| [AD] "unstable" terminology |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [AD] "unstable" terminology
- From: Matthew Leverton <meffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:52:19 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VdGSqvnP3ppuY2A/7jERO0Dg4RhKi9w15CW83XHcB1crdhmaXqa5ZoW3sV9A7qLuEZuFiAF8rDbkhUutN8UBNEaHS6FzraK8Ezfkok0U2tfcEPzE0G2XEE8W4pS//07/OpXomczlSZKIy2KBjvU//6rvnckcvs6YgEmx0gJHGyM=
At http://alleg.sourceforge.net/wip.html the word "unstable" preceeds
"development". Is it really necessary? I think it scares some people
away from using it (even the ones that are comfortable with installing
from source). I propose that we just call them the "stable" and
"developmental" branches on the website.
I'm sure unstable is meant to primarily mean "it changes from release
to release ", but I bet most people infer that it is unfit for use.
Also, is "developEment" (with the E) a british thing? ;) In any case,
"development" is a noun, so -al should be added.
--
Matthew Leverton - matthew@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.allegro.cc