Ping Tom: headings in table of LO docs on wiki

[jeanweber]

Tom:
On page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Publications
was it you who added the designation "(stable)" to the 3.3.x column?
But isn't v3.4.x "stable" as well? If so, shouldn't we remove
"(stable)" from the 3.3.x column as being a bit misleading? Or amend
it in some way? Also, the word "branch" seems odd to me. I know what
you mean, but I'm wondering if the term might be confusing, and indeed
if it's needed at all. The headings could be, for example, "Version
3.3.x" and "Version 3.4.x" or some such.

Yes, I know, it's a wiki, so I could just change it, but I thought I'd
ask first in case there was some reason that I'm missing for doing it
the way it is now.

--Jean

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
I think we risk causing more confusion by changing it.  Answering this is going to be tricky because it's a bit circular.

The term "branch" is used by many other OpenSource projects (such as Debian).  Debian and others have "development" branch and stable branch which is pretty much how the LO releases seem to have worked out.  "Version" tends to mean an individual release and both version and release are even often used interchangeably for alpha, beta, rc and final errr release of a minor sub-point release.

In practice the 3.4.x has often been found to be much less stable but has the advantage of more features and bigger improvements (better compatibility with MSO was a nice surprise).  The 3.3.x branch has stayed closer to OOo with smaller and just incremental changes but much less hassle in the Users List and fewer unexpected problems (just most of the old ones which are already known about and often fixed in the 3.4.x).  I think the 3.4.4 release was the first in that branch that combined the advantages of both branches in much the same way that Ubuntu LTSes work or at least that seemed to be the plan.

The devs have been very unclear about what the different branches and releases were for.  They seem to want everyone to constantly upgrade and do beta-testing all the time and that is not practical for many.  Ubuntu make it very clear by using the label "LTS" but in LO it has been very unclear because the devs don't want to use such a label.  Everyone should just magically know, apparently.  The devs seem very "touchy" about it so asking them just creates an argument because of course everyone should pay as much attention to the minutiae of what they do and understand their work as thoroughly as they do.  Also claims made by the devs have often not panned out.  What they call stable has had unexpected regressions or unexpected problems, which is not really a surprise to the rest of us that notice a lot of rapid progress and hard-work which inevitably means slight hiccups.  They are allegedly aiming for the LTS style but in practice it's been the
development branch vs stable branch.

The 3.4.x branch seems to have settled down with the last release and the 3.5.x branch seems to have a lot more development so at a guess i think people are beginning to find the 3.4.x is also stable now.  Much as the devs might like to claim the 3.5.0 is stable i really think all those extra and new features are likely to run into more problems than they anticipate so lets just think of the 3.5.x as development branch and both of 3.3.x & 3.4.x as stable branches now.

This might sound as tho i hate change and progress and really hate the devs but that is far from true.  I think they do an awesome job.  LibreOffice is an excellent product which often out-performs MS Office.  The progress that is made in such short time-frames is incredible.  It's just that "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs".  I really like omelette but sometimes it's faster, easier and less messy to just have an egg.

The docs team is the best team in TDF imo but the devs are great too. 
Regards from
Tom

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
I guess a shorter answer would be that my use of the terms
"branch" and "version" are more consistent with other OpenSource
projects which helps all of us to be easier to understand.

Each
branch suits different circumstances.  Some people value stability more
than tons of new features.  I like the SliTaz terms.  They have "stable
branch" and "cooking branch" because it's not really about being
unstable or "still in development and not really ready".  Sadly, sliTaz
is a very tiny and obscure project so not many people know of it nor
the terms they use.  It might solve the angst of the devs tho? 
Regards from
Tom

[jeanweber]

Tom,
The download page for the *program*
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/ uses the term "version" and
nowhere can I see it use the term "stable", though it did have that
term in the past. The Features pages also use the term "version".
Example: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/3-4-new-features-and-fixes/

Ordinary users will see what is on the program download page (assuming
they download the program instead of getting it pre-installed or some
other way) or on the features pages. Using the same terminology on the
*documentation* download page would seem to me to best meet their
needs.

--Jean

[Tom_Davies]

Hi

"LibreOffice 3.4.4 ... this version ... " and then
"LibreOffice 3.3.4 ... this version ... "

Which is exactly right.  It doesn't mention other versions such as 3.3.0, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 (which i am still using along with many other Ubuntu 10.04 LTS users and many others), 3.3.3.

We could use the plural of version to cover all the different versions in much the same way as hard-drive space could be consistently quoted in Mb but at some point we have to start using more general terms that cover a larger group.  Also we then have to keep explaining details of the versions we are talking about rather than being able to take short-cuts.  If we use the word branch then we can say things like

"Stable branch is better for corporate organisations"

which makes some sort of sense.  It's the type of thing corporates like to hear as there are 2 words that imply the product is solid, reliable, strong but still with some growth in it with implications of warmth and growing.  It helps people understand because they will hear the same advice from other projects.  If we avoid using the word branch then that short statement would become

"At the moment the 3.3.x versions are better for corporate organisations because they are less changeable and more dependable although they don't always have the latest extra features although the 3.4.4 is the one recommended now and there are no new 3.3.x version coming out."

This gives the impression of complete chaos and gives the impression that whatever they get will be quickly out-of-date and unusable or probably dead even before they get it given how long it takes to roll out programs across a large network.

Anyway saying 3.3.x (instead of using specific version numbers) is no less confusing, possibly more so.  The dumbed-down page for people that are unlikely to cope with the wealth of information on a wiki is
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/documentation/
If people go to the wiki and can't understand it then there is a link to the official (and dumbed-down) page.

The plural of version leaves people assuming that 3.3.x is "old" and 3.4.x is "new" and then there is confusion when a 3.3.x release is more recent than a 3.4.x.  By using the term branch
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/branch
then if they have ever seen a tree, or a river, or a railway, or know someone studying one branch of medicine or the law or another then it clicks into place without needing further explanation.  "Versions" explains nothing and creates additional problems later that could be solved neatly and easily.  Once people have the wrong idea it's very difficult to make them reassess so it needs to be clear from as early as possible.

A good, well chosen word or mnemonic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic
can save people a LOT of time trying to figure things out by making it clearer and easier to understand.  Sadly it is not something i am particularly good at.

I think that changing from branch would create a LOT more confusion than it solves. 
Regards from
Tom