au at jrigg.co.uk
Tue Aug 31 09:59:23 PDT 2010
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 06:12:17PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> That depends on how much catching up to the version released at the same
> time the manual has to do. For major Emacs releases, the goal is to
> have the manual up to date by having every part proofread by two
> different persons. That's the main thing holding up major Emacs
> releases; it is rather unpopular work.
You've made some good points about ease of use, but I think the
comparison with Emacs is a little unfair. Emacs has been around for
a lot longer, has had more developers working on it, and AFAIK has
not had any major architectural changes in the last few years (I could
be wrong on the last point).
Ardour has undergone one complete change (from 0.9x to 2.x.x) since
I've been using it, and 3.0, again significantly different, is in
the beta stage. There's only so much one full time developer and a
few part time volunteers can do.
Given the choice I'd rather my subscription went towards increasing
functionality, and while better documentation would be nice, it takes
second place to functionality IMO.
More information about the Ardour-Users