On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have not yet seen, not installed, and not tested. Let's wait to see a release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that have no factual basis. -Rob > - 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 > > [ ... ] >
