Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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 <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 16:58
Subject: RE: [libreoffice-users] stable vs new


In opening this thread ( Nabble 
) 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:

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.

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 

To unsubscribe 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.