On sexta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2012 11.43.19, Laszlo Papp wrote: > Perhaps, I was unclear. I think he raised a valid concern about the > "stable" name, but that does not mean I support "testing".
No, he didn't. His logic was flawed (as often his arguments are). He said: "A release is implicitly stable, so the converse usually also holds true: stable is released." He says that the converse usually holds true. First of all, converses usually do not hold true. Conditions that are both necessary and sufficient are the exception, not the rule. Second, it does not hold in this case either. A release is implicitly stable, or we would not have released. And everything we stabilise, we want to release. But note the time component: there are "stable" things we want to release but have not yet released. I think the name fits just fine. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
