Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27/05/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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