Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That wouldn't really solve the problem at all - it's quite possible to have a stable-but-crap article. "Stable" only really means "pretty likely it doesn't say Joe is Gay anywhere"...
If you apply that limitation to stable versions you are right. Stable versioning, however, should be developed to the point where it can do a lot more.
Mmmm.... then we're really talking reviewed versions, or finalised versions, or revision rating structures, or something like that.
Yes, whatever we choose to call it.
I tnink it's best to get *some* kind of stable versioning live and working before we start trying to load it with jobs to do, otherwise we'll never get anything. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that.
True enough. Though with something like the most basic concept of stable versioning that was discussed last summer I am often guilty of thinking, "What the hell's taking so long?"
Ec