Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?

On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:55:14 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello Paul,
>
> On 6 août 2014 17:37:58 CEST, Paul <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:20:32 +0200
> > "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> 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 <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Sorry, Charles, but I have to respectfully disagree:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:31:40 +0200
> > > > "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Le 06.08.2014 16:22, Paul a écrit :
> > > > > > On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:56:13 +0200
> > > > > > "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality
> > > > > > > release"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> >
> > > > > Spirit?
> > > >
> > > > 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_support

"Long-term support (LTS) is term used to describe special versions or
editions of software designed to be supported for a longer than normal
period."


> > > > 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
> > > > stable.
> > >
> > > 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 libreoffice.

This is missing my point, which was that LTS doesn't mean there is
"more support machinery" requiring special contracts, and therefore
necessarily an LTS version is a version paid for by some company or
companies, but that LTS is simply a version that will be around for
longer, for whatever reason. People may or may not choose to work on an
LTS version, but certainly a big support contract isn't the only reason
they ever would.

So your points above don't really count either for or against what I
was trying to say, but in this context:

2) If developers are being paid, then the person/organisation paying
can decide what to pay them for, so can decide to pay them to maintain
an LTS version. Whether the person/organisation has the funds to pay
for an LTS version without special support contracts or not isn't the
point.

1) It is both factually wrong and dangerous to assume that developers
only work because they are being paid or are scratching an itch. If
you're saying that an LTS version wouldn't hold their interest, I say
that if that were the case, assuming they aren't being paid (otherwise
see 2. above), they would never work on the "Still" branch. Why would
they if it is boring? They do because it isn't only about what is the
flavour of the moment for them. They also have at least some sense of
duty to the project, and work on things that are necessary even if it
isn't the most interesting. If they didn't the project would quickly
fall apart. So if they have decided that an LTS version is important,
they will devote some time to it even if no one is paying them and
there are newer development branches to work on.

If by all this you are trying to say that LO doesn't have the funding
nor the developer resources to afford an LTS branch, that may well be
the case. It may even be the case for open source projects in general.
But that doesn't change the fact that the concept of an LTS version has
nothing to do with the business deals behind it.



> Best,
>
> Charles.
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Charles.


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted