Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme

2023-01-24 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Hi y'all, Italo Vignoli wrote: > The so called marketing tribe at TDF has asked to change the > numbering scheme to someting similar to Ubuntu several years ago, > but the suggestion was completely ignored. > Not completely ignored, I'd say. There was the 2020/2025 MarCom plan [1], plus the

Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme

2023-01-23 Thread Italo Vignoli
The so called marketing tribe at TDF has asked to change the numbering scheme to someting similar to Ubuntu several years ago, but the suggestion was completely ignored. In the meantime you have lost another opportunity of not insulting left and right people you do not know at all (and

Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme

2023-01-23 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
We release on a biyearly calendar. We should use a scheme like https://calver.org/ and not do arbitrary version number bumps based on rationales no-one really understands outside the Marketing tribe at TDF (because they’re secretive like that).

Re: Consider changing version numbering scheme

2023-01-22 Thread Michael H
Can I just suggest that the problem is described here and then ignored. Could you possibly consider changing the rate of change so that WHEN an update happens it IS regarded as "HEY we did something cool" instead of "HEY... we've moved things around to make it harder for you and introduced a

Consider changing version numbering scheme

2023-01-21 Thread Mike Kaganski
Hi! I just came across another post mentioning the usual user's confusion around LibreOffice versioning scheme [1], and I thought I share my thoughts. When we have Major+Minor version numbers, minor changing every half-a-year, and major changing at some random points, then every such major