Hi Charles,
Le 2012-06-06 11:28, Charles-H.Schulz a écrit :
Hello Marc,
Le mercredi 06 juin 2012 à 11:04 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
Le 2012-06-06 06:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Interesting ideas here... I wonder how we could plot this with respect to
our existing resources. The key issue
Tim, Marc,
To be sure: we all want to have such an incremental upgrade mechanism. We
all know it' s a real PITA, devs, qa testers, localizers, etc. We have
inherited from a very problematic codebase and things do not happen
overnight. But I am confident they will happen.
Best,
Charles.
Le 6 juin
On 06/06/2012 11:28 AM, Charles-H.Schulz wrote:
Hello Marc,
Le mercredi 06 juin 2012 à 11:04 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
Le 2012-06-06 06:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Interesting ideas here... I wonder how we could plot this with respect to
our existing resources. The key issue here is reso
Hello Marc,
Le mercredi 06 juin 2012 à 11:04 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit :
> Le 2012-06-06 06:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
> > Interesting ideas here... I wonder how we could plot this with respect to
> > our existing resources. The key issue here is resources . LTS only makes
> > sense if you de
Le 2012-06-06 06:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Interesting ideas here... I wonder how we could plot this with respect to
our existing resources. The key issue here is resources . LTS only makes
sense if you derive revenue from it.I think we could relabel one branch as
LTS, the older one if it
tall for every new version coming out,
>>> but
>>> some "patch" release changing a .3 to a .4 version. Hopefully that will
>>> happen before the end of the year. If not by then, hopefully it is as
>>> soon
>>> as possible after that. That wil
o support. Also it seems the overlap period will be
far greater, unless they switch to only doing LTSes every 4 years to be
more in-line with MS.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Tue, 5/6/12, Craig Olofson wrote:
From: Craig Olofson
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Of "business ready us
Hello Marc,
2012/6/5 Marc Paré
> Hi Charles,
>
> Le 2012-06-05 09:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
>
> Thank you for bringing that up, it's an interesting discussion. Here's
>> what I think reading your message. You're asking in fact two questions.
>> One of which might already have been answere
;> Thanks :) I think that reinforces what Marc Pare is saying about needing
>> more than a month or so support. Also it seems the overlap period will be
>> far greater, unless they switch to only doing LTSes every 4 years to be
>> more in-line with MS.
>> Regards from
>
ct: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Of "business ready use" and bugs in
LibreOffice and a LibreOffice LTS
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Tuesday, 5 June, 2012, 21:46
Fyi
Canonical changed LTS support for the desktop from 3 to 5 years, starting with
12.04, to better accommodate
, Craig Olofson wrote:
From: Craig Olofson
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Of "business ready use" and bugs in
LibreOffice and a LibreOffice LTS
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Tuesday, 5 June, 2012, 21:46
Fyi
Canonical changed LTS support for the desktop from 3
1 year overlap is so important to Ubuntu.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Tue, 5/6/12, Marc Paré wrote:
From: Marc Paré
Subject: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Of "business ready use" and bugs in
LibreOffice and a LibreOffice LTS
To: marketing@global.libreoffice.org
Date: Tuesday, 5 June
running an unsupported
LTS while they were still testing the new one. Now i understand why the 1 year
overlap is so important to Ubuntu.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Tue, 5/6/12, Marc Paré wrote:
From: Marc Paré
Subject: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Of "business ready use" a
Hi Charles,
Le 2012-06-05 09:12, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Thank you for bringing that up, it's an interesting discussion. Here's
what I think reading your message. You're asking in fact two questions.
One of which might already have been answered by a few of our corporate
members/sponsors.
*
14 matches
Mail list logo
