To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57252





------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan 28 15:21:18 -0800 
2006 -------
Pavel: Good points of consideration.

all: I'm probably sounding a bit too mmeeks, but sometimes it feels that more
time is spent on paperwork than real work (requirements, bugs, cws:s, tests,
docs)... For OOo currently, this paperwork is probably necessary, but e.g. Linux
Kernel and Mozilla projects do not have this requirements process at all. Only
the most important stuff is (broadly) designed on paper beforehand and later the
final implementation is documented. Those projects rely on the expertise and
quality of the (human) reviewing process.

Luckily thanks to active people like Pavel the OOo process not that big a
monster anymore.

...

Is the refusal of updating a mac specific script (i.e. non-core OOo code) really
worth sacrificing a complete 2.0.x release to as poor user install experience as
2.0.1 has been? Do we really want to have those "It didn't do anything when I
clicked the .app!" -mails pouring in, when we clearly can do something about it?

I know it won't fit into normal timetable of OOo release process, but
retrofitting should not be that bad process, when you then QA _that_ build. Mac
isn't one of the official Sun platforms, anyway. 

Could this a one of those victories for rationality over the bureaucracy?



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to