Re: [Libreoffice-qa] BSA Versions - Update

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
> <bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:57:44AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> > > I have added Bjoern to this as he's the one who might be impacted most
> > > because of the Ubuntu issue.
> >
> > Can we maybe make the wording more explicit e.g. "reached EOL at TDF"(*)?
> > That
> > makes it easier to dispell urban myths that its not supported elsewhere.
> > Same
> > for RHEL which AFAIK has the endless joy of supporting 3.4 on one of their
> > releases.

Yes, it would be nice to make this part more explicit.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Joel Madero <jmadero.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where would this wording go? I think that's good to let people know but
> trying to figure out where to put it as the list versions are all pretty
> short. A tooltip might be useful, any thoughts here Robinson? We were
> talking about this quite a bit earlier.

It's a complicated situation, because Ubuntu/Canonical isn't
supporting 3.5 globally, but just for Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Similar notes
go for 3.4 in RHEL.

Here's a good question: Where do we want these bugs to end up? Would
we like to see them reported in our infrastructure, or are we more
than happy to have them reported to the distros and then upstreamed if
(and only if) they are still relevant to a modern release?

--R