incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Subject Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 01:44:25 GMT
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
>
> => >
> > I read all that Rob.  Nothing in there about the plan to continue
> creating,
> > building and delivering  OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
> the
> > locales it is today, along with an estimate for the IPMT of how big the
> task
> > is, whether it's adequately staffed, what infrastructure it needs and so
> > on.
> >
> > Your focus on the ODF market is laudable and you know I've been
> supporting
> > similar aims for even longer than you have. But my big concern remains
> > making sure that throughout 2011 there's a fresh, live consumer binary
> being
> > produced to keep the enormous existing user-base satisfied.
> >
>
> No Simon, it was not in the email.  I didn't think it was necessary to
> repeat what is already in the very first paragraph of the proposal on the
> wiki:
>
>
> "OpenOffice.org is comprised of (6) personal productivity applications:
> word processor, spreadsheet, presentation graphics, drawing, equation
> editor, and database. OpenOffice.org supports Windows, Solaris, Linux and
> Macintosh operation systems. OpenOffice.org is localized, supporting over
> 110 languages worldwide. "
>
> I don't see a problem here.  There are competitors in this market that
> release only every three years.  They seem to have users.  There are some
> that release updates every quarter.  They have users as well. And some do
> something in the middle. They have users as well.  So there is no "one
> true answer" here.
>
> The OOo releases have recently been like:
>
> 3.0  Oct 2008
> 3.1 May 2009
> 3.2 Feb 2010
> 3.3 Jan 2011
>
> So the most recent interval was a one year cycle between releases.  Even
> with the overhead and resulting downtime of moving our tent to Apache, I
> don't see why we couldn't aim for a stable 3.4 in Q1 2012 or earlier and
> not frustrate customer expectations.    Not saying we couldn't do
> something more aggressive than that.   I'm all in favor of getting to a
> more steady heart beat, say quarterly betas or something like that.
> Release early and often.  But the details are for the project to work out.
>

The release cadence for point releases is more frequent than that.

S.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message