On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:20:32 +0200
"Charles-H. Schulz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul : did you intend to post this off list?
No, sorry, my bad for not checking the address. I just clicked "reply".
For most messages that goes to the list, I don't know why some people
seem to have it that their messages are set to reply off-list.
> On 6 août 2014 16:45:36 CEST, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Sorry, Charles, but I have to respectfully disagree:
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:31:40 +0200
> >"Charles-H. Schulz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Le 06.08.2014 16:22, Paul a écrit :
> >> > On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:56:13 +0200
> >> > "Charles-H. Schulz" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality
> >> >> release"
> >> >
> >> > No, not magically, but by the very nature of it being around for
> >> > longer it will, in the end, result in a more stable product.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? So a software "being around" gets patches through the Holy
> >> Spirit?
> >
> >No, it gets patches the same way a ".6" release of a software gets
> >more patches than a ".0" release.
>
> That is your definition of an LTS. Not a bad one but it does not
> change the definition much...
It is merely the common definition.
>
> >The idea of a version being around for
> >longer having more patches in it is well understood, and in fact has
> >been something you have commented on regarding the benefit of the
> >"Still" branch.
> >
> >LTS versions don't *start off* more stable, they only become more
> >stable.
>
> I agree.
> >
> >
> >> LTS implies the existence of a business and a support
> >> machinery, not the virtue of time.
> >
> >No, it doesn't. It may be the case for Canonical that the LTS
> >version has more support machinery, but the concept of LTS is just
> >that it will be supported for a guaranteed amount of time, and not
> >retired early, such that adopters can be sure that for a specific
> >duration they will not have to upgrade to get support and patches.
>
> So developers will obviously have an incentive to develop a LTS for
> free... not really seen this working well before honestly. And I have
> been working in linux distros for some time.
They will have the same incentive that they do for any release. Why
would they decide not to work on it just because they are not being
paid? They're not being paid for any of their other work anyway.
>
> Best,
>
> Charles.
>
>
>
--
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
