On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Charles-H. Schulz <[email protected]> wrote: > I strongly advocate against it; it would only create more confusion and > continue into the storyline that fresh=unstable and stable=good.
Hmm.. perhaps the word "stable" is problematic in this situation. If we call the branch with less churn 'stable,' that does imply something about the stability of other branches that are under more active development. > > No one puts an older software branch in front of the more recent branch. > Does MS Office advertise MS Office 2010? :-) Good point, although I think our situation might be a bit different. Consider: * We push updates to the LO 'stable' branch. Does Microsoft push the same kinds of updates to Office 2010? * (I believe) we recommend our 'stable' branch for enterprise deployment. Does Microsoft recommend Office 2010 for enterprise deployment? In some ways this might just boil down to the question of: "What's our use case for the 'stable' branch?" Cheers, --R -- Robinson Tryon LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald Senior QA Bug Wrangler The Document Foundation [email protected] -- 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/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
