incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wolf Halton <wolf.hal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] Next Release - 3.4.2? 3.5? 4.0?
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:51:01 GMT
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Regina Henschel <rb.henschel@t-online.de>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Shenfeng Liu schrieb:
>
>  Hi, all,
>>    Since we are stepping forward to the 3.4.1 release smoothly, I think
>> maybe it is time for us to look ahead for our next release now.
>>
>>    I remember we had a discussion previously on how to run AOO's future
>> releases, time boxed vs content boxed, 3.4.1 vs 3.5 vs 4.0... I think we
>> should resume this discussion.
>>
>>    IMHO, timely release will give AOO a very good promotion to marketing.
>> Certainly we can decide the size of the release. We released 3.4 at May 8,
>> and then will release 3.4.1 after about 3 months. It looks like a very
>> good
>> rhythm. Maybe we can consider a 3.4.2 in 4Q, 3.5 in 1Q next year...
>>
>>    Another way to consider is the release contents. Checking the feature
>> requirement list and defect backlog, see what we can make after 3 months
>> or
>> 6 months. Or if there is any thing must be in the next release no matter
>> how long it will take (e.g. security fix). We partially did this practice
>> before by collecting the 4.0 requirements in wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning>
>> .
>> And I remember there was a common interesting at that time that we
>> should
>> do an immediate release for critical defect fixes (which is 3.4.1 that we
>> are doing now), and then a mid-term release which majorly target to
>> fidelity improvements (3.5), and a long term release with Symphony values
>> on UX and social integrations (4.0)...
>>
>>    I'm not sure how to do a release proposal. Is that we should create a
>> project wiki and discuss the release goals, contents, outlook GA date? And
>> if we agree on this release, we move on. If we do not agree, we abandon
>> it?
>>
>>    I'm asking because I want to propose that:
>>
>> (1) We should begin to check if any critical defects in our backlog that
>> require us for a 3.4.2.
>>
>> (2) We should begin to discuss a bigger release like 3.5 on the release
>> goals, and proposed contents, and the release number...
>>
>>    Just my 2 cents... Any suggestion/comments?
>>
>
> I thought it might be useful to look in the history and have extracted
> some dates from http://ftp-1.gwdg.de/pub/**openoffice/archive/stable/<http://ftp-1.gwdg.de/pub/openoffice/archive/stable/>
>
> OOo 1.0.2          2003-03-14
> OOo 1.0.3          2003-04-18
> OOo 1.1.0          2003-10-14
> OOo 1.1.4secpatch  2005-04-12
> OOo 1.1.5          2005-09-04
> OOo 1.1.5secpatch  2006-07-04
> OOo 1.1.5secpatch2 2006-12-22
> OOo 2.1.0          2006-12-14
> OOo 2.2.0          2007-03-22
> OOo 2.2.1          2007-06-04
> OOo 2.3.0          2007-07-14
> OOo 2.3.1          2007-11-15
> OOo 2.4.0          2008-03-16
> OOo 2.4.1          2008-05-30
> OOo 2.4.2          2008-10-27
> OOo 2.4.3          2009-08-24
> OOo 3.0.0          2008-10-06
> OOo 3.0.1          2009-01-26
> OOo 3.1.0          2009-05-04
> OOo 3.1.1          2009-08-20
> OOo 3.2.0          2010-02-03
> OOo 3.2.1          2010-05-26
> OOo 3.3.0          2011-01-18
> OOo 3.4beta        2011-04-07
>
> We had the first <micro>-release after around 3 month. The next ones when
> needed, with support of the last <minor>-release up to 1 year 3 month.
>
> We had <minor>-releases all 9 month (around) and <major>-release 3 years
9
> months from OOo1 to OOo2 and 1 year 10 months form OOo2 to OOo3.
>
> We have to consider, that the development is no longer enterprise driven
> and that there are less translators as before.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>

As an enterprise-software user, I am happy not to have major releases come
too fast.  The software I mostly consume, however is operating systems and
web apps.  My opinion here may be of less value than those of people who
support the end-users of office suites.

LTS versions that are upgradeable without having to resort to installing
the intervening versions seem valid and useful to me, and I would like the
major versions to keep a three to five year interval. Exact interval is not
all that important to me, I am a Debian Admin, after all.  The longer the
interval and EOL, the happier the support technicians, IMO.  Microsoft
Windows XP was production stable for 11 years and will not go out of
support for several more years, which allowed for a very stable platform
for development.

Individual users like features and "improvements" in UX.  They are the ones
who are upgrading whenever a point upgrade.  I am one of these for my
personal choice of office suite.  I like auto-suggestions from my software
telling me there is an update of any kind, and I usually install all
releases if they are auto-suggested.  The Firefox release schedule is only
annoying because their plugin developers cannot keep up.

As another idea for a policy for release designation:
Bug-fix updates are point updates where the changing number is the third
section:: 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 to 3.4.2 etc.
Feature upgrades are minor updates and the second digit increments.
Wherever we are in the bugfix and security release numbering 3.4.17 would
next go to 3.5.0 and the next security and bugfix update would be 3.5.1.
Major refactorings (or perhaps the LTS release) would increment the first
digit.  Wherever we are in the feature and bugfix updates we would jump
from, say, 3.5.4 to 4.0.0.

  Cheers,
              Wolf

-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhalton@apache.org

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