Grease Monkee wrote:
On 9/8/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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?