On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Fridrich Strba schrieb:
for 3.4.6 RC2, we're now uploading builds to a public (but
non-mirrored - so don't spread news too widely!) place, as soon as
they're available. Grab them here:
If you've a bit of time, please give them a try& report *critical*
bugs not yet in bugzilla here,
we had exactly 0 reports for 3.4.6 RC1, and I doubt that anybody will do
systematic tests with RC2 (I won't do either).
I do systematic tests on every RC release, albeit very specific to my
use-cases (python, UNO, filters/conversions) and with a limited set of
documents. The fact that these releases can easily co-exist using RPM
packages is priceless !
So it's hard to quantify what 0 reports means, no regressions or no
user-testing ?
We still have 45 unfixed regressions compared to 3.3, Lifecycle of 3.4 will
end with 3.4.6(?), so this version is more or less useless for most (or at
least very many) 3.3 or 3.4 users. Who would want to test a car when he knows
that still 1 tire is flat and never will be repaired? Although 3 tires have
been repaired, that car will be completely useless forever.
It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept.
Please excuse me that I can't tell anything more enthusiastic.
If you want to improve a situation, the hard truth is better than a soft
lie ;-)
I wondered myself whether the split between 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 is
sustainable in the long run. At some point the cost of splitting the
userbase is more expensive than the gains from fast release cycles.
I would expect at that point we would more likely have a slower release
cycle with a longer acceptance phase for QA/testing/regression fixing and
less releases.
--
-- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
