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

Hi :)
I usually get mails from the Marketing List but didn't see any discussion
about the new ideas for branch names.  If i had i might have mentioned that
Fresh vs Stagnant branch held some unfortunate connotations that might not
have been obvious.
Regards from
Tom :)

On 6 August 2014 20:57, Paul <> wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:54:10 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:


The fresh branch is stable enough for everyone to use. LibreOffice
does not pilot planes, it does not usually crash, it does the job.
There are people who want newer features and people who want more
tested versions. There's food for everyone.

Yes, there is, and no one is saying any different. In fact, I am saying
that there are people who want both, and so *both* should be offered.
But by your own admission, one of those branches is "more stable". The
difference might be slight, but it is enough for the people behind LO
to continue to offer it when the newer, more featureful branch is also
being offered.

So for me first prize would be to have both branches as equal downloads
on the LO download page. With a clear, concise explanation of what each
offers, and a link to a slightly longer, fuller explanation. That is
exactly what I am proposing should be done.

But barring that, if LO wants to keep a single download as the primary
download, as it currently is, then I am firm in my belief that the
primary download should not be the less stable branch, but should
instead be the more stable branch.

More experienced users will know where to look for the version they
require, but it is my belief that new users, the kind that will simply
click on the big shiny download button, prefer stability over features.
In the case of an office suite like LO, how much of the new features do
they even use? Of course people want new features, I just think that
new users would prefer stability, or even better yet, a clearly
explained choice, rather than features at the expense of stability. If
you have statistics to show otherwise, I'm sure you would have
presented them by now. If you disagree, that is of course fine, but it
remains purely our individual opinions until someone presents some
pertinent facts. Although as far as I can tell from the responses, it
seems most people here agree with me, so if I were the marketing team, I
would give it careful consideration.

Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are welcome to
contribute to our marketing team.

Well, this particular discussion was about how the downloads are
presented, not about the names for each branch, and I have already made
my opinions on the branch names clear, but I will reiterate them here
for clarity:

"Still" should be "Stable"

"Fresh" *can* stay the same, but should rather be "Current" or

Feel free to pass that on to the marketing team. I don't think I will
be joining another mailing list, one with an agenda that I am largely
not interested in, just to contribute that. This discussion was opened
here, and I contributed my opinions; I am happy leaving it at that. I'm
sure the right people are aware of this discussion, or, if not, that
someone who is on both lists will pass along our sentiments.




Le Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:07:41 +0200,
Paul <> a écrit :

Just to add another point... (see inline)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 20:04:56 +0200
Paul <> wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 19:01:19 +0200
Florian Reisinger <> wrote:

Hi Tom,

If we do not find the bugs in the fresh version, they won't be
resolved until the rename to Stable/Still. If less use Fresh,
the quality of the next stable will be lower.... Does this help?

That is true, but it still seems dangerous to push new users
towards Fresh. If users start with Stable, then, after learning
that it is stable, are pushed towards Fresh to get newer
features, then the ones who want stability won't move across and
will be happy, and the ones who want new features will move,
knowing there is stability to fall back on, and so will also be
happy. Should they find that everything works, they will be happy
with new features, and should they find instability, they will be
happy to fall back on the stable version, knowing that they had
taken a *slight* risk.

Conversely, if you push all new people to Fresh, any who find no
bugs will be happy, but any that find bugs will have the
impression that LO is buggy and unstable, and won't necessarily
know about Stable to fall back on. Those that are told about
Stable will undoubtedly grumble about the fact that they should
have been told about it in the first place.

I'm not saying that this is a simple matter, just that in my
opinion it is far better to offer the Stable branch as the
default install, and urge users to try out the Fresh branch when
they start asking about features. Once they've gotten as far as
asking about features, they're already far enough in the process
to get help should there be any unexpected problems with Fresh.

They're also far enough along in the process to offer bug reports...

Also, giving proper explanations
(well, proper brief explanations with a link to a more detailed
explanation) on the download page lets new users evaluate the
choice themselves, and that way they are less likely to be angry
when caught out by something.

There should still be enough users of Fresh in this scenario to
allow for the needed user testing.


Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger

Am 06.08.2014 um 11:17 schrieb Tom Davies <>:

Hi :)
This seems to be contradicting what Charles is saying.

Also is it really a good policy to force new and unwitting
users to act as guinea-pigs?  Should all new users be pushed
into finding and fixing bugs?  Would it really be bad to give
them a clear and easy route to a less buggy version? Regards
from Tom :)

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.