[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:09:37 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Le 07.08.2014 09:55, NoOp a écrit :
> > On 08/06/2014 10:01 AM, Florian Reisinger wrote:
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> If we do not find the bugs in the fresh version, they won't be
> >> resolved until the rename to Stable/Still. If less use Fresh, the
> >> quality of the next stable will be lower.... Does this help?
> >
> > No. Basically what you and Sophie are saying is that 'we fully
> > expect new/any user to download and use the "Fresh" branch by
> > default so that LO (dev?) can find an resolve bugs in the 'new &
> > improved & added feature' version'. That's just crazy talk.
> No, that is how Free Software works. If you think it is crazy, then
> Ubuntu, Firefox, the Linux kernel, Debian, Fedora, Mint, VLC... every
> other project has that crazy way.

Wow, I actually can't believe that you are seriously suggesting that
all other open source projects ask all their users, especially new ones,
to adopt a known unstable branch so that they can test it properly?

Surely you don't mean to suggest that. In fact, from what you've said in
the past, I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that. What I think you
meant to say is that you and Sophie are not implying that, but are
instead implying that the current "Fresh" branch is stable enough for
general use, and although the "Still" branch is slightly more stable,
you don't feel that the extra slight stability is important enough to
push users towards that branch instead of the "Fresh" branch.

Given that, the question then really *does* become why is it still
around? Surely it should just be relegated to the pile of old versions?
If Fresh has all the new features and is rock solid enough for general
use, why even have another branch that doesn't have the features and is
only negligibly more stable?

Anybody with serious stability requirements could easily find an older
version from the archives.

Of course, if you tried that, I think you would find a large portion of
people would complain, thereby suggesting that actually the perceived
need is to have the "Still" branch as the primary branch, but that's
just what I personally suspect will happen, not a guarantee.

> >
> > I am somewhat astounded as I hear Charles complaining about funding
> > (rightly so, that's his job),
> huh? What is my job, according to you?
> > users complaining about lack of bug fixes
> > w/dev's LO countering with 'we only have a certain amount of
> > resources &
> > have to prioritise' etc., etc. So why even have two branches to
> > begin with?
> Because branches do not cost more money than 10 or 1.

Uh, if they have developer resources going into backporting bugfixes
into them, then yes, the more you have, the more expensive it is.

> >
> > The Fresh/Still nonsense is just that - nonsense. Here is a link to
> > the internet archive from LO Download in 2013 Dec 31:
> > <https://web.archive.org/web/20131231021742/http://www.libreoffice.org/download>
> >
> > On that page there is no "Fresh", "Stable", "Still" et al; there is
> > only
> > download defaulting to 4.1.4. and minor link options to change to
> > 4.0 or
> > 'Pre-releases' 4.2. That download page makes complete sense. Why on
> > earth the "private marketing list" change to the current nonsense?
> >
> > @TDF: Please just stop. Go back to the download page of December
> > 2013 & keep it simple.
> @Noop: please stop complaining about changes. In 2010, you were
> already complaining about the same things.
> > IMO you should just drop the "Still" branch and concentrate your
> > dev efforts on one *single* user release. The next time that I (as
> > a user) hear that you've not enough resources to address a bug
> > report I'll have to ask: so, how many devs are working on 'Fresh' v
> > 'Still' v 'Daily' v 'Trunk' v EOL, etc? Can you not fix the bug
> > because these folks are spread so thin across the various
> > "branches" that they can't properly concentrate on a baseline
> > release fix?
> >
> > @Sophie/Florian: The admission that 'Fresh' is the default so that
> > bugs will be identified earlier is, IMO, nuts (other words come to
> > mind, but I'll try to keep this civilized). 'Hello World - take our
> > RC (X.Y.0) and
> > use it by default so that we can debug it' is not a good thing to
> > announce/promote here or elsewhere.
> >
> > @Charles: you keep asking for users on in this thread to suggest a
> > new name ("Now: if you have ideas for new names, etc. you are
> > welcome to contribute to our marketing team.) - no name is
> > necessary, nor should it
> > be necessary for users on this list to need to subscribe to the
> > marketing list to voice their concerns. You are TDF - instead
> > invite the
> > "private marketing list" members to participate in this thread,
> > this is afterall a user & user support concern. BTW: for those that
> > may want to do this anyway, just how does one gain access to this
> > "private marketing
> > list" that Sophie spoke of? How about providing a link to a
> > transcript of the "private marketing list" contents so that others
> > on this "open source" project can review?
> Do you think TDF is a company? TDF relies on volunteers. Our users
> are our future contributors. We are not Wal Mart. You don't buy
> things from us and users are not customers. So yes, even if it sounds
> crazy to you, we do highly encourage users to join our various teams.
> As for the private marketing list, yes we do use this list mostly for
> press/announcement preparations, otherwise news and text elements
> would be disclosed before due date. How do you join this list? Good
> question. By contributing, not by complaining, and by asking. And if
> that's not your call, we have plenty of other teams for you to join :
> https://www.libreoffice.org/community/get-involved/
> If that's still not your call, and you just want to use
> LibreOffice... that's fine! we are happy that you do so.
> >
> > Bottom line is that I (and others) disagree with the "private
> > marketing list" decision to go with the existing
> > 'Fresh/Still/whatever' download page(s). Please consider simply
> > rolling back to the Dec 2013 model.
> Thank you for your suggestion, but no, we won't. We have deployed a
> brand new website, asked for feedback on several completely open and
> public lists for several months.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the change being raised on
this list?

> We feel good about the choices we
> have made (although we are still toying with the Still branch name)
> but no we won't come back to the December 2013, December 2010 or
> December 10 C.E. because some think the past is always better than
> the future.
> Best,
> Charles.

To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com>
[libreoffice-users] LibreOffice Still?NoOp <glgxg@sbcglobal.net>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?arakish <rmfrunyan@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?"\"J. Van Brimmer\"" <jerry.vb@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Florian Reisinger <florei@libreoffice.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Florian Reisinger <florei@libreoffice.org>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?NoOp <glgxg@sbcglobal.net>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
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.