Il giorno 07/dic/2011 10:13, "Pedro Lino" ha scritto:
> You seem to be taking the complaints about Beta/Alpha personally.
[snip]
> If this situation happened is because we all failed.
I totally agree with Pedro. I am sure that each one of us is doing his best
for the success of TDF/LibreOffice
Hi Petr, *
> It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find
> exactly the problems that it was supposed to find.
>
> It is clear that we should have used the name "alphaX". Well, the plan
> was public and nobody protested against the "beta0" name ;-)
You seem to be taking the
Cor Nouws píše v Út 06. 12. 2011 v 21:12 +0100:
> Michael Stahl wrote (06-12-11 13:20)
> > On 03/12/11 18:27, Cor Nouws wrote:
> >> Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
> >>
> >>> Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
> >>> feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
> >>>
> >>> mast
Michael Stahl wrote (06-12-11 13:20)
On 03/12/11 18:27, Cor Nouws wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
master Beta0 ---\--- crazy stuff ...
Italo Vignoli wrote (06-12-11 01:44)
If we stick to Beta 1, though, we should make it VERY clear on the
accompanying message that this is a Beta intended to help developers,
because advanced users can install it to test features and discover
bugs.
[...]
Yes, the communication has to be clear a
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Cor Nouws píše v So 03. 12. 2011 v 18:23 +0100:
>> Pedro Lino wrote (03-12-11 11:23)
>> > I hope that _at least_ they make DAMN sure that Beta1 doesn't
>> > overwrite the stable build...
>>
>> To be honest: I have no idea. I just install zillion
On 12/5/11 2:36 PM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I would prefer to keep it as is. In each case, I do not feel like
> deciding about this myself.
I think that we can stick to Beta 1, although I feel that there would be
less misunderstandings by using Alpha (for instance, FileHippo has
distributed Beta 0 d
Cor Nouws píše v So 03. 12. 2011 v 18:27 +0100:
> Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
>
> > Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
> > feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
> >
> > master Beta0 ---\--- crazy stuff ...
> >\
Pedro Lino píše v Po 05. 12. 2011 v 09:48 +:
> > We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed
> > in parallel with the stable release.
>
> Excellent news!
> Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is
> scheduled for today?
Yes, beta1 will be dev-b
> We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed
> in parallel with the stable release.
Excellent news!
Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is
scheduled for today?
> Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases
> on Window
Cor Nouws píše v So 03. 12. 2011 v 18:23 +0100:
> Pedro Lino wrote (03-12-11 11:23)
> > I hope that _at least_ they make DAMN sure that Beta1 doesn't
> > overwrite the stable build...
>
> To be honest: I have no idea. I just install zillions (well, little less
> ;-) ) without system integration.
Cor Nouws schrieb:
AFAIAC, no need to say sorry for that. It's part of our work that we
carry that happily, isn't it, Rainer ;-)
Hi,
Yes! I did not want to blame anyone, I only regretted our mishap to
catch one of the worse ones of the Source stages of development. And for
me Cor's idea Con
On 12/3/11 6:27 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Will be something that marketing is going to praise us for, isn't it?
If the change of code name is not a problem, it would make thing easier
for everyone.
--
Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com
mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it
skype it
Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:49)
Well - we've fixed a number of the most obvious packaging bugs,
parallel installability etc. etc. in master - so (without further new
problems - of which we expect some up to the freeze) Beta1 will be
rather better.
It's more realistic to expect tha
Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
master Beta0 ---\--- crazy stuff ...
\
\- Beta1 --- stabilisation -
Pedro Lino wrote (03-12-11 11:23)
I hope that _at least_ they make DAMN sure that Beta1 doesn't
overwrite the stable build...
To be honest: I have no idea. I just install zillions (well, little less
;-) ) without system integration.
But your question is relevant indeed.
Anyone else?
Thanks,
Hi Rainer,
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 08:42 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> it's a disaster, completely unusable ! Quality of Beta0 is far behind
> quality of Master during the last weeks, it seems that we were not lucky
> with the time where the tag has been created
Quite quite :-) so Beta
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Bielefeld wrote (03-12-11 08:42)
Shit happens, now the question is how we will go on.
As posted already yesterday, it is not unlikely that beta1 will have
about the same troubles. If so, those will be fixed before beta2, which
will make that version fine for larger testing
18 matches
Mail list logo
