On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:39:51AM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > Switching or not to 1.4 has *nothing* to do with the stability of 1.4.0. > > Yes, not of 1.4.0 anymore, but of current 1.4svn. And that does still > suffer from a too early released 1.4.0.
1.4.0 was not released 'too early' if 'early' is supposed to specify some point in real time (as opposed to characterizing a state). On the contrary, it was released half a year, or even a year too late as there has been no real development in the feature freeze phase. And that was not just 'no new features', but also 'no bugfixing'. The result was a pretty broken 1.4.0 that most people just wanted to get out no matter how it looked like. So far the process leading to 1.5.0 has been quite a bit more effective. Although we had new features creeping in (and also new features creating bugs of their own for that matter) there has been a significant amount of bugfixing, too. And contrary to the 1.4.0 release phase when we lost or were about to lose developpers we actually gained some this time. 1.5.0svn is probably on par with 1.4.1 or even 1.4.2 stability-wise as far as I can tell. People unhappy with that state will (and probably should) stick to 1.3.7. > > Are you kidding me? "fundamental design principles" and "LyX" do not fit > > very well together... > > I hope this was friday speak, otherwise you just insulted several > developers (not me, but if you look at the lfun mechanism at least > Jean-Marc and Angus). I would uphold that claim even on non-Fridays. But you folks are probably used to my manners by now... There is no single design priciple I can name from the top of my head that's been followed to a degree in LyX that I'd call 'sensible' (i.e. neither superficial, nor dogmatic, rather 'pragmatic'). Sure there's a lot principles to be found... Andre'
