We have been using leo for several years now. Although we are not
primarily programmers, we have quite a bit of experience using python
to help solve the problems on which we are working. We use leo kind of
like someone might use MathCad or some similar product -- as opposed
to using it to develop and maintain a set of tools, which presumably
you would be maintaining your upkeep of leo and your leo files as
well.

Installation has never been too big of an issue for us. However,
another aspect of getting people to use a tool the way we are, is the
aspect stability and maintainability of the product. Perhaps one might
consider "how hard is it for me to upgrade?" and "what does upgrading
mean to my existing files?". We are now in a situation where we have
many leo files, some are two or more years old and some are new; they
used different features some that might be deprecated and some that
work just fine -- well, certainly everything works with the version we
are currently running which is quite old (11/2010). We're not sure if
we should attempt 4.9 final or some delayed build that might have an
issue that was fixed but we don't know about it.

One way we have started to deal with the issue, is to use less
functionality within leo and put as much information in separate files
rather than in leo itself. The consequence of this is not using leo
for what it *could* be used for, but also increases the annoyance of
the "line" noise as mentioned in this post. There is also a
consequence of not wanting our whole team to use it for fear of the
overhead to maintain differences and issues.

I would like to hear anyone's thoughts on upgrading from 4.8 or if
there might be a better way that we could approach these issues.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.

Reply via email to