why did I receive this email???? all I am doing is trying to solve a problem using OfficeSuite LE...
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected] > wrote: > I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels > of fall-back in place always. Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of > those safeguards. It is foolish not to take that precaution. It honors > users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide > when, if ever, to remove a previous version. > > For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a > productivity product installed. As a matter of policy, I would never > silently uninstall anything. That is regardless of the presumed quality of > the new release. > > My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of > confidence (or hubris) might be. I am not presuming anything about the > quality of any non-existent release. I am expressing a principle that does > not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release > > 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. > > > [ ... ] > > 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 > > [ ... ] > >
