Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
A couple of fairly obscure quotes seem relevant 
1.  "If at 1st you DO succeed try not to look astonished" 
2.  "If at 1st you DO succeed try something harder"

Certainty and expectation are very different words that seem to get muddled-up sometimes.  

Did Charles, earlier in the thread, suggest that it seems reasonable to expect more bugs and 
regressions before "Service Pack 1" than after  (except in the case of XP, of course)?  To me this 
kinda seems to relate to the 2nd point.  If there are no bugs or regressions in the 1st release 
then maybe we aimed tooo low! Not enough exciting innovation!?  

Do corporate organisations always prefer the pre-Service Pack versions or have some  had a policy 
of waiting until after the first service pack release?  Is it true that MS once tried to claim that 
SP1 was already included in the 1st release of one of their products?  Were their corporate 
customers happy with the way that played out?  

Does "stable" mean "older"?  The 3.5.0 was released around February 12th 2012 and 3.4.6 was 
released over a month afterwards in around 20th March 2012.  The 3.4.5 was released just a couple 
of weeks before the 3.5.0.  So was the 3.4.6 just "older" or did it have different objectives?  
This seems to tie-in with the idea of having 2 branches developing alongside each other.  But why 
bother with the "older" branch at all?  What is it's purpose?  

Should we claim that the .0 releases are stable and good for corporate organisations just because 
we don't know whether or not there are any bugs or regressions yet?  If we haven't been told of 
bugs and regressions then can we safely assume there are none?  Should we promise there are none?  
Should we recommend it for people with limited or capped download capacity?   or for large-scale 

Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Sun, 3/6/12, Charles-H. Schulz <> wrote:

<snip />

That's something that no one can say "in abstracto". 25 new features could
have no or a very limited impact on one specific module while one new
feature, the twenty-sixth , would break quite some bytes inside. It really
depends of the new code, its interactions with existing dependencies, etc.
But there's no mathematical ratio, if that's your question.

Does it also mean that a new release that has LESS new features may have
LESS bugs and LESS regressions?  Why make a release such as the 3.4.6 at
all if it doesn't have new features?

Have you ever heard of "Service Pack"? :-) So instead of talking about
release, let's talk about service packs whenever we're discussing the third
digit of our release mechanism. Perhaps that would help clarify things.

<snip />

Would it be fair to guess that the work [on the 3.4.6] went primarily into fixing things?

It's not only fair, it's accurate!

The vast majority of  question that arrived at the Users List (from the
moment of the 3.5.0s release right through to 3.5.3) were able to be solved
by simply reverting to the 3.4.6.

That seems logical to me. But forgive me if I'm taking things to the absurd
point here, it just feels that what you could also say is that if we took
one pencil and a sheet of paper we would stop having any bugs at all. Don't
take it the wrong way here: falling back the previous version is a
temporary fix but it can never be the way forward.

The problem IS NOT that i expect NO BUGS.  When have i ever said that?

You do complain about the existence of bugs in every new version, and you
sound as if you expect that there will be no bugs there.

The problem is that people were given unrealistic expectations.  They were
effectively told to expect few or no bugs in the 3.5.0 (and the .1 and .2
and .3)  and told that it would have less problems than previous releases.
Now you are telling me that was unrealistic, which is exactly what my
cross-post was saying.  Perhaps you could try reading what i said instead
of just berating and insulting me purely because i dare to be honest.

Indeed, the 3.5 does bring new features alongside more bug fixes than the
releases from other branches, but it does ship with new bugs, and these are
of course unintended, but unavoidable until discovered and properly fixed.

<snip />

You report all these disgruntled users, and I fully expect that there will be unhappy users of 
about anything out there, but don't forget there are very happy users as
well, yet, they tend not to show up on forums or mailing lists just to say
how satisfied they are. Please keep these people in mind as well.


Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Sun, 3/6/12, Charles-H. Schulz <> wrote:

From: Charles-H. Schulz <>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is
3.5.4 ready for business users?
Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 13:32


I don't feel accusing people of lying is going to be very constructive. if
anything you are displaying worrying signs of your complete ignorance  in
basic software development and it's so basic you don't need to be a
developer. So let me put this in very clear terms for you: SOFTWARE IS
BUGGY. IT WILL ALWAYS BE BUGGY. And yes, open source software is all about
telling everyone about identified bugs or potential bugs. Even in a stable
release. Why? BECAUSE SOFTWARE IS BUGGY. Even proprietary software. It's
always the case. So what happens with asking about our two branches and
which one is the most stable? For one thing having two branches tends to be
the rule in software development world, not the exception. Vendors or
projects may not always label them that way, but having a maintenance
branch and the "up-to-date" branch is the usual method out there. The
up-to-date branch builds on top of the maintenance branch (i.e includes
bugfixes and security related patches) while introducing new features.
Introducing new features usually leads to new bugs, and sometimes even
regressions. New bugs, because, did I ever mention this? SOFTWARE HAS
BUGS.  Therefore, the new branch will have new, and often unnoticed bugs.
That's the way it works. We don't tell lies, but 3.5.4 will have more bugs
squashed than the 3.5.0 , but the 3.5.0 will have in theory more bugs
squashed than, say, the 3.4.3 (the release that was before the new branch
was released). The 3.5.x is thus not a developer branch at all, but for
users (i.e. corporations) looking for certainty, you may indeed want to
push for their adoption of, say, a 3.4.6 or a 3.5.4 . That's how it works.
Remember: the 3.5.0 is stable, regular people can use it everyday just
fine, but you know what? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS. Some of these users may be
disgruntled. It's the way it works. Have you talked to disgruntled MS
Office users? They complain about bugs too. We all do. So please, don't
crosspost to the universe about the blatant lies of TDF officials when
somebody squawks about a bug; report the bugs, or have the user become a
bug reporter and that will actually be helpful.



2012/6/3 Tom Davies <>

Hi :)
Many people are willing and even enjoy testing and trying out the latest
newest version especially if that means they get to play with new
features.  There are so many of them they even have names such as "early
adopters".  We need to attract more of them!!

Those people are not looking for stability.  They are looking for fresh
and exciting or just trying to stay ahead of the game and see what is
coming up next.

Sell those new early releases using those aspects  as the way of

If you blatantly lie and tell people that the new branch is "stable" then
those ear4ly-adopters  lose interest and go elsewhere, to other projects
that ARE doing new and exciting things AND telling people about it.

At the same time, by claiming that the latest new thing IS your most
stable version then if/when they find regressions they wont bother
at previous versions.  After all you have just told them there is no
version more stable than the one they have been given and therefore any
problems are NEW bugs.  So, they walk away to find other products that do
have the functionality they are looking for and just tell people they
that LO is just not ready yet.

In almost all cases that got as far as the Users List those blockers were
solved by simply getting them to try the 3.4.6 release.  The one that
didn't have all the regressions you would expect from a new and exciting

I seem to be explaining this really badly.  If i say it 1 way around
people think i am a jerk because of course i should expect regressions in
the latest software.  But what if i don't want the latest?  What if i
something solid and reliable?

The official website has been telling people  that 3.5.0 and so on where
the most reliable when they weren't!!  If it told them instead that they
were getting the ultra-latest then they might be happier about accepting
regressions and perhaps looking back for a more stable version.  If they
are told it IS the most stable version then WHY would they look?

Now there is a question on the User List asking if the  3.5.4 is stable
and ready for corporate use.  NO-ONE can TRUSTS the official TDF line, as
repeated by Italo, because it has been used so many times before and then
found to be false in so many cases.  Which part of this line is true this
time and which part is a lie this time?  "3.5.x is stable, although there
are some regressions".  The 1st part tells us that it is ready for
corporate usage, the 2nd part contradicts that.

However the whole discussion can be avoided by actually telling the truth
instead of lying about it and then trying to cover-up the lie.  Sell the
product on what really ARE its good points (ok, and stretch it a little
every marketing department for every product probably does).

Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Sun, 3/6/12, Italo Vignoli <> wrote:

From: Italo Vignoli <>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is
3.5.4 ready for business users?
Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 11:07

3.5.x is stable, although there are some regressions which impact on
some users. Of course, this is not implying that 3.5.x is perfect, and
we will never have a perfect software as bugs and regressions are part
of the process especially when you are developing new features on a 20
years old code base.

Unfortunately, as it is the case for proprietary software as well, the
only way to check if bugs and regressions impact your usage patterns is
to install the software and start using it.

Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :) The 3.5.0 was blatantly not ready for business use and was not
stable, as we saw from the number of problems people had on the
lists, problems that were often solved by going back to 3.4.x.  It
was absurd to claim that 3.5.0 or 3.5.1 or 3.5.2 were stable.

Italo Vignoli -
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP
skype italovignoli - gtalk

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.