>Found this in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >> OpenOffice.org 2.4.1 Release Candidate 1 (build OOH680_m16) which >> installs as OpenOffice.org 2.4 has been uploaded to the mirror network. > >IMO, we still do an extremely bad job in advertising those release >candidates to a wider audience. > I'll second that and state that we do poor job in advertising 2.x release candidates. This may be due to the effort to move people from 2.x to 3.x.
>http://www.openoffice.org doesn't mention it, neither does >http://download.openoffice.org. >The former asks people to test OOo 3.0 Beta, the latter contains a link >"Get Release Candidates ...", but this leads to a download of DEV300_m14. > It should lead to a download of either candidate. The first should be and is labeled as a Beta and states not to run in a production environment. >To know there is a new RC, you either need to subscribe to some rather >high-traffic list such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] (why not >[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >or read other channels (e.g. press releases) not related to OOo. > >I suggest that we establish a policy to a) announce RCs at the project >homepage (www.openoffice.org), and b) prominently link them from >download.openoffice.org. I think this would help us getting more testing >coverage for the RCs. As the past has shown (in particular for 2.4), >this can be a Very Good Thing (TM). +1 Release Candidates and Beta releases need to be throughly tested. Any code for 2.4 needs to be tested to insure that all known problems that are or were fixed are indeed fixed. This will allow Sun/OpenOffice.org to 'put to rest' this version and place all efforts to fix 3.0 problems. Even the 1.1.x line is not completely finished as there are issues with 1.1.6 as the target. I do not desire to see a repeat of this with 2.x/3.x. James McKenzie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
