Hi :) "Introducing new features usually leads to new bugs, and sometimes even regressions. "
Right, so does that mean that a release that introduce MORE new features can expect to have MORE bugs and that it might have MORE regressions? For example, the 3.5.0 had tons of new features didn't it? So does that mean the 3.5.0 should have been expected to have MORE bugs and MORE regressions? Does it also mean that a new release that has LESS new features may have LESS bugs and LESS regressions? Why make a release such as the 3.4.6 at all if it doesn't have new features? Has any work gone into a release such as the 3.4.6? Would it be fair to guess that the work went primarily into fixing things? The vast majority of question that arrived at the Users List (from the moment of the 3.5.0s release right through to 3.5.3) were able to be solved by simply reverting to the 3.4.6. The problem IS NOT that i expect NO BUGS. When have i ever said that? The problem is that people were given unrealistic expectations. They were effectively told to expect few or no bugs in the 3.5.0 (and the .1 and .2 and .3) and told that it would have less problems than previous releases. Now you are telling me that was unrealistic, which is exactly what my cross-post was saying. Perhaps you could try reading what i said instead of just berating and insulting me purely because i dare to be honest. Regards from Tom :) --- On Sun, 3/6/12, Charles-H. Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: From: Charles-H. Schulz <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is 3.5.4 ready for business users? To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 13:32 Tom, I don't feel accusing people of lying is going to be very constructive. if anything you are displaying worrying signs of your complete ignorance in basic software development and it's so basic you don't need to be a developer. So let me put this in very clear terms for you: SOFTWARE IS BUGGY. IT WILL ALWAYS BE BUGGY. And yes, open source software is all about telling everyone about identified bugs or potential bugs. Even in a stable release. Why? BECAUSE SOFTWARE IS BUGGY. Even proprietary software. It's always the case. So what happens with asking about our two branches and which one is the most stable? For one thing having two branches tends to be the rule in software development world, not the exception. Vendors or projects may not always label them that way, but having a maintenance branch and the "up-to-date" branch is the usual method out there. The up-to-date branch builds on top of the maintenance branch (i.e includes bugfixes and security related patches) while introducing new features. Introducing new features usually leads to new bugs, and sometimes even regressions. New bugs, because, did I ever mention this? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS. Therefore, the new branch will have new, and often unnoticed bugs. That's the way it works. We don't tell lies, but 3.5.4 will have more bugs squashed than the 3.5.0 , but the 3.5.0 will have in theory more bugs squashed than, say, the 3.4.3 (the release that was before the new branch was released). The 3.5.x is thus not a developer branch at all, but for users (i.e. corporations) looking for certainty, you may indeed want to push for their adoption of, say, a 3.4.6 or a 3.5.4 . That's how it works. Remember: the 3.5.0 is stable, regular people can use it everyday just fine, but you know what? SOFTWARE HAS BUGS. Some of these users may be disgruntled. It's the way it works. Have you talked to disgruntled MS Office users? They complain about bugs too. We all do. So please, don't crosspost to the universe about the blatant lies of TDF officials when somebody squawks about a bug; report the bugs, or have the user become a bug reporter and that will actually be helpful. Thanks, Charles. 2012/6/3 Tom Davies <[email protected]> > Hi :) > Many people are willing and even enjoy testing and trying out the latest > newest version especially if that means they get to play with new > features. There are so many of them they even have names such as "early > adopters". We need to attract more of them!! > > Those people are not looking for stability. They are looking for fresh > and exciting or just trying to stay ahead of the game and see what is > coming up next. > > Sell those new early releases using those aspects as the way of promoting > them. > > If you blatantly lie and tell people that the new branch is "stable" then > those ear4ly-adopters lose interest and go elsewhere, to other projects > that ARE doing new and exciting things AND telling people about it. > > At the same time, by claiming that the latest new thing IS your most > stable version then if/when they find regressions they wont bother looking > at previous versions. After all you have just told them there is no > version more stable than the one they have been given and therefore any > problems are NEW bugs. So, they walk away to find other products that do > have the functionality they are looking for and just tell people they know > that LO is just not ready yet. > > In almost all cases that got as far as the Users List those blockers were > solved by simply getting them to try the 3.4.6 release. The one that > didn't have all the regressions you would expect from a new and exciting > branch. > > I seem to be explaining this really badly. If i say it 1 way around > people think i am a jerk because of course i should expect regressions in > the latest software. But what if i don't want the latest? What if i want > something solid and reliable? > > The official website has been telling people that 3.5.0 and so on where > the most reliable when they weren't!! If it told them instead that they > were getting the ultra-latest then they might be happier about accepting > regressions and perhaps looking back for a more stable version. If they > are told it IS the most stable version then WHY would they look? > > > Now there is a question on the User List asking if the 3.5.4 is stable > and ready for corporate use. NO-ONE can TRUSTS the official TDF line, as > repeated by Italo, because it has been used so many times before and then > found to be false in so many cases. Which part of this line is true this > time and which part is a lie this time? "3.5.x is stable, although there > are some regressions". The 1st part tells us that it is ready for > corporate usage, the 2nd part contradicts that. > > However the whole discussion can be avoided by actually telling the truth > instead of lying about it and then trying to cover-up the lie. Sell the > product on what really ARE its good points (ok, and stretch it a little as > every marketing department for every product probably does). > > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > --- On Sun, 3/6/12, Italo Vignoli <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Italo Vignoli <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is > 3.5.4 ready for business users? > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, 3 June, 2012, 11:07 > > 3.5.x is stable, although there are some regressions which impact on > some users. Of course, this is not implying that 3.5.x is perfect, and > we will never have a perfect software as bugs and regressions are part > of the process especially when you are developing new features on a 20 > years old code base. > > Unfortunately, as it is the case for proprietary software as well, the > only way to check if bugs and regressions impact your usage patterns is > to install the software and start using it. > > Tom Davies wrote: > > > Hi :) The 3.5.0 was blatantly not ready for business use and was not > > stable, as we saw from the number of problems people had on the > > lists, problems that were often solved by going back to 3.4.x. It > > was absurd to claim that 3.5.0 or 3.5.1 or 3.5.2 were stable. > > -- > Italo Vignoli - [email protected] > mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP [email protected] > skype italovignoli - gtalk [email protected] > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] > 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/marketing/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] > 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/marketing/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] 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/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] 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/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
