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

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:28:52 +1000
Hedley Finger <> wrote:

Aha! I think I have solved the terminology problem!

For many working on the LO project, English is their second language.*
Clearly, when terms were being proposed, someone misheard, which why
is why the two forks were not named “Fresh" and “Stale".

And that right there is one of the problems with the current
terminology. It creates a perception in those who don't know better
that the "Fresh" branch is the one to use, and that "Stale" is
something they shouldn't use, as the term just sounds slightly
objectionable, which also applies to "Still" to a lesser extent. If
this is truly what the LO project wants, then why offer the "Still"
branch at all? Clearly they do see the need for both, but they are not
portraying that choice clearly to the end user. Much will be resolved
once that is explained clearly on the website.


* I have only one language and even that is not too flash.

Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2
On 01/10/2014 4:01 AM, "Tanstaafl" <> wrote:

On 9/30/2014 10:40 AM, Sophie <> wrote:
Le 30/09/2014 16:12, Tanstaafl a écrit :
variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is

But those doesn't exist anywhere else, because we are not
producing a distro but a desktop software and the concept is
completely different.

I have to disagree, the concept is not different *at all*.

And yet, this is something that you don't
want to ear.

Not at all... it is nothing to do with my not wanting to hear

The end result software is completely different, but the concept is

I must agree.

All you need to do to confirm this is read what you (the proponents
of these silly/ridiculous newly invented terms 'Fresh' and 'Still')
say to *describe* these terms to see this.

Saying otherwise is totally disengenuous.

Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.

Which are certainly not stable, testing and development.

Those terms most definitely *are* standard. Not the only standard,
perhaps, but very clearly a common choice.

Seriously? If you truly believe this, then you have never done any
software development.

If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches,
then name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or
something else that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.

Then, do you think that those two stable won't confuse the users?

Some, yes, but *far* *far* less than 'Still' and 'Fresh', nd it
will be much easier to explain the difference.

Personally I would vote for something like "Stable-Current" or
"Stable-Features" and "Stable-Mature", or terms in that vein, but I
have to agree, choosing those sorts of terms would be more in line with
the explanations of what they are intended for that are given so often

Of course, if you just enjoy *creating* confusion, then by all
means, continue reinventing terms with new ones that no one
understands and sound silly on top of it all.  

I don't think that anybody contributing in this project wants to
lose users and contributors time. Each time, we explain and
discuss to try to find the best way to resolve and further things.

And the discussions I feel are good, they do give many opinions voice,
and thus better ideas are born. But we do seem to be at a stalemate,
where one camp keeps showing a dislike of the current terms, and
suggests change, and the other side keeps pointing out that they intend
for the terms to stay. There doesn't seem to be a good argument in
favour of the terms, only a debate about whether the other terms
truly are better. I say they can hardly be worse.

Kind regards

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more: List archive: All messages sent
to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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.