Tom, Your lack of knowledge is ... concerning. You seem to mix two things: a development branch and a stable branch. For you our two branches are exactly that: a stable, and a development one. There's only one small problem with that: you got it all wrong.
We have two stable branches. Red Hat has stable products, they have a development branch (alphas , betas) and they have Fedora, the community oriented distribution. What you imply is that Fedora is not stable. And that is not just wrong: it will send you back to the kingdom of hairy trolls. Best, Charles. Le vendredi 05 octobre 2012 à 13:45 +0100, Tom Davies a écrit : > Hi :) > Hmmm, sorry Tim but i think the 2 branch model is good. It lets people get > their hands on newer features faster. It helps people see how those new > features work when combined with the main product and lets testing get done > "out in the wild" on real-world machines (not just in virtualised models). > > Redhat do it. Debian does it. Doubtless others do it. Nasa does it. The > difference is that they are honest about which product is stable and which is > the exciting one. They don't try to claim the exciting one is more stable > than the stable one. If people run into problems with the exciting one then > they know they can go back to the stable one (or put up with it in favour of > keeping the more exciting stuff). > > Nasa doesn't claim their 2MegaPixel cameras on Mars are better than cameras > they are currently testing for future missions or even that they are better > than cameras that are in common usage here on Earth. Of course my buddy's 12 > MegaPixel camera doesn't take such good shots of the surface of Mars! That > doesn't mean it's a worse camera! > > So why do we try to claim that our development, feature-packed, latest, > hotest, sexiest release is really just "stable"? Can't we find other ways to > describe it? Perhaps words that are more accurate? Perhaps we could say > it's "green" because that's equally invalid and irrelevant. > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P <webmas...@krackedpress.com> > >To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org > >Sent: Friday, 5 October 2012, 13:19 > >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Stable? Seriously?? Fw: > >[tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6.2 > > > >On 10/05/2012 06:41 AM, Marc Paré wrote: > >> Hi Charles, > >> > >> Le 2012-10-05 06:32, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> Hoping this will be the last time we discuss this on the marketing list, > >>> and so that we can move on to actual marketing topics and work.... > >>> > >> > >> To be fair to Tom, this is also a recurring topic from others. So, when I > >> have time, if we can all agree to this, I will put together a wiki page > >> for reference. We can then point to the appropriate wiki page for > >> reference. > >> > >> How does this sound? > >> > >> This does not mean that I am suggesting that we not discuss it anymore, > >> just that we all get the facts down on paper so that we can have a more > >> productive discussion on this topic should it come up again. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Marc > >> > > > >I think a WIKI page would be a great idea. > > > >I like the original idea of the 2 line development approach. Having a line > >that is "more stable" or "for critical applications" and a new line for "the > >cutting edge" development is a good idea. The practice of marketing this > >concept is now happening correctly, or we would not have the 2 line question > >come up as often as it seems to be. > > > >As I have stated before, I use the 2 line model for my systems and people I > >work with. I will use 3.5.6 or 3.5.7 till 3.6.4 or 3.6.5 comes out. Then I > >will keep with the 3.6 line till 3.7.4/5 comes out. The development cycle > >for working out all the issues that comes up with the "cutting" or > >"bleeding" edge line separate from the line that is more conservative and > >may be better for the "major" business user IS needed. > > > >The key is we need a better and definitive statement on why LO is doing the > >2 line development cycle. I get why it is being done, but other are having > >a problem with this development model. Big business companies cannot afford > >to do such a development cycle. FOSS organizations can. If I was going to > >pay my workers to develop a package, I would not do the 2 line model, but > >with an all volunteer and contributor development is can be done. > > > >So > >Marc, please start the WIKI page describing why LO is in a 2 line > >development cycle. I hope after the page is completed there will be less > >confusion about it and then it also might lead into a better marketing > >"plan" for marketing the 2 line concept to the users and potential users. > >. > > > > > >-- 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 > > > > > > > > -- 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
