Le 2014-04-22 09:29, Robinson Tryon a écrit :
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.
That is what I think too. While Stable gets the right message in a
comparison with "Fresh", the second message it sends might indeed be
that if this one's stable the other one is not.
I∕we welcome other terms, by the way. I thought about "mature"
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?
Absolutely, yes. They're called Service Packs.
* (I believe) we recommend our 'stable' branch for enterprise
deployment. Does Microsoft recommend Office 2010 for enterprise
deployment?
There's never been a real statement on that, despite what we have
written here and there or rather, it's more a consequence than a true
choice. While MS may not recommend MS Office 2010, they do suggest and
understand (contrary to a lot of people faced with a LibreOffice
migration) that it starts early, with a recent branch,through a pilot
project for upgrade or migration . Just like with MS Office, LibreOffice
gets tested, and in the interim, not only has this branch of LibreOffice
received more recent versions (the x.x.2,3,4,5), it has also become the
older branch. It is how it works.
Now MS may not recommend MS Office 2010, but they certainly, in
practice, encourage enterprise deployments that come with Service Packs
and not the most recent release. Same goes with the ongoing migration to
Windows 7 by the way.
In some ways this might just boil down to the question of: "What's our
use case for the 'stable' branch?"
good point. From a purely analytical perspective - hence this is not a
use case:
- less features, more patches.
Hence: more stability. That's where it becomes tricky, reminding
everyone that:
- Fresh: same patches, more features... hence more bugs. But that's a
fact of life, not an engineering failure.
In this sense it's right for the enterprise. And then yes, that would be
the use case: a more "stable" as in "rock-solid" release. The rest of
the world can use the Fresh version, and not just "early adopters". For
goodness sake, it's an office suite, not a bleeding edge Linux distro
;-)
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/website/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
