On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500 > Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna >> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Rob Weir wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna >> >>>> <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi Jürgen, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for >> >>>>>>> our >> >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> +1 on that from me also >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be. >> >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and >> >>>>>>> also at >> >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a >> >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have >> >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are >> >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as >> >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a >> >>>>> comfortable >> >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak >> >>>>> out of >> >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of >> >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for >> >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being >> >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should >> >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it >> >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to >> >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Rob >> >>>> >> >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for >> >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering >> >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of >> >> March or April we will have more time. >> >> >> >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the >> >> next release. >> >> >> >> Juergen >> >> >> > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to >> > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we >> > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to >> > spring >> > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning. >> > >> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-) >> >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved >> to Apache either. >> >> -Rob >> >> > Regards >> > Keith >> > >> > > My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the > traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by > setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new > interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is > there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there > is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all > sorts of horrible frills and colours. >
That's rather dismissive of UI changes that you have not seen yet. Some of us believe that the quality of the UI has a direct impact on how easy it is to use the product. Some of us believe that the current UI was not born in a state of absolute grace and perfection. We're not just trying to be "trendy". We're not proposing "horrible frills". We wouldn't waste our time on a fashion statement. If you have concrete concerns, then speak up. But please don't be insulting. -Rob > -- > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
