Pedro, I think your comments are also very valuable to this planning thread! For the Symphony value integration, per Symphony team's evaluation, will take 2 years or even longer for all the contents. That's why I think it is critical to define some release in the middle to fruit. Fidelity, performance, and other pieces like ICU & VBA that you mentioned, are some thing important to most of our users, and relatively easy to migrate those fixes/enhancements from Symphony. UI changes is a more complex topics, not only from the technical perspective, but also user experience study for the integration, which I believe will take long time for discussion. So I suggest releases like 3.5, 3.6 to be on the way to 4.0.
- Simon 2012/7/12 Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> > Ugh.. what I replied here was more pertinent to the > Symphony and AOO thread, sorry. > > One thing that we must consider in the future for > is being able to download incremental releases with > binary diffs (like bsdiff). that would make it much > easier to upgrade between micro releases. > > Pedro. > > --- Mer 11/7/12, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Hi Andrea; > > > > --- Mer 11/7/12, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> > > ha scritto: > > ... > > > > > > > > Speaking with (too) little knowledge of the effort > > involved, > > > I would keep a 3.4.x series with periodic bugfix > > releases, > > > but use the trunk directly for a 4.0 release including > > the > > > UI changes from Symphony and the other improvements. I > > don't > > > see reasons for an intermediate 3.5 version unless the > > > effort to reach 4.0 requires too long (say, one year). > > > > > > > I am not an expert, but IMHO ... > > > > There are some lower hanging fruit: the ICU update, MSXML > > improvements and VBA among others, that can probably be > > easier but the nice things like the accessibility and > > the new UI will take a lot more time. > > > > I can't really quantify times but adding all the Symphony > > features into AOO would likely take more that a year and > > can only be done properly by the IBM china guys (and we > > are really lucky to them here). > > > > > Working towards version 4.0 will bring even more > > interest > > > towards the project and, since the changes would be > > many and > > > substantial, branding the release as 4.0 would be > > totally > > > justified. > > > > > > > I certainly think we should target having the Symphony > > UI in the future, and it does seem to fit better new > > platforms like Windows 8, but it is really difficult > > to know off-hand how our existing users will take it. > > > > At this time there is a huge inertia building around > > Option I but I don't think we should close the doors > > completely to option II. > > > > I would like to hear more from our long-time > > developers on which approach they like best, > > but perhaps it's not yet a good time to take > > a decision. > > > > Pedro. > > >
