Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
Thanks for that link, it was a real help. I can't say I'm pleased, but the decision has been made and I will not go against the steering community. Something I did note was that a-lot of the points we have raised match theirs concept-for-concept if not word-for-word. On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Christoph Noack christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi Sean, since it is a bit hard for me to find the right place to jump in, here some decision on the version numbers question - the Steering Committee discussed that some weeks ago. http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Version_Numbering_Scheme_for_LibreOffice : Hope that helps! Christoph Am Samstag, den 20.11.2010, 10:26 +1100 schrieb Sean White: As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in peoples minds that we are a separate project. -- Sean White, Concerned User -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:24:00 +1100, Sean White runicpala...@gmail.com wrote: One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me to ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do myself. So my solution to your problem of incompatible extensions is to set up a new mailing list for OO to LO extension porting. the public can send the extension which the people on the mailing list can then port over. Sorry, I can't hold back here :). You LOVE open source because you can ask others to do what you want without you having to do it yourself? I am afraid that is not going to work out, people won't work on things they don't want to work on, just because you tell them so :-). Besides, resources are scarce. WHY should we require people to port all hundreds of OOo extensions over to LO (and keep them up to date), just because you don't like the current numbering scheme? They could rather work on improving LO at the same time. Once the code base diverge so much that the APIs become incompatible, we can talk about porting again, but I don't see the point of porting just for the sake of it. Sebastian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me to ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do myself. So my solution to your problem of incompatible extensions is to set up a new mailing list for OO to LO extension porting. the public can send the extension which the people on the mailing list can then port over. On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM, bastik.public.mailingl...@gmx.de wrote: On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote: ...and? Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does? And only then? Unless there is a compatibility tag for extensions, the way that there is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses, if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions. Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions, but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not work with the other. Why not accept that from day 1? //James I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO grow apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but miss some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the version number of LO differs. Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept incompatibilities. not to you James: Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome for example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous. LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move onward. Regards, bastik -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
because the underlining code inst changing overly-much, most of the extensions should be easy to port and in th odd case where an extension is truely broken by LO's remakes then we can rewrite the plugin from scratch. As a side not we will probably need a page on the document foundation site that is for these ported plugins On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:01 PM, bastik.public.mailingl...@gmx.de wrote: That's a good solution, that will have to come in place whenever incompatibles arise. BTW: I depend totally on others when there's something to code or port. Regards, bastik Sean White wrote: One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me to ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do myself. So my solution to your problem of incompatible extensions is to set up a new mailing list for OO to LO extension porting. the public can send the extension which the people on the mailing list can then port over. I wrote previously: I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO grow apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but miss some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the version number of LO differs. Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept incompatibilities. not to you James: Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome for example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous. LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move onward. Regards, bastik -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
Hi Florian Reisinger, *, This mail arrived completely screwed up! I'm sure no one made the effort to read it. Florian Reisinger schrieb: [.. screwed content ..] Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images (german version already started) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/22/2010 11:24 AM, Sean White wrote: One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me to ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do myself. Have you looked at the percentage of extensions for OOo that are open source? Have you looked at the percentage of popular extensions that are open source? jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6qLMAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/o9EIAL62QlKx/jwA3dbiBZpifdup YNIMpcy0xkgcQE1X9Pq9wXTyTPsp2aUT5MruQXNM3k83DGzP0Hb16qg3jzM+HALy gz0DjDvO5qwm9FlRWiIUYQYk5WMrfywIUqOoNVs3nx28XxJUKFbs8R0BSYQsGNpa 3TA53ZLM4jShq7hRUQ6HByxfY4F5TPromDd25ijcC4Oo3oHUhz+Lky5S6a3S/syY eI2SMHPBP/YKxGk0Gz4sJc1IPGLfDf30krQNu0r7v5Q1gc9UCeN8WYNr37q3Ngch 8nmAT73OCmsDfxBEHhDqYUU8BKYMXFxuNg68PHtQZGKHG/kET1SyO236ER3MhLQ= =ypi6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
jonathon wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote: ...and? Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does? And only then? Unless there is a compatibility tag for extensions, the way that there is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses, if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions. jonathon Wouldn't it be better to rewrite the extensions and post the revised extensions on a LO website? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
Hi, I've tried to fix the mail from Florian Resinger: Btw, Florian, which email client do you use? Your email was horrible to read I've had a hard time figuring out, who said what after your mail. Sigrid Am Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:25:11 +0100 schrieb Florian Reisinger reisi...@live.at: Claus Agerskov schrieb: Sean White skrev: As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in peoples minds that we are a separate project I will suggest another version scheme like the one the Linux distribution Ubuntu uses. The year and month: 9.04, 9.10, 10.4 and 10.10. I know it is very difficult to release at a specific month because there could be a lot of issues that postpone a release date. Maybe it should only be the target to have one major release each year and smaller updates and security releases with minor version numbers: Yearly major release: 11 and 12 Update release: 11.1,11.2 and 12.1 Security releases: 11.0.5, 11.1.5, 11.2.5, 12.0.5 and 12.1.5 (security release 5) I think it would be easier to understand, if it's classic. Betas: 0.9.1 (Beta 1)1.9.3 ( Third Beta for Version Number 2 ) = Mayor Release Mayor Release 1.0 , 2.0 ... Update and Security Release: 1.1 1.5 Kind regards Florian Reisinger Linz Austria -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote: ...and? Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does? And only then? Unless there is a compatibility tag for extensions, the way that there is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses, if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6Y+sAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/f0oIAMKz0gyISnEoLZMOufwNthWt wyCJmqPDStCSUtr0gV8OF8s6giOtkP7Z8ex1NSdyekRsJ9Xixh2raR9jFUNyigan xN9Z9gPTiu+6f9vkPZ+AQYgKsr2eWAra2ERow4UgzAxHakivoeiqFzRVYvyvi1O/ 3hExpjxW1TFE2NbAoRIBwL0ESSOHYCBi0nkIPtyYgu8+DqjBvh0qfC4kGLQSmTLS betDY//sB6jUOmuHInU9XY1rEOo/dOUbMdn0f4Ra5+dtTjrsZaQiACXTbG5q+4o3 piBUvmzdkkc09Qgbd/eGPYqIJxk3McZCJnopMm4KhD7/vwuF3AkoW6a6itYpxMA= =Eij8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote: ...and? Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does? And only then? Unless there is a compatibility tag for extensions, the way that there is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses, if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions. Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions, but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not work with the other. Why not accept that from day 1? //James -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM, James Wilde wilde.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions, but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not work with the other. Why not accept that from day 1? That's a very good point. +1 -Thiago -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in peoples minds that we are a separate project. -- Sean White, Concerned User -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?
Sean White wrote: As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in peoples minds that we are a separate project. I couldn't agree more. As a new project it should have its own numbering scheme. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
