Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of acrealtor@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <020b01ccbd02$e6b90090$b42b01b0$@acm.org>
References: 
 <CAKQbXgAtXd_1Uit=bzbLjTpdBQoeBCZvpM=f4HPQ3d8_T9VTaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<-7621083024803974204@unknownmsgid>
	<CAKQbXgCFUy_NM4FVmxpwyPH_hM-Dq9ORNgZ=OWYxbqAg=TX9FA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMDRyTcTvqMmnqxVQm3ZjWBsvtR4ex0ka6p9Poq5c6GLzQSZMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1324142091.2048.16.camel@sybil-gnome>
	<012c01ccbcf1$b573d7f0$205b87d0$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksoju-5Wy8bUQTn1q+XPhpJ77tD1PX8GrCyJFQdjP6dEhVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<020b01ccbd02$e6b90090$b42b01b0$@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:38:02 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAPXdk-GkvozH9u--AbrtqYiThPmwv=Dw6Jj7Q1LzJKSzusTKQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A timeline for an Apache OO release
From: Andreina Crimmins <acrealtor@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93409593c41cf04b450884b

--14dae93409593c41cf04b450884b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>
> [ ... ]
>
>

--14dae93409593c41cf04b450884b--