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

Hello Paul

On 30 septembre 2014 15:38:26 CEST, Paul <> wrote:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:54:58 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <> wrote:

Le 30.09.2014 13:26, Tanstaafl a écrit :
On 9/29/2014 2:55 PM, Tom Davies <> wrote:
Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added we
can expect to find that some things that don't so well in "Fresh"
and yet still
find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".

To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
marketing, double-speak.


Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such nonsensical 

Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...

Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).

This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.

I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability
of some to even understand what is being discussed.

I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to be
talking at cross-purposes.

Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing". 

And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people are
used to from so very many other >projects, it *is* the testing branch.

While several other projects use this system not all of them do. Are you baffled at Firefox three 
release channels that has one long term support another similar to our Fresh branch and a true 
testing one?

Call me callous but this perspective has been encouraged here on this list for some years so I 
actually think that while nothing is perfect, far from that, there is a magnifying glass on the 
matter here.

Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that fresh is unstable and not even a 
testing branch... but so be it.

Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as they
try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which is the
"stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to and

Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear explanations
would, and you don't need to change terminology for that. If you didn't
change terminology, and had clear explanations, it is debatable if it
would be better or worse than changed terminology and clear
explanations, but either state would be so many leagues ahead of
changed terminology and no explanations, as it is now, that it is
baffling as to why those in charge are fighting so adamantly to keep
things as they are. Never mind changing the terminology again, who do
they still insist on not putting any explanations on the website?

Paul my stance has not changed. No one refuses to do anything. I simply do not have the time and I 
am just a volunteer. People on this list think they can just demand something and it will happen. 
It does not work that way. We are a community and if you want to fix something, by all means go 

The explanation you are alluding to is on my todo list but I have several other items before that. 
And I am glad if people can help, which in this case start by either using our Redmine to define 
the contents and introducing oneself on the website mailing list. 

If you want
testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for everyone :

Fresh branch
(x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release 
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release 
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

Still branch
(w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release 
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release 
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
ones getting it, and not the public at >large?

Actually you do because that part (at least) is on the website already.

Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance of 
finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time in 
proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone anyway. Let
me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an opinion or who
think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice project to focus on
helping rather than complaining.

Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?

See my comment on contributing above.

As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this really
shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.

Never tell a volunteer what to do. It does not work. I know there is no malice in what you are 
expressing but this point is important. I have a dayjob, a family, hobbies and other tasks and 
roles inside LibreOffice. And I am not the only one.

I realise that you have previously said that this is the only forum to
complain about this issue, and that the other forums (like twitter, I
think it was), had very few to no complaints about the terminology
change, but so what? What is the downside to putting clear explanations
on the website? 

Absolutely none, indeed.

It can hardly make it worse for those >that are already
happy with the situation, and can only make it better for those that
are unhappy or confused, so why so much resistance to it?

The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side versions,
should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I realise that will
take considerably longer to implement. Although it still should be
recognised as an important part of this puzzle.

Others have responded on this, but thanks for your input.





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.