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

Hi :)
Yes, but rather than learn new words for all those sorts of things i thought it was smart to re-use 
words that we ARE familiar with in order to give a close approximation to what is going on.  

LO is a meritocracy which suggests there are leaders leading.  There is some sort of management 
structure that has some sort of hierarchy but one that can respond sensibly to people's changing 
lives rather than being stagnant and brittle.  

We don't need to know the exact details and just using words that are similar enough is good enough 
for us on this list.  If people want details then they can probably find them out easily enough by 
joining the devs list or looking around their wiki and places.  It's not hidden it's just too much 
for me to think about right now and their are tons of ways they could have structured it sensibly 
to deal with the type of work they do. 

The main point is that devs are roughly equal to rock gods imo while we hang around helping people 
with their tickets and point them to the bar.  
Regards from
Tom :)  

From: Dr. R. O Stapf <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 11:08
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] ... not working ...

I don't mean that a single manager makes all decisions and the team has to follow. The word 
"manager" could and should be understood also as "management team", "decision making team", 
"leadership", etc.

I am not familiar with the structure of the dev team and decision making processes. Thus, I used 
simply "manager". At the end it is the dev team bringing LO forward. Let me repeat myself, but I 
respect these people a lot and I am very grateful for all the work they did and do.

On 18.10.2012 16:44, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
I think that it's precisely because we see so much great development being done that we get 
excited about it and want more.  Also the fact that people can post bug-reports and even 
non-coders opinions do get listened makes us feel like we can "off-load".  So, a lot of the 
criticisms are not necessarily about LO specifically but about IT in general.

ROSt talks about management decisions and hints about those being imposed on a workforce because 
that's the easier way for most of us on the Users List to understand it.  I suspect that most of 
us either do now or have at some point worked in traditional offices in mainstream management 
structures.  In LO i imagine the equivalent is leadership rather than management.  Inspiration 
and initiative rather than "just following orders".  Personal investment and interest in 
achieving goals.  It is leading to some impressive results.

Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Thu, 18/10/12, rost52 <> wrote:

From: rost52 <>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] ... not working ...
Date: Thursday, 18 October, 2012, 7:44

Hi Joel,

I think nobody blames the dev team for not working enough; in contrast all appreciate the work 
done by the dev team, being it new features or bug fixes.

For my understanding the concerns and opinions expressed here are more related to the ratio of 
devs being allocate to new features versus bug fixes. I think most of us also understand that 
first the number of devs is limited, and second the decision on how many devs on new features 
and how many on bug fixes is not an easy one. It is a management decisions, which can turn out 
right or wrong. And for management decisions one needs a lot of information. Speaking for myself 
I would regard these comments as additional information.

In this sense, please regard the messages in this forum as additional information, which 
could.should help decision makers to make decisions. And should a decision turn out to be wrong, 
there is no problem in changing course. The worst thing a manager can do is, not to make a 
decision. Without decision there is no change to the situation and thus no chance for 

Let me thank here again all devs doing great jobs in developing and improving LO.


Maybe I take C++ classes when I retire.... LO would be worth to do.

On 18.10.2012 14:36, Joel Madero wrote:
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

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

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.