incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:53:11 GMT
Hi Rob,

I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.

On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such
as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic
> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
> consensus.

I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.

>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one
much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>> S.
>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious
> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.

Oh, more humor :-)

Best Regards,

>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of
>>> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and distributed
editions of
>>> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell.  They tracked *existing*
releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that were not in the corresponding release.
>>> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done:
>>> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution.  (Notice how the files
were identified).  The code differences had to be maintained in parallel and re-integrated
with an OO.o release for each corresponding Novell release.
>>> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition.
>>> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition.
>>> In other respects it was *all* and neither Sun nor Novell, just  In particular, the support locations were, and registration
was at
>>> It looks like what is thought of as branding did not appear, though
I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell edition.
>>> When I think of there being a Team edition 3.3.1, this comes to
>>> I would expect the site to be the user-centered support location,
with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for
OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same
way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem
with where that goes now.
>>> If the Team contribution of a maintenance release goes forward,
I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the
Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the development line, it needs to operate
as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment
for the current realities.

View raw message