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


Your lack of knowledge is ... concerning.
You seem to mix two things: a development branch and a stable branch.
For you our two branches  are exactly that: a stable, and a development
one. There's only one small problem with that: you got it all wrong.

We have two stable branches. Red Hat  has stable products, they have a
development branch (alphas , betas) and they have Fedora, the community
oriented distribution. What you imply is that Fedora is not stable. And
that is not just wrong: it will send you back to the kingdom of hairy


Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 13:45 +0100, Tom Davies a écrit :
Hi :)
Hmmm, sorry Tim but i think the 2 branch model is good.  It lets people get their hands on newer 
features faster.  It helps people see how those new features work when combined with the main 
product and lets testing get done "out in the wild" on real-world machines (not just in 
virtualised models).  

Redhat do it.  Debian does it.  Doubtless others do it.  Nasa does it.  The difference is that 
they are honest about which product is stable and which is the exciting one.  They don't try to 
claim the exciting one is more stable than the stable one.  If people run into problems with the 
exciting one then they know they can go back to the stable one (or put up with it in favour of 
keeping the more exciting stuff).  

Nasa doesn't claim their 2MegaPixel cameras on Mars are better than cameras they are currently 
testing for future missions or even that they are better than cameras that are in common usage 
here on Earth.  Of course my buddy's 12 MegaPixel camera doesn't take such good shots of the 
surface of Mars!  That doesn't mean it's a worse camera!  

So why do we try to claim that our development, feature-packed, latest, hotest, sexiest release 
is really just "stable"?  Can't we find other ways to describe it?  Perhaps words that are more 
accurate?  Perhaps we could say it's "green" because that's equally invalid and irrelevant.
Regards from
Tom :)

From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P <>
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2012, 13:19
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Stable? Seriously?? Fw: [tdf-announce] The Document 
Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6.2

On 10/05/2012 06:41 AM, Marc Paré wrote:
Hi Charles,

Le 2012-10-05 06:32, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

Hoping this will be the last time we discuss this on the marketing list,
and so that we can move on to actual marketing topics and work....

To be fair to Tom, this is also a recurring topic from others. So, when I have time, if we can 
all agree to this, I will put together a wiki page for reference. We can then point to the 
appropriate wiki page for reference.

How does this sound?

This does not mean that I am suggesting that we not discuss it anymore, just that we all get 
the facts down on paper so that we can have a more productive discussion on this topic should 
it come up again.



I think a WIKI page would be a great idea.

I like the original idea of the 2 line development approach. Having a line that is "more stable" 
or "for critical applications" and a new line for "the cutting edge" development is a good idea. 
The practice of marketing this concept is now happening correctly, or we would not have the 2 
line question come up as often as it seems to be.

As I have stated before, I use the 2 line model for my systems and people I work with.  I will 
use 3.5.6 or 3.5.7 till 3.6.4 or 3.6.5 comes out.  Then I will keep with the 3.6 line till 
3.7.4/5 comes out.  The development cycle for working out all the issues that comes up with the 
"cutting" or "bleeding" edge line separate from the line that is more conservative and may be 
better for the "major" business user IS needed.

The key is we need a better and definitive statement on why LO is doing the 2 line development 
cycle.  I get why it is being done, but other are having a problem with this development model.  
Big business companies cannot afford to do such a development cycle. FOSS organizations can.  If 
I was going to pay my workers to develop a package, I would not do the 2 line model, but with an 
all volunteer and contributor development is can be done.

Marc, please start the WIKI page describing why LO is in a 2 line development cycle.  I hope 
after the page is completed there will be less confusion about it and then it also might lead 
into a better marketing "plan" for marketing the 2 line concept to the users and potential users.

-- 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.