Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Tom,

First, both Nino and Sophie's answers are really good. Mine was just trying to be simple and short. I think, just like Sophie suggested, that you are still thinking along the "stable-unstable" pattern.

My answer, by the way, does not contraddict Nino or Sophie. Let me take two -already used- examples to show you there is no contradiction.

MS Office 2011 and MS Office 2013. Both are stable. Both are still up for sale. What's the real difference? More features in MS Office 2013, sure. But both are stable. However 2011 gets more patches, is more tested than Office 2013 (in this case users both pay and get to be "guinea pigs").

Second example: Chevrolet Impala 2013 and 2011. What's the difference? Well, there are a few cosmetic changes, perhaps one or two equipment that changed; maybe a few more liveries available, but there's also been a set of optimized industrial manufacturing processes that have been improved between 2012 and 2013. Note: both are "stable", aka. fit to have millions of people driving these cars. Are these drivers guinea-pigs? Yes in a sense. I challenge you to find any sort of distribution process of manufactured good, service, software, where uers or customers are not guinea pigs in one way or another; Free Software is just really transparent and honest about it, because after all, you're not paying for anything when using it.

Hope this helped,


Le 06.08.2014 11:38, Tom Davies a écrit :
Hi :)
This seems to contradict what both Charles and what Florian Reisinger were

It does seem to make more sense though. It kinda explains why people might prefer one branch or the other one, which was very unclear from Charles and
Florian's posts.

It also kinda explains the graphic on the;
page, although that graphic doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do other
people understand it?  There used to be a neat little graph which kinda
boggled the eyes at first but began to make sense after staring at it for a

The bit about "master branch" was a bit beyond me but suggested an answer to the older thread about how bug-fixes added to the older branch manage to get into the newer branch. Still i am sure i am not the only one confused
by such a thing.

So Nino's answer suggests that some people might prefer the branch that has matured because by that time it is more stable. So releases with a higher 3rd digit are more mature, more stable and less likely to have problems.
The only downside is that you get less features.

Then it also makes sense that people would often prefer to use the younger,
less mature branch even though it hasn't had as many bug-fixes added to

However this seems to contradict what Charles was saying about both
branches being fully stable.  So which is wrong?
Regards from
Tom :)

On 6 August 2014 09:42, Nino Novak <> wrote:

Am 06.08.2014 07:29, schrieb Pikov Andropov:
> Florian Reisinger wrote on 8/6/2014 1:22 AM:
>> Hi,
>> The problem we have: We do not have one release branch as Firefox has,
we have two... Users should use and find bugs on the "Fresh" version in
order to make thee fresh, which will be renamed to stable after 6M.
>> So how to say "you can use the feature packed fresh"? It is not an RC
it is an tested final release....
>> So yes, we have a different model, so we need different names then the
standard :)
> What are the differences between the two branches?

The younger one (fresh) has been forked later from the master development
branch. Therefore it obviously has more features.

But as it is younger, it is less "mature" than the earlier (still) branch.

If you look into each branch separately, the branch goes through the well known states (alpha, beta, RC, final) for its first release (the x.y.0),
then keeps iterating through several additional (bugfix) releases, from
x.y.1 to x.y.6 in most cases. So each branch individually gains
bugfreeness during its individual


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

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.