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

Hello Tim,

Le 06.08.2014 15:04, Kracked_P_P---webmaster a écrit :
We have developed a "cycle" for each line where we know that x.x.0 is
the newest and x.x.6/7 is the most mature of that line.  So we should
use that idea.

Yes we have two lines.

Yes there is an idea of maturity vs. younger/fresher

Yes the newer line should have more features to work with or a more
developed user interface

So maybe we could stop thinking "this line and that line" but focus on
how mature/developed the current versions of each line is.

Have a little sidebar with this idea of this version is "this mature"
for its line and the other version is "this mature" for its line.

What we need is terms that reflect the idea of the "age" of the
version, or what the cycle number really means.

x.x.0 - toddler version of the line
x.x.3 - teenager
x.x.5 - in college
x.x.6/7 - graduated and best working of the line

Betas are the newborn version of the line, if you go with the above
age description.

Can we somehow create terms like that, but in more of a business terminology?

Indeed we are missing such an explanation. Care to open a wiki page on this?



On 08/06/2014 08:35 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
Ok, so that sounds like the 4th or 6th "cycle" of a branch has reduced the bugs and regressions = i think most people would call that making it more
stable wouldn't they?

Then the point about recent releases having had less usage seems to be
saying that it is not quite so stable.

Actually that does make a lot of sense. When new features are added it would be surprising if there were no unexpected problems. I think most people would understand that and understand that as being slightly less
stable than it will be in the future.  That all makes total sense.

I am beginning to like the sound of "mature branch" and "young branch". Of course a google search for mature, or young, might bring up some bad sites
that we wouldn't want to be associated with.  It's annoying because
otherwise that might be a really good way of describing the difference
between the 2 branches.

So i think we still need to try to think of a really short name for each
branch that describes what it's advantage is over the other branch.

Still vs fizzy don't seem to be popular but was worth a try.  SliTaz's
"stable" vs "cooking" seems to have been rejected already.  Stable vs
unstable doesn't cover it.  Development vs stable suffers the same
problem. Has anyone else got ideas? I think it would be great to have a
wiki-page or something where people can post their ideas slightly
anonymously and then maybe people could vote for which ones they prefer.

Regards from
Tom :)

On 6 August 2014 12:52, Sophie <> wrote:

Le 06/08/2014 13:00, Tom Davies a écrit :
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?
To have less bugs and regressions that make it more sure to use by
average users. When you are at the 4th or 6th cycle of a release, you
can consider that almost all of the functionalities have been used and if there was bugs or regressions they have been reported and depending
on there severity/impact, they have been corrected. Which is not true
for the more recent release with less usage and less users, it needs
more time and cycles.
Kind regards

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.