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

Hi :)
I would only go with the 3.6.7 if you are currently on the 3.6.x branch and need to stay there or 
if you have need of staying with the accessibility java-bridge, older version for other programs.  

I think everyone else is better off with 4.0.4 and perhaps update in that branch as it steadily 
marches onwards.  

On the other hand i still have plenty of machines on 3.5.something and it's a free world so you can 
do as you please.  

Regards from 

Tom :)  

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Girvin R. Herr <>
To: Tom Davies <> 
Cc: V Stuart Foote <>; "" 
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] stable vs new

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 v2.0.2.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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.