On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote:
> Just my $0.02
>
> --- Mar 10/7/12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> >>
> > But of course the open source ethos is "release early;
> > release often".
> > So we need some way to balance that as well.
> >
>
> I don't think that would play well for this project. It
> has certainly been bad for other projects already. We
> don't want to put out experimental releases. People pretty
> just much want an Office suite that does what AOO does now
> but is bug free.
>
I agree with Pedro here. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to put
"stress" on the project this way, though I DO think that some ongoing
"feasibility planning" for regular releases might be a good idea.
> I would prefer if we focus on two levels:
>
> 3.5 Release including all the low hanging fruit: updates
> to ICU and Python better support for MS format, VBA.
>
I've been wondering about a possible "3.5" release myself. Juergen and
others have mentioned *it*, but we don't seem to have a document for it on
the planning wiki.
Maybe we could skip a 3.4.2. release if we feel so inclined and include any
additional bug fixes in 3.5 with your suggestions here. At any rate, maybe
someone could start a 3.5 doc on the planning wiki. Maybe shoot for end of
normal 3rdQ?
>
> 4.0 Release - Merging Symphony and perhaps adding some
> new features.
>
yes...
>
> We can work on them sequentially (first 3.5 then 4.0) or
> in parallel letting some fruits from 4.0 fall into 3.5
> when they are stable. No strong opinion.
>
> Pedro.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"I would rather have a donkey that takes me there
than a horse that will not fare."
-- Portuguese proverb
