The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle branded. I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea. The quick-release cycle may be great for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences.
OOo-dev 3.4 is not exactly "out there" as far as the public consciousness is concerned. Has there ever been a non-developer bugzilla against it? I've not seen any user-list statement of a problem by someone using OOo-dev, though I didn't start following those lists until Summer 2011. Also, OOo-dev 3.4 was only available in English full installs, with langpacks for everybody else. And, of course, there is a gigantic disclaimer against production use. I would think a similar disclaimer will accompany the first podling release too. And if it is not fully rebranded, I think it can at best be a "technology preview" release. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: drew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release My thought. Given that OpenOffice.org 3.4 Beta is already out there. An announcement along the lines of: The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012. sounds about right to my ear. The pressure of re-branding would be lowered, I would think, moving such to the 3.5 (or ?) release. With the provision, of course, replace or not "1st Qtr" with whatever the developer corps feels appropriate. Put another way perhaps, I'd weigh the gains from a trade off of re-branding for quicker release cycle, at this moment. Best wishes, //drew [ ... ]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
