Re: How stable is 2.9.0?

>> 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		[email protected]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B