Re: critical issues

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Saturday, January 01, 2011 7:16 AM


> Nope, for precisely the reason you gave earlier: our documentation
> generally has zero input from programmers, so it's not at all a
> good representation of "what's intended".
>
> We have a set of "intended to be working" examples.  They're
> called the regression tests.  No more, no less.  If a patch breaks
> those, then we reject the patch.  If we notice in time.
>
> Look, we simply *cannot* offer users anything that would be
> "reasonable" by most standards.

[snip persuasive argument]

You're right (as usual :)  In our circumstances we must
be pragmatic.

> I think our best bet is:
> 1. stabilize and release 2.14, using the most restrictive
> interpretation of "stabilize" and "critical issue" we can.
> 2. drastically reduce (or abandon entirely) development for 3
> months while we sort out the GOP policy questions (many of which
> should ease future development)
> 3. start picking up the pieces and try to recruit more
> contributors.

OK, I can go along with this.

Trevor