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.