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

Hello Tanstaafl,

Le 02.10.2014 16:05, Tanstaafl a écrit :
On 10/1/2014 11:18 AM, Werner <> wrote:
On 10/1/2014 17:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:25 AM, Werner <> wrote:
On 10/1/2014 14:47, Tanstaafl wrote:
I didn't file it (it was already filed), but it is:
Have you tested the daily build which included the patch committed on


What you are responsible for 60+ PC's and you are not willing to test on
a test PC a potential fix to a problem which is serious to you?

I didn't say I wasn't willing, or even hadn't. I said it is irrelevant
to the fact that this massively major regression has caused us to be
unable to update past the 4.1.x series, ie, for the last two MAJOR
version releases.

As I said: I cannot install 'Daily builds' on 60+ PCs.

To the one who suggested that it is on us users to 'prod the devs to do
the back-porting'... seriously? Really? PLONK

I guess that is your reaction to someone not agreeing with you,

No, it is my reaction to someone who suggests something that is
ludicrous on its face.

That said, maybe you didn't mean it as it sounded, so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt...

Forgive me if I'm intrusive, but there is something I actually do not understand in your situation. If you are not comfortable disclosing this by all means mail me off list: I would like to better understand the situation because I feel there is some deep misunderstanding on how free software projects work and of what your business problem is.

You write that you're a one person company and that your customer has 60 seats you are -presumably- administering in some ways. Am I correct here? You claim not to have the time to test the build on 60 machines - sure, I get this, but then test it on two machines. You call the bug in question a major regression, and forget that the people providing quality assurance are indeed volunteers. They either catch a regression, or they don't. If they don't, automated tests can catch it, or won't. If it were major, I am sure it would have already been patched. Now back to your situation. You do not have the time to test the build, no time to do quality assurance, but if I'm correct you are selling something to your customer that involves LibreOffice, aren't you?

If that is the case, could you please explain what you sell to them? Surely you must add some value other than "grab the latest stable release and install it"? By the way, they are your customers. Some LibreOffice developers do have customers and as a result are paid to work on LibreOffice. The money does not appear out of thin air. They sell support and development services. Now, the LibreOffice project has no customer. It has a community whose users are a part of. As such users have a rather limited role unless they want to contribute. I know it offends some people to read that, but that is the way it works in *every* (surviving) FOSS project.

The point I'm getting at is this one: if you are a professional distributing LibreOffice, that is great, but you must be something else than a user on a user list. You must at least have some expertise, and at the moment, I don't see you being anything else than a user who has a bug but will not test a patch because of whatever reason I will not judge. By doing that, you are expressing your (legitimate) choice, which is to be passive and not do anything to solve the situation. You have complained that this is a regression and not a bug, but regressions are not intentional, and they are bugs anyway (a regression is a description of a particular kind of bug). As a service provider of some kind, providing some services involving LibreOffice you may want to do something to help your customers, and yet you won't do anything (testing the patch, accelerate the delivery of the patch, paying for L3 support or whatever). I am afraid I don't understand why you're even complaining :-)



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.