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

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:09:37 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Le 07.08.2014 09:55, NoOp a écrit :
On 08/06/2014 10:01 AM, 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?

No.  Basically what you and Sophie are saying is that 'we fully
expect new/any user to download and use the "Fresh" branch by
default so that LO (dev?) can find an resolve bugs in the 'new &
improved & added feature' version'. That's just crazy talk.

No, that is how Free Software works. If you think it is crazy, then 
Ubuntu, Firefox, the Linux kernel, Debian, Fedora, Mint, VLC... every 
other project has that crazy way.

Wow, I actually can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that
all other open source projects ask all their users, especially new ones,
to adopt a known unstable branch so that they can test it properly?

Surely you don't mean to suggest that. In fact, from what you've said in
the past, I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that. What I think you
meant to say is that you and Sophie are not implying that, but are
instead implying that the current "Fresh" branch is stable enough for
general use, and although the "Still" branch is slightly more stable,
you don't feel that the extra slight stability is important enough to
push users towards that branch instead of the "Fresh" branch.

Given that, the question then really *does* become why is it still
around? Surely it should just be relegated to the pile of old versions?
If Fresh has all the new features and is rock solid enough for general
use, why even have another branch that doesn't have the features and is
only negligibly more stable?

Anybody with serious stability requirements could easily find an older
version from the archives.

Of course, if you tried that, I think you would find a large portion of
people would complain, thereby suggesting that actually the perceived
need is to have the "Still" branch as the primary branch, but that's
just what I personally suspect will happen, not a guarantee.

I am somewhat astounded as I hear Charles complaining about funding
(rightly so, that's his job),

huh? What is my job, according to you?

users complaining about lack of bug fixes
w/dev's LO countering with 'we only have a certain amount of
resources &
have to prioritise' etc., etc. So why even have two branches to
begin with?

Because branches do not cost more money than 10 or 1.

Uh, if they have developer resources going into backporting bugfixes
into them, then yes, the more you have, the more expensive it is.

The Fresh/Still nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here is a link to
the internet archive from LO Download in 2013 Dec 31:

On that page there is no "Fresh", "Stable", "Still" et al; there is 
download defaulting to 4.1.4. and minor link options to change to
4.0 or
'Pre-releases' 4.2. That download page makes complete sense. Why on
earth the "private marketing list" change to the current nonsense?

@TDF: Please just stop. Go back to the download page of December
2013 & keep it simple.

@Noop: please stop complaining about changes. In 2010, you were
already complaining about the same things.

  IMO you should just drop the "Still" branch and concentrate your
dev efforts on one *single* user release.  The next time that I (as
a user) hear that you've not enough resources to address a bug
report I'll have to ask: so, how many devs are working on 'Fresh' v
'Still' v 'Daily' v 'Trunk' v EOL, etc? Can you not fix the bug
because these folks are spread so thin across the various
"branches" that they can't properly concentrate on a baseline
release fix?

@Sophie/Florian: The admission that 'Fresh' is the default so that
bugs will be identified earlier is, IMO, nuts (other words come to
mind, but I'll try to keep this civilized). 'Hello World - take our
RC (X.Y.0) and
use it by default so that we can debug it' is not a good thing to
announce/promote here or elsewhere.

@Charles: you keep asking for users on in this thread to suggest a
new name ("Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are
welcome to contribute to our marketing team.) - no name is
necessary, nor should it
be necessary for users on this list to need to subscribe to the
marketing list to voice their concerns. You are TDF - instead
invite the
"private marketing list" members to participate in this thread,
this is afterall a user & user support concern. BTW: for those that
may want to do this anyway, just how does one gain access to this
"private marketing
list" that Sophie spoke of? How about providing a link to a
transcript of the "private marketing list" contents so that others
on this "open source" project can review?

Do you think TDF is a company? TDF relies on volunteers. Our users
are our future contributors. We are not Wal Mart. You don't buy
things from us and users are not customers. So yes, even if it sounds
crazy to you, we do highly encourage users to join our various teams.
As for the private marketing list, yes we do use this list mostly for 
press/announcement preparations, otherwise news and text elements
would be disclosed before due date. How do you join this list? Good
question. By contributing, not by complaining, and by asking. And if
that's not your call, we have plenty of other teams for you to join :

If that's still not your call, and you just want to use
LibreOffice... that's fine! we are happy that you do so.

Bottom line is that I (and others) disagree with the "private
marketing list" decision to go with the existing
'Fresh/Still/whatever' download page(s). Please consider simply
rolling back to the Dec 2013 model.

Thank you for your suggestion, but no, we won't. We have deployed a 
brand new website, asked for feedback on several completely open and 
public lists for several months.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the change being raised on
this list?

We feel good about the choices we
have made (although we are still toying with the Still branch name)
but no we won't come back to the December 2013, December 2010 or
December 10 C.E. because some think the past is always better than
the future.



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.