Hi,
TomD wrote > In reply to > this post > <http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-Still-td4117297i100.html#a4124368> > > by alphacrash > > Hi :) > It's not quite that simple :( > > With Fresh the new features probably will work just fine. They have been > about as thoroughly tested as possible. It's any pre-existing stuff that > could be broken. > > If it was just the new features that were possibly broken then there would > be no real worry about using Fresh. people could just carry on using > LibreOffice in the same way they were doing previously. > > The problem is often that people try to carry on doing things and suddenly > find that it doesn't work anymore because it's broken in "Fresh". Often > the simplest fix is just to go back to "Still" and then magically > everything works just fine for them again. However, WARNINGS MUST BE SIMPLE. Failure to make warnings simple is an explicit decision to cause harm. The conflict comes from two different sources: 1. It is clear from Florian's and Sophie's comments that there is lack of programmers and a lack of users of the current version being developed. 2. END USERS expect all the previous functionallity to which they have become accustomed. I have to say at this point the move to a nomenclature that conceals the risk, or makes discovery of the risk a multi-step proccess appears to be an attempt to mask the conflict as opposed to addressing the conflict directly. *SUGGESTION: The term you use for the Old Stable equivalent should be guarranteed to contain all previous functionality. (With the exception of pre- advertised discontinuations such as defunct word processor formats)* Warning: This suggestion could affect your release plans. The question is: HOW IMPORTANT ARE YOUR USER'S RELIANCE ON LIBRE OFFICE FEATURES ? It should be stated that Microsoft benefits from ANY perception of UNRELIABILITY and resulting time loss in LibreOffice. I'll give a metric here regarding the WARNING of RISK that most users would want to know. CRITICAL DOCUMENTS: *- Legal documents:* that are due by a specific time in a specific format or you lose the case. /Users cannot afford to be surprised by the loss of a time saving feature or something that alters the format or appearance of the document in any manner or that document may be rejected. To be surprised that functionality has dissappeared and then have to go through each line to verify that the document will only serve the purpose of making LO too unreliable to use. / *- Business documents:*/ that are due by a specific time in a specific format with specific content or you lose your job. These are often documents developed over a time that spans releases. To be surprised that functionality has dissappeared and then have to go through each line to verify that the document will only serve the purpose of making LO too unreliable to use. / *- Medical documents: */ that must contain specific information and must be sent by a specific time or legal liability attaches. Many of these documents are long. To be surprised that functionality has dissappeared and then have to go through each line to verify that the document will only serve the purpose of making LO too unreliable to use./ Regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-Still-tp4117297p4124636.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
