On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna > <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> > >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: > >>> > >>> Rob Weir wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna > >>>> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Jürgen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for > >>>>>>> our > >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> > >>>>> +1 on that from me also > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be. > >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and > >>>>>>> also at > >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a > >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have > >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are > >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as > >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a > >>>>> comfortable > >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak > >>>>> out of > >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of > >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for > >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being > >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should > >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it > >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to > >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5. > >>>> > >>>> -Rob > >>>> > >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for > >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering > >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan? > >>> > >> > >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of > >> March or April we will have more time. > >> > >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the > >> next release. > >> > >> Juergen > >> > > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to > > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we > > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring > > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning. > > > > Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-) > > IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if > the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and > released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end > users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved > to Apache either. > > -Rob > > > Regards > > Keith > > > My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all sorts of horrible frills and colours. -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
