Hi AJ,
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: starting with"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."
... and"- >>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??
Cheers, edward harter