On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
* Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
+ So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our versions
are continuous improvements - does it make sense to still keep 'major'?
[ ie. should we do 4.3.0 - 5.0, 4.4.3 -
On 09/05/14 16:01, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
* Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
+ So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our versions
are continuous improvements - does it make sense to still keep 'major'?
On 9 mai 2014 16:01:09 CEST, Italo Vignoli it...@italovignoli.com wrote:
On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
* Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
+ So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our
versions
are continuous improvements - does it make
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 16:09 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
well the main question discussed was whether there were any technical
reasons to avoid changing the versioning, whether it's actually
_desirable_ to do it is purely a marketing decision.
Quite - meaning not much to do with the
Hello,
I sent this a couple weeks ago and haven't received a response. Just want to
make sure it didn't go unnoticed.
-Ken
From: kenbio...@hotmail.com
To: libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
CC: markus.mohrh...@googlemail.com
Subject: Calc Import Unit Tests - Time Date Functions
Date:
Hi All,
I just wanted to share with you all the results of my latest extended
.docx test. I have been able to refine my workflow to better test,
document and report the compatibility issues, and was able to put in 13
bug reports yesterday. Also i noticed there is a weekly bug summary page
On Fri, 09 May 2014 16:52:11 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Esp. When we are about to change the stable to mature.
Best,
Charles.
IMHO not a good idea... the mature term would be prone to jokes..
try type mature in google and see all the
