On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Paul Eggert wrote: > Seriously, though, this business about "experimental" is kind of > demoralizing for users who are reading the manual. Why should they > invest their work in an "experimental" feature?
The C++ skeletons and %destructor seemed to do okay this way, but I don't know the full history there. > >> Perhaps we should move the the experimental features to a branch. On > >> that branch, it'd be OK to describe stuff as experimental in the > >> manual. > > > > CVS branching? > > Yes, that's what I meant. To me branching seems like more trouble than it's worth... even if we had something better than CVS. I might see it differently if we had more developers and more concern with patching previous stable releases. What if we just agree to go through a few test releases first? I think there will be a few users who will be excited enough about some of the features that they'll try them out and give us feedback knowing that their opinions may change the features. When we're ready for a stable release, we can either remove the experimental label or just undocument those features temporarily.
