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

Hello Paul,

On 6 août 2014 17:37:58 CEST, Paul <> wrote:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:20:32 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Paul : did you intend to post this off list?

No, sorry, my bad for not checking the address. I just clicked "reply".
For most messages that goes to the list, I don't know why some people
seem to have it that their messages are set to reply off-list.

On 6 août 2014 16:45:36 CEST, Paul <> wrote:
Sorry, Charles, but I have to respectfully disagree:

On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:31:40 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Le 06.08.2014 16:22, Paul a écrit :
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:56:13 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <>

LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality

No, not magically, but by the very nature of it being around for
longer it will, in the end, result in a more stable product.

Really? So a software "being around" gets patches through the Holy


No, it gets patches the same way a ".6" release of a software gets
more patches than a ".0" release. 

That is your definition of an LTS. Not a bad one but it does not
change the definition much...

It is merely the common definition.

Where can I find this common definition? To me it is a possible one but not the exclusive one . 
Anyway: it does not overly matter in our case.

The idea of a version being around for
longer having more patches in it is well understood, and in fact has
been something you have commented on regarding the benefit of the
"Still" branch.

LTS versions don't *start off* more stable, they only become more

I agree.

LTS implies the existence of a business and a support
machinery, not the virtue of time.

No, it doesn't. It may be the case for Canonical that the LTS
version has more support machinery, but the concept of LTS is just
that it will be supported for a guaranteed amount of time, and not
retired early, such that adopters can be sure that for a specific
duration they will not have to upgrade to get support and patches.

So developers will obviously have an incentive to develop a  LTS for
free... not really seen this working well before honestly. And I have
been working in linux distros for some time.

They will have the same incentive that they do for any release. Why
would they decide not to work on it just because they are not being
paid? They're not being paid for any of their other work anyway.

Ah. You seem to ignore 1) the itch to scratch 2) money as an incentive. To think that they are not 
paid for any of their work is both factually wrong and dangerous. At least within the LibreOffice 
project and many others as well developers are paid directly or indirectly for their work on 





Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté.

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.