Le 28/01/2012 13:36, Pedro a écrit : Hi Pedro,
My plain opinion about this: all developers should focus on fixing regressions. And then on fixing bugs. And only after that in adding new features/bugs.
I would tend to agree, but it is true that I'm not a developer, and thus my motivations lie elsewhere. I can not speak for the motivations of any given developer within this project.
Simply put: Regressions + Bugs cause to LOOSE existing users.
Absolutely.
If someone upgrades to get rid of a bug that was present in his current install and finds that it is fixed but other features that he needed stopped working, what action should he take? Go back? Wait?
My personal approach is to stick with the old. That's why I still have LO 3.3.4, and even OOo 3.2.1 - why change for some allegedly indispensable feature when the stuff you are used to working with no longer does ? That also goes for any general recommendations I might make about the software.
Most users that try a free software if they find an obstacle they simply uninstall it. Very few will bother to find a solution. Even less will bother to report it. Only a rare minority of these will actually register in the tracker and actually report it.
Agreed.
How to improve this? Eliminate all bugs *. Eliminate barriers to reporting bugs. * I know this is an utopia. But you can still set it as a target.
Also agreed. Where I disagree with the current approach of the project is that it is expected that the masses will test the latest and greatest dev release and report the bugs they find. IMO, this is not only unrealistic, but also unworkable, and it shows in the final product because the point zero releases up til now are still full of regressions/bugs that only get fixed 3 or 4 releases further down the release line (if at all). I feel that this will only likely change, if and when the project has enough developers to be able to "assign" (either voluntarily or through coordinated agreement) a group of them to fixing regressions and bugs, which (I would assume) is a rather ungratifying task for most of them. Most potential users are as we say in French "attentiste", they wait for a finalised product to be released before taking the plunge. Why risk installing something that might corrupt your files, and lose the work you have saved over the past 3 or more years ? This is beyond many people's comprehension, and certainly in the real business world, where most of the regressions tend to get discovered. How many IT support managers would risk their necks and their jobs for that ? Freedom has a price, but most people are unprepared to pay that price, be it through selflessness or even just personal survival.
I still think that paying for bugfixes is a good idea, with an expectation that they will be fixed within a given timeframe. I also know that this idea is not particularly welcome within this project, so I'll keep on testing the new releases, as and when I've got the time, but recommend the older 3.3.x releases, or even old OOo 3.2.1 for most daily work.
Alex _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: [email protected] Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
