On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
But in this one particular instance of the stable version feature, I
must admit that I have become tremendously frustrated
by how long
something like this been promised but not delivered.
Stable versions doesn't need a single new line of code - only the will of
the community to implement it (and maybe some leadership). Sure, software
can help, but the community is hardly in a position to blame developers for
not giving the community a spine.
some questions-
* Have our best featured article writers, photographers and content creators
been involved in specifying what the stable version feature entails? If not,
who has decided what a stable version should be?
* Where is the documentation of what, exactly, a stable version should be?
If it doesn't exist, or hasn't been tested and widely evaluated, how can
software for it be written?
* What's the wisdom of implementing a feature like this without running some
simple trials (mind numbingly simple, actually) - like protecting a vetted
article and sending new editing to a subpage - and then asking our best
content creators to evaluate the process and write a procedure for revision
rolls?
I don't expect it's
any specific person's fault, perhaps just a
systemic problem resulting
from the crossover of the software development side and the editor side
of decision-making processes, but from the outside it's not obvious what
the holdup is.
From my point of view, the holdup _should_ be to not
kill the goose that
laid the golden egg (wide open editing) - lets be very very
careful with
what gets tinkered with.
see also -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WellOiledMachine/Wikipedia_released