Hi :) +1 Good point. Perhaps a new name for "stable" could be "rock solid" or something? People do seem to find the "stable" 'branch' more stable than earlier releases in it's branch and they do seem to understand the concept fairly quickly but it does create a bit of confusion about the 'unstable' branch (which is not really unstable but just not quite as rock-solid)
On 16 May 2014 13:38, Charles-H. Schulz < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Tom, > > Le 16.05.2014 12:24, Tom Davies a écrit : > > Hi :) >> I think "fresh" is the tag that is obscure and could be changed. It's the >> best one i have heard yet but it's still not quite expressing what the >> early releases of a branch really give. Most people understand "stable". >> > > Yes, but you got it backwards. Stable is clear to anyone, indeed, except > that the other one... is stable too. Thus we get the wrong idea about what > the two branches are about. It would be like naming one branch "free" and > the other one would have to battle hard in order to convey the notion that > it would be free too. > > > >> My ideas for replacing "fresh" would be >> "Innovative branch" >> "New features branch" >> > > You got the general concept right behind the meaning of "fresh" but I > honestly doubt we will change fresh. However we will likely change the > stable one. > > > or something along those lines but you can see why i prefer "fresh"!!! >> > > Other projects face the same problem and have come up with things like >> "cooking branch" (SliTaz) which is interesting but confusing or the usual >> "development branch" which i'm sure feels just plain wrong for LO for most >> of us. >> > > It is not just SliTaz. Practically every distro has a development branch > that is advertised at some point of its cycle: beta, testing, almost ready, > etc. Debian has several of those, Fedora has rawhide, Arch has testing, > Mageia has cooker, etc. The very important nuance is that we have these > development builds too, but we rely on two stable branches (the one called > "stable" and "fresh"). Fo each of these we have alphas, betas and release > candidates. > > best, > > Charles. > > > >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >> >> On 15 May 2014 19:39, Kracked_P_P---webmaster <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> On 05/15/2014 12:06 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: >>> >>> Hello Tim, >>>> >>>> Le 15.05.2014 15:30, Kracked_P_P---webmaster a écrit : >>>> >>>> On 05/15/2014 03:43 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Tim, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 14.05.2014 22:22, Kracked_P_P---webmaster a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> I read this article this morning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interesting article. >>>>>>> Since it comes from CNN Money, it might help with some marketing >>>>>>> issues that could creep up from time to time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/13/technology/innovation/beta- >>>>>>> testing/index.html Innovation Nation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The end of polished and perfect software >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By Adrian Covert @CNNTech May 13, 2014: 8:21 AM ET >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> LO does do offer "true Beta" version >>>>> should have read >>>>> LO does not offer "true Beta" version >>>>> >>>>> >>>> okay, but that's a factually wrong statement :-) >>>> >>>> >>> Yes we do offer a beta version, but not disguised as a full release >>> version. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> I do agree. And keep in mind that at this stage, the tag "stable" is >>> very >>> >>>> much in test. We have noticed it is somewhat misleading, as users come >>>> back >>>> to us (users list, blogs, tweets, etc.) and tell us: "so that's the >>>> stable >>>> version then, what's the other one for?" We may end up changing that tag >>>> sooner rather than later. But as you know, marketing is far from being >>>> an >>>> exact science. >>>> >>>> >>>> It would be nice to have a better term than "Stable" in view that it >>> could >>> be taken that the "Fresh" version is not "stable", even though it is. >>> There is just a lot of new things in the "Fresh" line that needs some >>> added work. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is really hard to explain to most local users why we have two lines >>>>> and what the difference. Most of the software that they look at do >>>>> not offer a two "line" option. Maybe we could get some text that >>>>> could be placed in a "brochure" to help local marketers with this >>>>> "issue". >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sure, but I disagree with you about the two lines. How come MS still >>>> offers two version of Microsoft office (MSO 2013 and MSO 2010)? Are >>>> users >>>> equally confused? >>>> >>>> >>>> I did not know that MS was still selling MSO-2010. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> The fact that now there is a CNN article telling people that there are >>>>> companies "knowingly" give users beta software as a "final release" >>>>> version is something that really should not be done. LO does not do >>>>> this type of thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, let's be very careful here. If companies do this, it is on their >>>> sole responsibility. I frankly do not see TDF doing that, ever. But, >>>> since >>>> these are office suites, and not airliners, nor trains or cars, we can >>>> also >>>> safely distribute LibreOffice beta versions, with a very clear language >>>> stating that's it should not be meant for production use but that we are >>>> happy to give a preview and welcome feedback and bug reports. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Charles. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At least we state our "beta" version as "beta" or early "release >>> candidates" versions and not as if they were "final release" version. >>> >>> TDF/LO keeps the alpha, beta, RCx, and "final" release version named as >>> such. Of course the final RC version is the one that is released as the >>> version that "normal" users will install. I just hate those companies >>> that >>> offer a product that is actually an alpha or beta as their non-alpha/beta >>> version. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe 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 >>> >>> -- To unsubscribe 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
