On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > 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 >
OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Regards, -Rob > -- > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
