> That tide's only the linux users, and the linux users who care what > kernel they're running. I'm an ex-sysadmin, pretty solid unix geek, > and I nowadays run whatever my distro comes with - as long as it > supports what I want to do, I don't care. I don't think that saying > "it's what linux does" is enough to carry the day by itself. I suspect > that if you want to go with the flow, we should follow the approach that > Microsoft uses to mark their unstable releases. (And I'm _not_ going to > use any one of the many, many cheap shots about unstable MS releases > that I have in my head here - feel free to substitute your own. :) Cheap shots aside, another possibility would be to simply start *every* minor (2.x) release off as unstable, releasing frequent experimental micro (2.x.y) releases as a substitute for alpha/beta releases, and then at some point declare it stable. At that point, the previous stable release (2.(x-1)) becomes deprecated and largely unmaintained (except for backporting some killer bugs -- the mode we seem to be in for 2.1.3 already), 2.x starts issueing micro releases that mostly fix bugs or add very non-controversial features, and 2.(x+1) is started for new development. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4