Re: vars naming scheme concerns
[=- Thomas Roessler wrote on Fri 2.Jun'06 at 15:44:29 +0200 -=]
> > Well, but then they (stable users) will meet the pain
> > anyway.
>
> Those who use the things that have changed will meet the pain
> anyway. With a new variable name scheme, basically everybody
> will meet this pain, plus you invalidate a lot of advice that's
> available online, just because it uses the old configuration
> scheme.
I see you are still pulling the "numbers" card.
Let's see:
- How many people _having_ customized configs will _not_ use
"alternates"?
- How many really hit with _extra_ config change does it take to
block development?
- How many on-line docs being outdated does it need to block
changes? 10? 5? 2? 1?
Imagine that since mutt came to world there have been docs for it.
Some of them maybe never have changed, applying to versions prior
1.0 . They _are_ already outdated, and I don't mean just the
recent changes of "dev".
But the world continued without stopping just for those
unmaintained sites. Did it hurt? Sure, those unlucky still hitting
on those. But did it hurt mutt or the user who hit the wrong page
first?
No, mutt is better than ever before.
No, the user simply finds the next, better suited site.
Once the new state has been established along with _maintained_
docs on the net, they will come first when being searched for.
You can not save _all_ from pain, and you definitely still _will_
inflict pain. But they'll get over it and mutt, life, the world
will still continue, but better than before.
There will be a short time of crying ... but please, just forward
them to me!
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.