Hi :) Many projects have 2 branches so that;
1 is stable (because it has been around for longer and received more "service packs", bug-fixes, patches and all the rest). Generally it continues to recieve more updates and people do continue to work on it because whatever issue they were working on is easier to finish without starting again from scratch or radically re-thinking it. Hopefully after their work has been completed they and others are able to convert it to work on another branch. It's difficult to drag people away just as it's difficult to drag a gamer away from "just completing ths 1 more level. I'm nearly there, honest" The other takes whatever is already done or near enough finished and then adds tons of new features without having to worry tooooo much about how usable the new branch is going to be. It's where new devs are initially attracted to, where the greatest excitement and activity is generated. Then once that new branch has been around a while, and the people working on the newer features have fixed any problems they hadn't anticipated or solved completely unrelated breakages, then that starts to become "the stable branch". That usually seems to happen around x.x.3. The x.x.4 is usually fairly rock-solid. Big cheers all round. So there are 2 very different types of devs at any 1 time and if we don't supply the type of activity they get a real buzz from then many may well just wander off to some other project that does. It's not really the case that taking people off one thing means they will focus on what you want them to do. It's better to just have them all and make the most of what they do 'enjoy'. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Amit Choudhary <contact.amit.choudhary.in...@gmail.com> >To: Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> >Cc: Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk>; la10...@iperbole.bologna.it; >users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Monday, 29 July 2013, 9:33 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] 4.0.3 > > >On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Brown <andre...@icon.co.za> wrote: > >> Amit >> >> Your knowledge of the document standards is limited by your reply here. >> This issue of the document standards and naming convention was covered by a >> world body of multinationals and the preservation of all things in human >> digital text etc. This was to allow anyone, alien or earthly, thousands of >> years from now, to decode and read and modify the history in the digital >> world of mankind. So the open document standards were born and ratified and >> accpeted by the majority of the world that counts. MS did not agree and >> tried to introduce their own so-called opens standard with the .xml base, >> i.e.x docx, xlsx, and so forth. >> >> But it has not been accepted by the world bodies, even though the MS >> document standard does survive. As you will now notice MSO 2007 >> (partially), MSO 2010 and 2013 all can reads and write in the ODS standard >> used by OOo, AOO and LO. MS had no choice but to fit in and follow suit, so >> it's not the other way around that we and all other s outside of the use of >> MSO, must fit in. The ODS standard is here to stayt and will dominate over >> time, no matter what the masses say and want. It's about education that we >> all have choices and many efficient and useful alternatives in the digital >> world. >> >> >I might be out-of-date of what had been decided. But what I see is this: MS >Office everywhere I worked which translates to possibly billions of >doallars in MS pcokets. > >My agenda with whatever I have wrote till now is: Why should MS get >billions of dollars? > >The open formats should be supported, I am not against that, I am against >the timing. > >MS Office will win because 90% of computers have Windosws on them. Until >Linux desktops/laptops become popular people will not switch to open >document format. > >My strategy would be similar to MS: Make users switch to LO and then give >them open dcoument format and remove MS formats. Since 90% of the >installations will have LO, no one is going to complain and they will >happily settle for open document format and MS can't do anything. > >It is the strategy and timing I am talking about. Doing both together (MS >compatibility + Open document) is a strain on developers and QA. > >Given that LO has very few developers and QA, then why should LO focus on >two product lines. It is not correct strategy. > >Regards, >Amit > >PS: I am not pushing my ideas but I do not want to pay MS. Also, I will be >using LO but if the person who is receiving my document has MS Office, then >what? > >MS is a clever, arm-twisting company. You never know what they can come up >with. Bill Gates knew about monopoly and that's why all MS components are >intertwined with each other so that if you remove one component then other >component will not work properly. Bill Gates did this even before question >arose about breaking up MS, and after this happened in Europe, MS avoided >it easily by stating that if they remove IE then Windows will not work >properly and got away with not breaking up. > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@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 > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@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
