On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:21:51 -0500 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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> > Rob, you take me up wrongly. I was only trying to make the point that there is a stratum of Users whose computer is an "entertainment" machine, not a work machine. These often wish change for the sake of change, good bad or indifferent, so long as there is change; often their usual method of change is colour and visual noise. I certainly didn't insult any new AOO interface - how could I when it doesn't yet exist? Having been on this list for the past year, one can see the considerable thought and debate that does go into changes to OpenOffice; a new interface will not come about lightly or trivially. But the new should not discard the old and the existing users who are used to that; if it is reasonably possible to change an option setting and revert to the older interface, then we have the best of both worlds -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
