles" releases. That should be evident from the "0." prefix
in the version number.
And there will NEVER be such releases. There are NO GUARANTEES associated
with the code.
The point of 0.5.0 is that if you find a bug, we'll fix it and release
0.5.1 with only small bug fixes - no new features between 0.5.* so that
we end up with stabler and stabler versions.
If I may, let me suggest that more is being read into my request than
I intended with my original question. I certainly have no intention
of guiding nuclear missiles with - or without!! - the excellent
program and system that GZigzag is developing into.
Nor am I trying to pin down the work being done by the development
team in Finland to a 'safety above all, make no daring changes, get
it working at all costs' style of development. However, the 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.
This branched version option was developed to address and resolve two
problems: firstly, to give the biggest supporters of Gzz (including
its inventor and designer, BTW) a 'usable' program, even during its
pre-release stages; and secondly tp allow the coding and development
team, which is comprised of a number of brilliant, idiosyncratic, and
inner-directed individuals, a chance to explore a variety of options,
in a variety of ways, based largely, though not entirely, on criteria
of their own devising.
Were this branch structure to be successfully put into place it would
allow the 'futuristic', leading-edge development threads and
functionality to be folded into the 'stable version' on a case by
case basis when these functions were ready - 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.
P.S. AJ, I think you may be confusing 'stasis' as in, 'we put him
into the Chrono-Warp field for thirteen centuries, and when we
finally released him from his stasis he hadn't changed or aged one
iota'; with 'stable', as in 'the Gossamer Condor, though not as
reliable as a 747-400 or an Airbus, was stable enough, and safe
enough, to be pedaled across the English Channel by one man, thereby
vindicating both the dreams of the inventor and the excellence of the
engineering team who built this human-powered plane, in its triumphal