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

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


Hi Charles,


On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:32:53 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello Paul
>
> On 30 septembre 2014 15:38:26 CEST, Paul <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za>
> wrote:
> >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.
>
> While several other projects use this system not all of them do. Are
> you baffled at Firefox three release channels that has one long term
> support another similar to our Fresh branch and a true testing one?

I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I do
get an idea of what each is for. But the use of the name Beta makes
that one clear, and Aurora explains that it is in an unstable
state, so all makes sense.


>
> Call me callous but this perspective has been encouraged here on this
> list for some years so I actually think that while nothing is
> perfect, far from that, there is a magnifying glass on the matter
> here.

Yes, I'm sure there is. And worth noting.


>
> Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that
> fresh is unstable and not even a testing branch... but so be it.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying? Are you saying you don't
think that there are people that think that "Fresh" is unstable? I'm
not saying I think people think "Fresh" is unstable, I'm saying there
is confusion created by the naming. People don't know *what* "Fresh"
is. That's a bad thing. Some probably do think that "Fresh" is
unstable. Some probably don't, but then are left to wonder what
"Still" is. The naming leads to confusion. That really is my
main point.


>
>
> >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?
>
>
> Paul my stance has not changed. No one refuses to do anything. I
> simply do not have the time and I am just a volunteer. People on this
> list think they can just demand something and it will happen. It does
> not work that way. We are a community and if you want to fix
> something, by all means go ahead.

I'm glad to hear that no one is refusing to do it. I'm glad to hear
that it is valued. And I'm not demanding anything other than
acknowledgment of the fact that the current terminology leaves something
to be desired and needs some better explanations.

So far I have heard a lot of defense of the current terminology, but
most of it has been to point out that the alternatives are not better
(a debatable point), very little has been to point out why the current
terminology is any good. And very little has been said about any other
considerations, like the need for better explanation. If someone had
said "We like the terminology for these [listed] reasons, but you who
disagree are right that clearer explanations are needed", I would have
been quite happy to wait for it to happen.

In point of fact I had no idea that you were the one who needed to
make the changes to the website (or if not the one, at least one of the
ones who could). I was not aware I could do it myself. Yes, this is a
community, but I assumed that there would be at least some rudimentary
security keeping the maintenance of the website to a trusted few (the
marketing team, say), of whom I am at this stage not part. Also, I
would assume that there was more than one person with this power, and
that between all of them, someone would have had the time by now, given
how high a priority this should have been.

I fully understand that you don't have the time, and appreciate the
fact, but not having the time is different to not wanting to make the
change. That you have admitted that the change should happen is
good, now we just need to work out the details of actually making it
happen.

>
> The explanation you are alluding to is on my todo list but I have
> several other items before that. And I am glad if people can help,
> which in this case start by either using our Redmine to define the
> contents and introducing oneself on the website mailing list.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Redmine site. Can you provide a link?
Equally, I am not sure I have the time for this, nor that I am the best
person to word such an explanation, but I can give it a go, and
either access the Redmine site as you suggest, or at the least post it
here for discussion and use by whomever does the actual edits, which
should make their life easier.

> >
> >
> >> 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?
>
> Actually you do because that part (at least) is on the website
> already.

Really? I don't see it. When I go to the LO site, I see a big banner
with "Download Now", and clicking that takes me to the download page
for "Fresh", which doesn't state anything like that. And I don't see
any link to an "About Our Versions" page. Can you tell me where exactly
I can see that?

Also, I think a slightly more in-depth explanation is needed for the
general public.


>
> >
> >
> >> 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?
>
> See my comment on contributing above.
>
>
> >
> >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 think you took this as an imperative. Please understand that it was
meant not as an order, but as an explanation of what, in my opinion,
needs to be done to give your arguments any credit.


>
> Never tell a volunteer what to do. It does not work. I know there is
> no malice in what you are expressing but this point is important. I
> have a dayjob, a family, hobbies and other tasks and roles inside
> LibreOffice. And I am not the only one.

As I explained above, I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. You
are defending a position that many on this list are arguing against,
without much of an argument that I can see. I have said that for my
part I feel the problem lies in the fact that there are no clear
explanations, and that this should be the number one goal, and any
discussion of the exact terminology is less important than that single
fact. A middle-ground if you will. And a reasonable one, I feel. I am
not requiring that anybody do anything. If you disagree with my point,
fine, say so and explain why. But to continue to argue without
addressing what seems to be the main concern of those arguing against
you seems to be pointless, in my opinion.

As I said above, it is not simply that no-one has taken the time to do
this that concerns me, it is that it has been ignored that concerned me.

But you are right in pointing out that now that it is agreed it is an
important step, I can either accept that it will have to wait until
someone has the time to attend to it, or I can pitch in and help. This
is a community, and all offers of assistance are welcome. I am happy
with that. A situation that is bad and everybody agrees is bad is far
less of a problem to me than one that is bad but those in charge (at
least nominally) refuse to see as bad.


>
> >
> >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?
>
> Absolutely none, indeed.
>
> >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.
>
> Others have responded on this, but thanks for your input.

As always, I hope only to add to a constructive solution to the
problem. I do feel like here we have finally made some progress. Those
that feel the terminology is bad must surely feel it is less of a
problem once it has a clear explanation.

And my respect to Charles, Sophie, Tom, and all that have kept this
conversation civil and constructive.

Kind regards

Paul

>
> Best,
>
> Charles.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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>
[libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?alphacrash <v837502@att.net>
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>
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LibreOffice Still?Paul <paulsteyn1@afrihost.co.za>
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.