Re: [libreoffice-users] stable vs new

Tom,
To me:
stability = productivity
But I am just a lowly user.

Nice description!  I saved it for future reference.
Now I know why I keep getting 3.x update notices when 4.x has been 
released some time ago.  That surprised, but pleased, me.  As a result 
of your description, I will have to repackage and install 3.6.7 after my 
monthly backup today.
Girvin Herr


On 08/04/2013 10:35 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> Yes, i was trying to keep it simple and practical by  avoiding side issues or detail.  Even so my 
> post turned out to be a lot longer than planned!
>
> For some projects
> stability = stagnation
>
> ie that the 3.0.0 could be considered stable because pretty much all the bugs are known issues and mostly 
> written-up somewhere.  That has never been considered good enough in LO.  The earlier releases in a branch 
> are not considered "more stable" after the branch reaches .3 or .4.  It's only the .3 or .4 and 
> onwards that are considered more stable.
>
> Time-based releases vs "release when ready".  Whichever methodology is used it's only after initial 
> proper release that the thing gets used on the mad set-ups out in the real world that most problems surface 
> and get fixed.  With MS products many corporates wouldn't consider installing before Service Pack 1 got 
> released, which means it's only after SP 1 that many  problems come to light!  So, i agree with Stuart and 
> most of the rest of the project on this issue.  I'm sure the arguments about which is best will continue for 
> another 7 years  in most projects (and possibly longer).
>
> We all get to play ginea pig but we would with proprietary software too.  The difference is that if 
> a problem we reported does get fixed we get the fix for free along with all the updates that we 
> didn't help with.  There is no paying for upgrades or being pushed into buying a different bundle 
> by some salesman.
>
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: V Stuart Foote <VStuart.Foote@utsa.edu>
> > To: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 16:58
> > Subject: RE: [libreoffice-users] stable vs new
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > In opening this thread ( Nabble  http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/stable-vs-new-tp4068750.html 
> > ) Tom is correct in a practical sense.  Stability is an inherent component of a mature product. And 
> > testing during the development cycles by more potential user willing to invest a little time in QA 
> > is essential to the health of the project.
> >
> > But a key aspect Tom omits is that LibreOffice development and release stages are tightly 
> > timed--and by proxy so is its support. Nor does he mention that the project has stayed on schedule 
> > since inception--synchronizing to a six month minor release cycle implemented in a broader 
> > ecosystem of Free and Open Source Software.
> >
> > The Release Plan for LibreOffice publishes the release schedule, current status and a historical 
> > record of the project, worth a read:
> >
> > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Plan
> >
> > Keeping to the time based release plan means that the delay between initial release on a minor 
> > version and the next minor version release is just six months.  And that the delay between the 
> > x.x.0 release and each bug fix release has been and will continue to be  just one month.  So, while 
> > I don't completely agree Toms' assessment of how far along each bug fix takes things--it is just 
> > not the way the user feedback, QA,and development work proceeds--but it is not unreasonable 
> > practical advise.
> >
> > Support has kept to the same cycle--for the most part--user documentation (static HTML or wiki 
> > based, and published) can always use more active contributors and lags a bit as a result.
> >
> > This is not just development churn, there is solid User eXperience, QA and development work at 
> > every tick of the release cycle. And as a minor release nears end of its development life it gets 
> > less and less development attention--QA and development resources long since shifted to new 
> > development and bug fixes.  Enhancements and bug fixes become more and more costly to push backward 
> > with each tick in development cycle--so less likely to occur. In a sense that also is stability, or 
> > maybe stagnation.
> >
> > The project is on sound footings as a time based release, that is not going to change so no sense 
> > in debating it here. Rather, if you have specific questions or comments about its implementation or 
> > how best to make use of software from time based release managed project  that would be a 
> > worthwhile discussion.
> >
> > Stuart
> > a LibreOffice QA volunteer, focusing on accessibility issues.
> >
> > p.s.  For use Accessibility and Assistive Technology tools the use of a Java 7, Java Runtime 
> > Environment and the Java Access Bridge v2.0.3 was not ported backward to the 3.6.x branch.  It was 
> > included in the  4.1.0 release, and has been patched for the upcoming 4.0.5 release.  Users of 
> > 3.6.x must continue to use a Java 6 JRE (e.g. 1.6u45) and  manual install of Java Access Bridge 
> > v2.0.2.


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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