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

Hi Tanstaalf,

In the thread "LibreOffice Still" you made a very important point, however it has absolutely nothing to do with the main point of the discussion on how to name versions and I just by chance noted it.

You then might have a chance of having it dealt with.


Just a LO user who sometimes reads this list but just about every time get frustrated with it due to the misuse of threads!

On 10/1/2014 12:27, Tanstaafl wrote:> On 10/1/2014 5:06 AM, Charles-H. Schulz


> <rant>
> Charles, fyi, in our office, we are stuck on 4.1.6 because of a major
> regression introduced in 4.2 that is still there today.
> When our first user reported this after I started updating everyone (at
> about 4.2.4), so I had to revert them all (I'd gotten maybe 20
> workstations updated that weekend).
> I kept promising my boss that 'they will have to fix this, it is a
> regression and they treat these seriously' - but here we are, 8 months
> later, and we still cannot upgrade. Because everyone found about about
> this, a few very vocal users in our office took this opportunity to
> start lobbying (again) for replacing Libreoffice with Microsoft Office,
> and it looks like they are going to win this time. I know it is only 70
> seats, and you probably don't really care, but I do. The fact is, I
> cannot even recommend Libreoffice on new clients in good conscience, if
> the response to a very serious regression bug report is along the lines
> of 'well, you can just fix it yourself, it is free open source after all'.
> *Anytime* a long standing feature is totally ripped out and replaced
> with something else that causes a major regression, it should be an
> absolute top priority to fix it in the very next release. In fact, I
> would say that it should be a part of the agreement that any contributor
> signs, that if they are the one responsible for a regression like this,
> they are *required* to fix it asap.
> So, for us, 4.2 and 4.3 are *both* unstable - meaning, we *cannot use
> them*, because they lack a very basic capability that we have relied on
> since, oh, I don't know... version 1?
> In case you were wondering, it is the new 'Inline Fields' functionality,
> that when introduced, broke the ability to paste into them, and the bug
> is still there today, in 4.3.2.
> </rant>

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.