Hello Tim,
Le 06.08.2014 15:04, Kracked_P_P---webmaster a écrit :
We have developed a "cycle" for each line where we know that x.x.0 is
the newest and x.x.6/7 is the most mature of that line. So we should
use that idea.
Yes we have two lines.
Yes there is an idea of maturity vs. younger/fresher
Yes the newer line should have more features to work with or a more
developed user interface
So maybe we could stop thinking "this line and that line" but focus on
how mature/developed the current versions of each line is.
Have a little sidebar with this idea of this version is "this mature"
for its line and the other version is "this mature" for its line.
What we need is terms that reflect the idea of the "age" of the
version, or what the cycle number really means.
x.x.0 - toddler version of the line
x.x.3 - teenager
x.x.5 - in college
x.x.6/7 - graduated and best working of the line
Betas are the newborn version of the line, if you go with the above
age description.
Can we somehow create terms like that, but in more of a business
terminology?
Indeed we are missing such an explanation. Care to open a wiki page on
this?
Best,
Charles.
On 08/06/2014 08:35 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
Ok, so that sounds like the 4th or 6th "cycle" of a branch has reduced
the
bugs and regressions = i think most people would call that making it
more
stable wouldn't they?
Then the point about recent releases having had less usage seems to be
saying that it is not quite so stable.
Actually that does make a lot of sense. When new features are added
it
would be surprising if there were no unexpected problems. I think
most
people would understand that and understand that as being slightly
less
stable than it will be in the future. That all makes total sense.
I am beginning to like the sound of "mature branch" and "young
branch". Of
course a google search for mature, or young, might bring up some bad
sites
that we wouldn't want to be associated with. It's annoying because
otherwise that might be a really good way of describing the difference
between the 2 branches.
So i think we still need to try to think of a really short name for
each
branch that describes what it's advantage is over the other branch.
Still vs fizzy don't seem to be popular but was worth a try. SliTaz's
"stable" vs "cooking" seems to have been rejected already. Stable vs
unstable doesn't cover it. Development vs stable suffers the same
problem. Has anyone else got ideas? I think it would be great to
have a
wiki-page or something where people can post their ideas slightly
anonymously and then maybe people could vote for which ones they
prefer.
Regards from
Tom :)
On 6 August 2014 12:52, Sophie <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 06/08/2014 13:00, Tom Davies a écrit :
Hi :)
Ok, so the question is why have 2 different branches at all?
The "Fresh" branch has the advantage of having more features but
what
advantage does the older branch have?
To have less bugs and regressions that make it more sure to use by
average users. When you are at the 4th or 6th cycle of a release, you
can consider that almost all of the functionalities have been used
and
if there was bugs or regressions they have been reported and
depending
on there severity/impact, they have been corrected. Which is not true
for the more recent release with less usage and less users, it needs
more time and cycles.
Kind regards
Sophie
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
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
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected]
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
