It's also an inevitable necessity when users send in comments and identify defects in the version they happen to have in their hands. It's difficult enough to have them provide the information. If there is high friction in being able to know what it is they are reporting about so it can be identified in a report, all that is left for the user is frustration and disdain.
- Dennis PS: I notice in this discussion that there is increasing offering of possible fixes and configuration features in Alfresco, along with need for disciplined use. This bottom-up complexification/instant-design is not necessarily a good direction to take. It might be good to step back and identify the essential requirements with regard to affordability for users and authors, then see how to satisfy those as naturally as practicable [;<). -----Original Message----- From: David Nelson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 05:59 To: Jean Weber Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Files & filenames for different LO versions [ ... ] I see your point about file naming, if you really want to maintain different versions of each guide (each covering a LibO version) *on an on-going basis*. If, after the release of LibO v3.6, you really plan to carry-on maintaining and updating the guides for v3.5 then the kind of file naming system you describe above is perhaps an inevitable necessity. But, AFAIK, in reality, once v3.6 comes out, no more work is done on v3.5 guides. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
