I certainly wouldn't wish to discourage anyone from editing etc by introducing unnecessary procedures. However, I think we need a little more clarity.
Problem 1. If Massimo is only going to make a final decision about backwards-compatibility on an annual basis, this is a very long time. Could we not include this question of stability and backwards- compatibility within the version numbering? e.g. can we not have LTS versions periodically? Problem 2. The online book is currently not authoritative in any way. The only way in which we can currently see what is really stable and correct is by seeing what is in the printed version. Ideally the online book would be color-coded, or at least a diff available online so we can see what may have been added/amended. Problem 3. The online book may have been edited by someone with as little knowledge as I!! Of course I am cautious when editing, but shouldn't there be some guidelines for reviews by someone more senior? Typos and minor corrections = everyone. Major corrections, additional examples = review by active member of developer group. Problem 4: We never know what might have changed. I believe it would be very helpful if there was a change diff or log available for edits so that we may see what has changed and then perhaps we can review each other's edits more easily. In any case, I am sure that many of us would like to know what has changed as any new examples and such can be very interesting. Sorry if these ideas are unpractical or burdensome, it is just my 2 cts. Thanks, D
