On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Craig Bradney wrote: > >> In my mind, the confusion about the existing snapshots is that on >> www.scribus.net , in the "News" section, there is a prominent link >> to the >> 1.3.4 >> release announcement, and at scribus.sourceforge.net, there are 1.3.4 >> rpms and a Windows installer. However, the recommendation is to use >> 1.3.5 instead, for which there has been no similar announcement, and >> for which there don't seem to be any snapshots at sourceforge. So (as >> the development version) 1.3.4 is publicized and available, but not >> recommended, whereas 1.3.5 is unpublicized and unavailable, yet >> recommended. >> >> Maybe the confusion would be cleared up by an announcement in the >> "News" section of the site that 1.3.5 is the recommended >> "development" >> version, with links to 1.3.5 snapshots at sourceforge. > > 1.3.5 is not the "recommended" development version - that is 1.3.4. > We do not > recommend an unstable unreleased svn version normally. We have two > recommended versions: > 1.3.3.10 for stable use > 1.3.4 for development/testing use > > 1.3.4 has bugs that are being fixed in its next-in-line version, > 1.3.5. Once > 1.3.5 is released, there will be an announcement deprecating & > replacing > 1.3.4.
Fair enough. As I said in an earlier message, I haven't yet had a chance to try out 1.3.4 and 1.3.5, but I had gotten the impression that there are lots of 1.3.4 bugs that have been fixed in 1.3.5, so I thought it might be worth a try. > Please stop spreading the confusion by talking about recommendations > to use > 1.3.5svn for real work. It is not ready for this at all. It is there > for > testing that its bugs, and 1.3.4 bugs selected to be fixed in 1.3.5, > are > fixed. I hope I haven't given the impression that 1.3.5svn is recommended for real work. I began in this thread by saying that >> I am producing a newsletter in 1.3.3.9 on OS X, and recently built >> 1.3.5 Aqua to experiment with moving the project from 1.3.3.9 to >> 1.3.5, because I'd really like to use character styles. By "experiment", I meant to imply that I understand that 1.3.5 might not work for my small newsletter project. However, it might, and my thought was that, if I'm going to try out a development version, I should try out the one that is under active development, so that I can better contribute to the project. I'm sorry to have caused confusion by overstating my own opinion and implying that the team recommends people use 1.3.5 for experimenting. Eric
