Re: ReSpec updated

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 20:38, Michael Cooper wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound
      entitled, but recognize that the wording of my message does sound
      that way. I know Respec is a volunteer project made available for
      free. I would like to be able to contribute and share the load,
      but it uses a technology I just don't have skills in. So I have to
      depend on the people who do maintain it, to do so carefully. I
      think this whole recent episode shows the need to be careful with
      a production version, and to engage more people in review of
      development versions. Though I can't produce useful pull requests,
      I could provide useful input on something that I'm not depending
      on urgently for publication, but haven't known how to engage with
      that process. Michael
 
Apologies accepted. :)
 
I do think the team is quite aware that this update happened in less
than ideal conditions (though again, I can't speak on their behalf).

It might be worth discussing solutions to easily switch to a previous
stable version in case the latest release has bugs which block you from
publishing (I think Shane kind of informally set something of that sort
up recently).
 
--tobie