incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreina Crimmins <acreal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
Date Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:38:02 GMT
why did I receive this email????  all I am doing is trying to solve a
problem using OfficeSuite LE...

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:

> I think it is irresponsible to not mitigate risk by having multiple levels
> of fall-back in place always.  Not installing a 3.4 atop a 3.3 is one of
> those safeguards.  It is foolish not to take that precaution.  It honors
> users by allowing them to compare based on *their* use cases and decide
> when, if ever, to remove a previous version.
>
> For me, it is always appropriate to leave a previous .x release of a
> productivity product installed.  As a matter of policy, I would never
> silently uninstall anything.  That is regardless of the presumed quality of
> the new release.
>
> My intention is to safeguard the user first, no matter what my level of
> confidence (or hubris) might be.  I am not presuming anything about the
> quality of any non-existent release.  I am expressing a principle that does
> not move our risk of error onto the user if at all possible and practical.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:11
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
>
> 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.
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> 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
>
> [ ... ]
>
>

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