Jorge, On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 14:53 -0600, jorge wrote:
> Hi > > I'll try to contribute with something. > > I think that a LTS version of whatever product has to do the job well > (Their main performance for which it was made). In this case, LO > Software, I think that if It makes well all thinks that the Menu expose, > it is a LTS version because it is able to solve users usual needs. What > about bugs. I think that the bugs usually are special features that we > expect of LO, ... In others words, if there is a bug or bugs that > affects the calcs (actions), that we usually hope to do with the Menu, > that bug afffects seriously the version and it can't be LTS. > > And I think too that is necesary to support what ever official LTS > version until comes another new LTS version. > > I analized this thinking in a company, profesional or student. What > they need ? At least that the software does what it says that it can do > (On the Menu- Its performance). > There two major issues about defining an LTS version. One is what constitutes LTS, what do we explicitly promise users to do and how long a term is the LTS. Obviously, bug fixes are included in the LTS but what about backporting new features into the LTS for example. This is very important for organizations planning their software support and upgrade cycle. While LO is free for any user in larger organizations there are deployment costs that are not trivial. My guess is the deployment costs are roughly the same for LO and MSO. Someone has to prepare the deployment and actually do the deployment. I am addressing more this side of the issue. The issue I believe you are addressing is the technical side, what to we do internally to make a good LTS version for users, again this is very important and needs serious discussion. > Regards, > > Jorge Rodríguez > _______________ > > > El dom, 09-10-2011 a las 12:05 -0400, planas escribió: > > Cor > > > > On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 12:05 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > Tom Davies wrote (08-10-11 12:10) > > > > > > > At this point we could probably start thinking about longer-term > > > > support than just 1 year. A lot has changed this year and the future > > > > seems much more solidly certain for TDF and LO. Regards from Tom :) > > > > > > No one will hold you from thinking about that. But before building > > > expectations, it is good to realise that decisions about release cycles > > > are made by the people that do the development work. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > -- > > > - Cor > > > - http://nl.libreoffice.org > > > > I think we are growing to point were the issue of long term support > > probably needs to be addressed. I think this more an issue with > > corporate users rather than home/home office users. Large organizations > > dislike having to update very frequently and we need to find the best > > balance for them and us. Linux users are probably affected less because > > of the distros will provide one of the more recent versions. But Windows > > and Mac users need to update manually or in a corporate environment the > > IT department will need to roll out the new version/update. Firefox has > > received criticism for their rapid versioning from 4 to 7 in the last > > several months from corporate users. > > > > There are several possibilities. We could say every odd or even (3.3 vs > > 3.4) is the LTS with support for 2 or 3 years and the other is supported > > for 1 year for example. We could say every, say third release (3.3 the > > 3.6) is the LTS with support for the other version. One of the years > > releases (3.3, 3.4, and 3.5?) could be designated the LTS. Please note > > these are just ideas put out to stimulate thinking and discussion for us > > to determine what is best overall for LO and our users. > > > > Obviously, this is not an issue that can be decided without discussing > > with others such as the devs before a decision is reached but one that > > probably needs to addressing in the near future. The goal is to have a > > policy that can be used for planning by us and by users and is > > reasonable for both. > > > > > > -- > > Jay Lozier > > jsloz...@gmail.com > > > > -- > Atentamente, > > Jorge Rodríguez > > -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
