>> But a lot of development versions, especially for open-source >> software, are plenty usable enough. [...] So, my question is, is >> 2.9.0 in good enough shape that I should (FWVO "should") use it, or >> would 2.8.9 be better? > Thomas will be more modest, but basically every 'dev' release of Lynx > is rock steady [...]
That does not surprise me. lynx appears to be done (what I consider) right in a lot of other respects; it is no surprise to hear that its release engineering is also done right. > Now if you are really leaping forward from a 1999 release, there may > be differences which bug you. There may indeed be. Right now I'm more interested in differences which _don't_ bug me, such as - I hope! - fixing the memory-management bugs I tripped over. (And, if it doesn't, then either I'll be able to contribute a fix or I'll have a test case I can pass off to someone who _can_ fix it.) > You should leap forward and then report any issues, so that they will > cease being issues. My experience has been that my idea of an issue doesn't always line up with a software project's idea of an issue. (But I do expect that the two will line up better in lynx's case.) The effort involved in a leap forward is rather high, though. I don't know how soon I'll find the round tuits for it. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
