Hi Martin,
While there is no perfect solution, the proposal you mentioned will make the
OOo planning more like Mozilla schedule and less like linux kernel schedule
(that OOo is more similar with now).
This will cause the QA to be at a longer distance from trunk / CVS head,
because most of the QA will concentrate on (longer living) branches. The
longer time of development in trunk may cause more undetected bugs, thus
causing longer QA periods after branch time, to find and fix those bugs.
This may cause slowing down of the development.
But, since the release planning is going to change already, let's hope I'm
wrong.
Mox
On 12/18/06, Martin Hollmichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
please see the summary of the latest discussion on
wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_Model. If we can call agree
with that I propose to go with that model with the creation of the
OOF680 branch onwards,
Martin
Clytie Siddall wrote:
> To: l10n, releases
> CC: mac-porting
>
> Hello everyone :)
>
> I am very concerned about the current three-month release interval. When
> I first arrived here, with our fairly complete interface translation, I
> was met on the lists with a mélange of information about impending
> version 2.0.4 and upcoming version 2.1. That was confusing, and I had to
> filter out all the stuff about 2.0.4 and focus on 2.1.
>
> 2.1 has just been officially released, but there are still QA issues for
> different teams and architectures. I hope to release our (vi) 2.1 builds
> fairly soon, but there is at least one pan-language stopper bug (on Mac
> Intel), and a fair bit of specific work to do yet.
>
> And the translation deadline for OpenOffice.org 2.2 is January 18th,
> only a month away!
>
> So what do I do? Abandon 2.1 and work on the translation updates for
> 2.2? Finish 2.1 and not be ready for 2.2?
>
> We have a set of major goals for 2.2, including translating all the Help
> section (nearly half a million words) and improving support information
> (docs, website, spellchecker etc.) in general. On this time-scale, we'll
> be lucky if we get even the interface update in.
>
> I have participated in a discussion on the releases list about changing
> the release interval to six months. What is the status of that
discussion?
>
> It's essential that we construct a more realistic release schedule, or
> we are going to be faced with the choice of releasing buggy builds, or
> not releasing at all. We simply need more time to create a high-quality
> product.
>
> OpenOffice.org is far too complex a product to release every three
> months. It should compare itself, not with single-program projects, but
> with complex multi-app projects like the systems: GNOME, KDE, Xfce,
Debian.
>
> I recommend comparison with Debian, which has a culture of excellence.
> Debian "Etch" will be released about 18 months after Debian "Sarge".
> Meanwhile, users can get early builds, but the official release has been
> polished and debugged very thoroughly. My team had its first Debian
> translation basically ready over a year ago, and people have been using
> it, but the extra time gave us the chance to QA our translation
> extensively, and to translate support materials. I will be happy and
> proud to release Debian officially in Vietnamese for the first time. But
> I can only release our initial OpenOffice.org translation (2.1) by
> seriously compromising the quality of version 2.2. Or release 2.2. by
> dropping 2.1.
>
> We need action on this. I for one refuse to push out releases on this
> schedule. It doesn't allow sufficient time to do a quality job. It's
> sloppy and unprofessional. Our users deserve better than this.
>
> Please extend the release interval to six months minimum. Do it now.
>
> from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhóm
> Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mox on G
