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

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


Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...


On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:54:58 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Le 30.09.2014 13:26, Tanstaafl a écrit :
> > On 9/29/2014 2:55 PM, Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added we
> >> can expect to find that some things that don't so well in "Fresh"
> >> and yet still
> >> find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".
> >>
> >> To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
> >> marketing, double-speak.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such nonsensical
> > words?
> >
> > Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...
> >
> > Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).
> >
> > This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.
>
> I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability
> of some to even understand what is being discussed.

I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to be
talking at cross-purposes.


> Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".

And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people are
used to from so very many other projects, it *is* the testing branch.
Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as they
try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which is the
"stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to and
expecting.

Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear explanations
would, and you don't need to change terminology for that. If you didn't
change terminology, and had clear explanations, it is debatable if it
would be better or worse than changed terminology and clear
explanations, but either state would be so many leagues ahead of
changed terminology and no explanations, as it is now, that it is
baffling as to why those in charge are fighting so adamantly to keep
things as they are. Never mind changing the terminology again, who do
they still insist on not putting any explanations on the website?


> If you want
> testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
> branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for everyone :
>
> Fresh branch
> (x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
> candidates.
> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.
>
> Still branch
> (w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
> candidates.
> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.

A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
ones getting it, and not the public at large?


> Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance of
> finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time in
> proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone anyway. Let
> me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an opinion or who
> think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice project to focus on
> helping rather than complaining.

Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?

As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this really
shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.

I realise that you have previously said that this is the only forum to
complain about this issue, and that the other forums (like twitter, I
think it was), had very few to no complaints about the terminology
change, but so what? What is the downside to putting clear explanations
on the website? It can hardly make it worse for those that are already
happy with the situation, and can only make it better for those that
are unhappy or confused, so why so much resistance to it?

The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side versions,
should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I realise that will
take considerably longer to implement. Although it still should be
recognised as an important part of this puzzle.

>
> Thanks!
>
> 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

Follow-Ups:
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Sophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
References:
[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>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?alphacrash <v837502@att.net>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Cor Nouws <oolst@nouenoff.nl>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tom Davies <tomcecf@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>
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.