Hi :) Ahh great!! Ok, there was a lot of interesting and relevant comments in Charles' reply that i snipped in order to try to avoid going off on potentially interesting tangents.
So, for me the crucial points in Charles' reply were that 1. We DO have 2 branches actively developed alongside each other 2. Stable is NOT always = old 3. 1 branches has tons of extra features 4. the other branch has had "maintenance releases" Earlier in the thread there were comments stating that a) 3 probably has tons more bugs than 4 BUT we wont know for certain until after tons of people have tried 3. Just from previous experiences of 3's in other projects and other human endeavours we can EXPECT but NOT be CERTAIN that there are likely to be lots more bugs®ressions / flaws in 3 than in 4. As an aside I agree that saying 4 is "stable" implies that 3 is "unstable" which is an inaccurate description of 3. Sadly "stable" is the word used in tons of other projects and people are just about beginning to understand it. Using a different word would be confusing. Calling 3 a "development release" is also inaccurate and i agree we should avoid it even though other projects use it. A better word for 3 is "exciting", perhaps we could say "cutting edge" or "packed with new features" or copy sliTaz's idea of calling it a "cooking release" (Ok, i'm not keen on sliTaz's but it is cute). There are tons of very positive things that can be said about a new release of a new branch, as i keep on saying. I really like the graphic / graph that someone made for the top of this page https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan I think that sums it up well. It makes it very clear and easy to understand. Please everyone just delete the email i just sent about 40minutes ago. Don't read it!! I was annoyed and pre-coffee. There was a flaw created by lack of coffee and by not having got back this far in my emails. Regards from Tom :) --- On Mon, 4/6/12, Charles-H.Schulz <charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: From: Charles-H.Schulz <charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is 3.5.4 ready for business users? To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org Date: Monday, 4 June, 2012, 10:44 Hello Tom, <snip /> > > Does "stable" mean "older"? No. <snip /> > So was the 3.4.6 just "older" or did it have different objectives? We always have two branches, one which is more recent and comes with more features, and the one that was developed before, which has maintenance releases. Just like ... [list of other projects] <snip /> > Should we recommend it [a .0 release such as 3.5.0] for people with > limited or capped download capacity? or for large-scale deployments? See my answer about the two branches distinction. I think that we need to decide the right wording and message about what to advise, and perhaps we also need to decide whether we need to be directive about criteria to choose between the two branches. I don't think it's accurate to state that the newer branch is unstable, <snip /> Thank you, Charles. <snip /> -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org 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/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
