Robert P. J. Day wrote:

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

Robert P. J. Day wrote:

quoted

quoted

i'm sure i'm going to get shouted down here, but i really disagree
with "BROKEN" being considered a "maturity level".  IMHO, things
like EXPERIMENTAL, DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE represent maturity
levels, for what i think are obvious reasons.

something like BROKEN, though, has *nothing* to do with maturity.
a feature can be any of those maturity levels, and simultaneously
be BROKEN.  i consider BROKEN to be what i call a "status", and
different status levels might be the default of normal, or
KIND_OF_FLAKY or TOTALLY_BORKED -- that's where BROKEN would fit
in.

BROKEN is definitely a maturity level.

no.  it's not.  end of discussion.  you're wrong.

the concept of "maturity level" reflects where in the life cycle some
feature is.  it will typically start as "bleeding edge" or
"experimental" or something like that, eventually stabilize to be
normal (which would be the obvious default), after which, when its
value starts to run out and it begins showing its age, it becomes
"deprecated" and eventually "obsolete"  it's a natural and obvious
progression.

on the other hand, a feature can be "broken" at *any* point in that
life cycle -- that's why it is absolutely *not* a maturity level.
please don't fight with me on this, jeff.  you're simply wrong.

Get off your high horse and actually look at the patches that mark 
things BROKEN.

'deprecrated' and 'obsolete' are matters of discussed opinion, 
describing the utility of the code in question.  'broken' describes the 
state of the code itself.

Clear difference.

	Jeff, one who actually marks this stuff as such