Grease Monkee wrote:
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.
As I said, it's not specifically developers that I'm blaming here. It
seems to be a system-wide thing.
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.
If stable versions turns out to be a disaster for some reason it should
be perfectly straightforward to just turn it off again.
Many previous dramatic new additions to Wikipedia's functionality were
just dropped in our laps without extensive testing or demanding that
every t be crossed in the policies relating to its use beforehand.
Categories, templates, cite.php, semi-protection, the disabling of
article creation by anons - as far as I can tell from my view from the
trenches these things just dropped into our laps and we went on to
figure out what the best way to handle them was largely through trial
and error. Why not stable versions?