On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First look should rather be stable than full of potentially > rushed-in features IMO; it's a development platform after all :) > And MT doesn't look like a one week feature, next version is > not just about MT even. I agree that we need stable releases ( also more frequents, last was almost a year ago ) but I can't understand why "wasting" and event like 1.0 with a simply "stable release". If we agree that the releases are for the "mass", the "mass" need good reasons to use Harbour and stability is "obvious" ( nodoby release "unstable" or at least nobody say so ). 1.0 need to be "revolutionary" or at least be comparable feature by feature with other similar solutions and be better on many of them, since everybody expects that 1.0.x or 1.x will fix the bugs. best regards, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
