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

Let alone regressions which are just accepted as a part of software development. Ultimately, mistakes happen, and when a software code base has been transferred left and right and had a ton of people randomly working on it (which is exactly what happens with open source software), a lot of the job of a developer coming onto the project is just playing "catch up" and guessing and what a previous developer was attempting to do. Again, I highly suggest taking a few C++ classes and then it'll become apparent that the idea that we should stop everything and get every single bug squashed (>5,000), is not a realistic stance. We should and we are (I guarantee this) doing everything in our power to prioritize bugs and take care of those bugs that are

a) most annoying

b) affecting the most users

c) resulting in data loss

We are a young project and this is a goal that has been set. Being young, this is a goal, not a fact. If you're interested in seeing how much work is done on a daily basis, just follow gerrit (our code tracker), or sit in IRC and look at the incredibly brilliant conversations that happen to find solutions to many of the problems that are being reported.

Just to give another point, we are averaging more than 5 new reports PER DAY. Our QA team is a group of volunteers no more than 7 or 8 strong. Each of these bugs has to go through a long process just to verify, ensure that it's not a duplicate, communicate with the user who reported it, and then priortize it. That's JUST getting the bug confirmed, then it gets put into the stack where a very small group of dedicated developers tackle them, one by one. A single bug can take a week + to tackle (that's 40+ hours). Let's say the average bug takes 10 hours (a massive understatement), that's 50,000 hours worth of work to tackle the 5,000 or so confirmed bugs.

Seeing these off hand remarks about how we should develop the product is disheartening. I wish that more people would take a class at their local community college, or take a free online course, and start to put their thoughts to work on our code.


On 10/17/2012 10:23 PM, Jay Lozier wrote:
On 10/18/2012 01:08 AM, Joel Madero wrote:
On 10/17/2012 06:29 PM, anne-ology wrote:
        ... Thanks  :-)
               maybe now more will realize what we're saying ;-)

This is simply unrealistic. For anyone who has any experience with programming this would be known. No offense but with a ratio of 100,000:1 or more users to developers, the idea that we would just squash all bugs and stop releasing new versions isn't realistic at all and thus why developers wouldn't respond to this recommendation. If you want to help I suggest taking some C++ classes and getting involved with the code. Most of us are volunteers who do this with our spare time, I hope you all keep that in mind

Another problem for all programs in wide release is wide hardware variability in the Windows and Linux worlds especially when compared to Macs. There could be a very odd hardware/driver interaction that was never discovered in alpha, beta, or release candidate previews with specific hardware combinations.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Pertti Rönnberg <> wrote:

BRAVO Anne-Ology!!
Exactly that message - only in other words -- I have repeatedly tried to
tell to the LibO-experts (devs) since January:
they must take a brake in developing and take a certain version (e.g.
3.4.xx) and make every module of the suite - Base included - absolutely free of bugs and inconsistencies both in programming and the instructions
and especially the LibO-Help.
Every feature shall have a clear explanation and a detailed guiding how-to
in the LibO-Help -- easily understood by any average non-expert user.

Obviously I've been crying in vain because I have not noticed any
(re)actions -- the developing of new versions is continuing with the result
of an increasing activity on this list.

I have LibO3.4.6 installed (Win7) but avoid using it (Calc, Base) because
I have better to do than struggle with problems.
I would like to know which LibO version for the time being can be
considered as the most reliable and productive -- especially regarding Base. It would also be interesting to see an (valid) evaluation of that reliable usability on a scale 1-10 for each of the the different modules of versions
3.4.xx, 3.5.xx.x, 3.6.xx.x
Pertti Rönnberg

On 16.10.2012 18:15, anne-ology wrote:

This is the reason I have no intention of updating from 3.4 until
ALL these bugs are worked out -
then I'll update to 3.5; yes, I'll always be behind BUT I
have the hassles of these bugs  ;-)

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM, teatimest <> wrote:

I've been using v3.4 of LibreOffice. I updated to v3.6.2.2 and now the

contents of documents are not indexed for search.

I'm using 64-bit Windows 7. The extension odt is checked for the indexing option. I also checked the "Index Properties and File Contents" in the
Indexing Option in Windows.

When I search, doc files and ppt files appears in the result but not odt

Is it just me or is this known bug? The same thing happened when I
to v3.5 so I went back to v3.4 for the searchability. Is there any


For 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.