incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
Date Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:11:07 GMT
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> The releases have to be rebranded anyhow, because they are currently Oracle
> branded.  I think having it be OpenOffice.org 3.4 and installed over
> OpenOffice.org 3.3 is a very risky idea.  The quick-release cycle may be great
> for our teething; users should not have to suffer any of the consequences.
>
> OOo-dev 3.4 is not exactly "out there" as far as the public consciousness is
> concerned.  Has there ever been a non-developer bugzilla against it?  I've not
> seen any user-list statement of a problem by someone using OOo-dev, though I
> didn't start following those lists until Summer 2011.
>
> Also, OOo-dev 3.4 was only available in English full installs, with langpacks
> for everybody else.  And, of course, there is a gigantic disclaimer against
> production use.  I would think a similar disclaimer will accompany the first
> podling release too.  And if it is not fully rebranded, I think it can at best
> be a "technology preview" release.
>

I think it is irresponsible for anyone to make statements about the
quality or the suitability for production use of a release they have
not yet seen, not installed, and not tested.  Let's wait to see a
release candidate before we start issuing speculative predictions that
have no factual basis.

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: drew [mailto:drew@baseanswers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 09:15
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
>
> My thought.
>
> Given that OpenOffice.org 3.4 Beta is already out there.
>
> An announcement along the lines of:
>
> The Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project set a tentative release time
> for OpenOffice.org Version 3.4 for the 1st Qtr of 2012.
>
> sounds about right to my ear.
>
> The pressure of re-branding would be lowered, I would think, moving such
> to the 3.5 (or ?) release.
>
> With the provision, of course, replace or not "1st Qtr" with whatever
> the developer corps feels appropriate.
>
> Put another way perhaps, I'd weigh the gains from a trade off of
> re-branding for quicker release cycle, at this moment.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> //drew
>
> [ ... ]
>

Mime
View raw message