Le 02.10.2014 17:04, Tom Davies a écrit :
Hi :)
I don't think that bullying users is particularly clever or
productive.
bullying?
Lets take a completely different scenario as an example. Lets
say that
someone buys a can-opener. They use it and like it so at
Christmas they
buy a new one as a present for a friend. The new one doesn't
work. The
person takes the opener back to the shop and gets told that they
should
have paid a few thousand on the research&development of the new
one and
that it's the users fault for the can-opener being broken.
Ridiculous right?
Yes indeed. And that is indeed a completely different example
you're taking, because you are comparing buying apples to being part
of a community project developing a software.
Best,
Charles.
Regards form
Tom :)
On 2 October 2014 15:39, Sophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Charles,
Le 02/10/2014 15:50, Tanstaafl a écrit :
On 10/2/2014 8:58 AM, Werner <wernerfbd@gmx.ch> wrote:
No one suggested that users should have to pay.
You obviously haven't read this entire thread. Florian is trying
to
extort money from me to fix this major regression.
ha ha, this one made me laugh, I imagine Florian... really you
don't
mean what you wrote.
But it might be interesting for a certain user to get a
bug/feature/regression fixed ASAP and therefore having the
option is
in my view great.
As I said - suggesting a user pay for enhancements is one thing,
and one
I agree wholeheartedly with.
Major regressions, on the other hand, are a very different issue,
and
your lumping them together is just plain disingenuous.
so concerned as you are, you're following the new features page on
the
wiki and test the areas they may impact you, don't you? And then
test
daily builds to see if your bugs are fixed and there is no
regressions?
A regression should be dealt with, and in your case it has, just
not
fast enough for you - but that is live.
Yep... and the consequences, in this case, are that my biggest
client is
seriously considering switching to Microsoft office, and because
of the
situation, caused purely by the Libreoffice devs refusal to fix
the
regression in a timely fashion, I have little ammunition to
counter the
push. I know no one here truly cares, but I do, and this is in
fact the
only reason I'm discussing this right now - meaning, I'm not a
troll,
I'm not here to just diss you guys or anything, I have what I
consider
to be very legitimate complaints about the way that this
particular
regression has, and is being, handled, and believe that (most of)
the
comments attempting to blame *me* for not 'ponying up' are
irrelevant,
invalid, and in some cases, extremely objectionable (see the
paragraph
following the next sentence as to why I take it as far as
'objectionable').
So again, if you are concerned by regressions, you should follow
what is
develop and what could have an impact for you. You can even write a
regression test that I can put on our manual tests system. You
don't
need to wait for things to happen by themselves.
Obviously, some of the volunteers here disagree, but on that
note...
I am also very aware that a very good number of the actual
Libreoffice
developers are paid to work on it (some full, some part) time, so
it
isn't like Libreoffice is a *purely* volunteer effort. In fact,
it is,
most likely, much too big of a project to survive on a purely
volunteer
basis, so please stop talking as if this were the case - it
isn't.
Yes but paid by whom?
If I where you I would just test the proposed fix in the daily
build to
make sure it is fixed the way you expect it to get fixed.
Oh, I will be doing this as soon as time permits, but for the
last 3
weeks, my plate has been full, and again, since I reverted to
4.1.6 way
back when, the bug hasn't on the front burner.
Oh so who's gonna do the work? QA volunteers again will do the work
for
your company...
Kind regards
Sophie
--
Sophie Gautier sophie.gautier@documentfoundation.org
Tel:+33683901545 [1]
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?