On Fri, 09 May 2014 16:52:11 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
Esp. When we are about to change the "stable" to "mature".
Best,
Charles.
IMHO not a good idea... the "mature" term would be prone to jokes..
try type mature in google and see all the embarassing results... :-D
__
Hi All,
I just wanted to share with you all the results of my latest extended
.docx test. I have been able to refine my workflow to better test,
document and report the compatibility issues, and was able to put in 13
bug reports yesterday. Also i noticed there is a weekly bug summary page
and
Hello,
I sent this a couple weeks ago and haven't received a response. Just want to
make sure it didn't go unnoticed.
-Ken
> From: kenbio...@hotmail.com
> To: libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
> CC: markus.mohrh...@googlemail.com
> Subject: Calc Import Unit Tests - Time & Date Functions
> D
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 16:09 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> well the main question discussed was whether there were any technical
> reasons to avoid changing the versioning, whether it's actually
> _desirable_ to do it is purely a marketing decision.
Quite - meaning not much to do with the
On 9 mai 2014 16:01:09 CEST, Italo Vignoli wrote:
>On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> * Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
>> + So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our
>versions
>> are continuous improvements - does it make sense to still kee
On 09/05/14 16:01, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> * Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
>> + So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our versions
>> are continuous improvements - does it make sense to still keep 'major'?
>
On 08/05/14 17:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
> * Should we simplify version numbering? (Kendy)
> + So far major.minor.micro, but due to our release plan, all our versions
> are continuous improvements - does it make sense to still keep 'major'?
> [ ie. should we do 4.3.0 -> 5.0, 4.4.3
