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.
--- On Thu, 18/10/12, rost52 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: rost52 <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] ... not working ...
Date: Thursday, 18 October, 2012, 7:44
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 improvement.
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
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Pertti Rönnberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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
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 <email@example.com> wrote:
I've been using v3.4 of LibreOffice. I updated to v220.127.116.11 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted