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

Hi :)
Ok, so the question is why have 2 different branches at all?

The "Fresh" branch has the advantage of having more features but what
advantage does the older branch have?

In the case of Chevrolet Impala 2013 and 2011 i seriously doubt that both
models are being manufactured at the same time.  Even if they are then why
would people choose the older model?

With MS Office 2007 and 2010 it's the (trial version of) 2013 that people
are given on new machines purchased from a shop.  There are good reasons
and advantages to buying the 2007 or 2010 = if nearly everyone you do
business with or share files with uses 2007 then using 2010 or 2013 is
going to cause problems.  Similarly with the 2010.  So you kinda have to
get the same one as everyone else.  This sort of nonsense doesn't happen
with LibreOffice or other office suites (unless sometimes if you
deliberately use newer features)

So we have been given good reasons for using the "Fresh" branch, such as
getting all the newest features.  The question remains as to why people
would choose to install the "Still" branch.

Since there doesn't seem to be a good reason for installing the "Still"
branch why do we still offer it when all it seems to do is cause
confusion?  What are the pros and cons of the "Still" branch in comparison
to the "Fresh" branch?

Regards from
Tom :)

On 6 August 2014 11:38, Nino Novak <> wrote:

Am 06.08.2014 11:38, schrieb Tom Davies:

This seems to contradict what both Charles and what Florian Reisinger

No. See below:


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

By clicking on the graphics you come to its upload page with all former
versions: just chose the one you want to see, e.g. this:

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


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

Maybe it's about the usage of the word "stable".

Charles uses it in kind of a "strict sense" in software development: a
software may be called stable if no crasher bugs are reported/open. (I
know the exact actual definition in LibreOffice as I did not find it
explicitly written somewhere). Florian simply assumes that the state
"stable" is reached after the 6th bugfix release. So their definitions
seemingly differ and it might be considered helpful to work on a common
definition. But there is no doubt that both try to use it "according to
definition" (or presumable definition).

You seem to use it in an undefined way, kind of a "common sense". Which is
also right, but - as is the nature of undefined terms - does not reflect
product's state but rather your (or someone else's) expectations.

So, strictly spoken, Charles/Florian are right. But commonly spoken, you

There is additionally the problem of comparing two differend kinds of
it's difficult to compare the maturity of oranges and apples. Strictly
spoken, you cannot say, this orange is more mature than this apple. In this
analogy, every minor branch *is* a different fruit as it has different
features from other minor branches :-)
Therefore one simply shouldn't compare them regarding "stableness". It will
always stay an opinion showing that the person uttering it does not really
understand what she is talking about ;-)

omg, what a long posting ,-)

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.