On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:44:50 -0700
John Meyer <email@example.com> wrote:
On 11/12/2013 2:39 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
Here's the fault with this logic.
I'm going to up the number of people for bug B just for
illustrating my point.
50 people have issues with bug A. 5 people have issues with bug B.
Extrapolate... 5 people with bug C, 5 with D, all the way though
Z. You now have 125 people unhappy with 25 bugs.
If the goal is to increase the usage of LO, is it better to have 50
unhappy people over A not being fixed, or 125 unhappy people over
bugs C-Z. Which group is more likely to pass along negative
You also have to ask if bugs B-Z are "bugs" or feature requests.
You also now have 25 bugs to fix, which is probably going to take
*considerably* longer than just fixing bug A.
And you're forgetting about bugs/feature requests AA through ZZ, so
yes, this analogy will fall down at some point.
Again, the developers have limited resources to fix bugs, which
includes time and knowledge of the specific parts of the system, and
they have a lot of bugs and feature requests to get through. Either way
they slice it, someone is going to be unhappy. So they do the best they
can, and I'm sure that best involves a lot of discussion and decision
making, with a much better understanding of the tradeoffs than we have.
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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