On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice > release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache > community, and apply the same logic
No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving consensus. > to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that > no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen. > > S. > > [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a > serious suggestion] > If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so. > > On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > >> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of >> OpenOffice.org 3.3.0. >> >> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and >> distributed editions of OpenOffice.org. >> >> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell. They tracked *existing* >> OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that >> were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release. >> >> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done: >> >> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution. (Notice how the >> files were identified). The code differences had to be maintained in >> parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding >> Novell release. >> >> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition. >> >> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition. >> >> In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, >> just OpenOffice.org. In particular, the support locations were >> OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org. >> >> It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, >> though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell >> edition. >> >> When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes >> to mind. >> >> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support >> location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as >> it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports. I would expect >> registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing >> downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with >> where that goes now. >> >> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes >> forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for >> individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site. But for it to be in the >> OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced >> in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for >> the current realities. >> >
