Re: [Libreoffice] [board-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions

People who think there should be zero regressions are welcome to donate the necessary time and 
financial resources to
make it happen.

Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 11:46 +0000, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > This isn't simply a matter of checking and reporting bugs. It involves
> > the Quality of a product this Community claims to be Enterprise ready.
> > IMO there can be NO regressions.
>       Having no regressions is really a feature. That makes it rather
> incompatible with a time-based release schedule. It is also a highly
> expensive feature, and it is unclear who is going to do the work fixing
> every regression in 3.4.x, particularly as the majority of dev. work has
> switched focus to improving 3.5.x, and particularly since many bugs can
> be classed as regressions if we try hard :-)
>
>       I agree with you that the claim of "Enterprise ready" is perhaps
> somewhat misleading and IMHO rather unhelpful. LibreOffice is not
> Enterprise ready without enterprise support (which is capable of fixing
> any regressions or issues a customer may experience). No matter how good
> the job we do, customers will always find more bugs they need fixing,
> regression or not.
>
> > The TDF BoD and the Devs need to make a decision about how to handle this.
>       I would recommend sticking to our time-based release schedule - there
> are rather a number of nice bug fixes in 3.4.5 as it is, I've been
> watching a few longer standing issues get nailed there.
>
>       Having said all that, I don't see that 3.4.5 has to be the last release
> in that series. I anticipate that people will still continue to merge
> critical and/or obviously correct fixes and/or security fixes to the
> libreoffice-3-4 branch, and we may have a 3.4.6 at some stage. We had a
> particularly long 3.5 development cycle, so ...
>
>       Of course, if some enterprise wants to support 3.4.x and continue
> porting fixes to it & releasing they are of course most welcome to do
> that indefinitely.
>
>       What we need to do about the 3.3.x bugs, I don't know. If we have no
> resources to re-test them vs. 3.4 - I would suggest we wait until we
> have a good 3.5 beta to point at, and close them all with a comment
> asking users to reproduce them in 3.5 and re-open/re-target them at that
> version. But perhaps that is too harsh ? :-) either way, leaving bugs
> malingering vs. 3.3.x while knowing full well that they'll be hidden vs.
> that version is not so useful I think.
>
>       At least, that's my take :-)
>
>       HTH,
>
>               Michael.

Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html