incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Date Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:03:48 GMT
Am 12/11/2011 02:24 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <>  wrote:
>>   I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of, it would
be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because
the incubator releases have a special status.
> Changing the naming pattern would be useful for whom?  Not the user, I
> think.  Remember, the beta 3.4 was already released.  Coming out with
> anything other than the final 3.4 would be confusing for users.
>>   I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with
automobile models that had me come here instead.
>>   I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression.
 My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there
are dot releases).  There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
> Maybe there is a more detailed string we could put in the about box?
> I have no objections to that. Ditto for encoding this in the ODF docs.
>   We can use that to track dev builds, release candidates, etc.  This
> is very useful for tracking defect reports, etc.
> But from a branding perspective, I think we want to continue the
> exiting numbering scheme.  We're trying to project continuity.


In the past we had the following schema:


3 = major (for new releases with important and big features)
2 = minor (with a new feature set since the last major)
1 = micro (a bug fix since the last minor)

The world knows the naming and it worked very well and I see no reason 
to reinvent the wheel. In announcements of course we can skip some 
zeros. E.g., "The new AOO 3.4 release is out" or "AOO 4: The new release 
is on the home stretch". However, for the official naming we should be 
exact and clear.


View raw message