On Apr 27, 9:52 am, villas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
It is not like a make the decision annually. The decision is a process. The book is printed annulally thus making it officially. > 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. I disagree. > 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? So far we did not have the problem. Edits have been good and helpful. > 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. This is a good point. I could edit the app and publish diffs. It would be useful but it not going to happen overnight.
