Chris, you are *not* alone in your need for stability in the sense of
"everything that worked up to now still has to work with the new version".
I have the same requirement, and quite a lot of the professional
typesetters on this list do, too. So even if it does not look like that to
you---I know I was one of those asking you to update---there *is* interest
in that same thing here.
I think the problem here arises because most of the people on this list are
TeX users themselves, not TeX service providers.
Quoting Herbert Schulz (he...@wideopenwest.com):
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> > I think "stable" in terms of "you can safely use this to render your
> > documents" and "stable" in terms of "no unnecessary changed so we know
> > the software using this clearly and predictably works every time" are
> > different senses of the word "stable." I need the latter once the
> > software is installed, you are talking the former.
>
> Of course there is another sense of ``stable'': we're not going to change
> anything even if it doesn't work and has bugs because it's better to know
> your enemy than to find an ew enemy or friend.
You are right, and that's the danger whenever you need a system in the
second listed sense of "stable". A danger Chris, and others with his needs,
is very aware of.
I think it's quite well that this point is being discussed here again.
Perhaps it serves to remind package writers how important backwards
compatibility is, and what a hell they create for their users whenever
backwards compatibility is broken.
Susan
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
