On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Scooter <scoo...@scootersdesk.com> wrote: > Good Afternoon Rob & Group, > > I whole heartily agree with your summation. > I would much prefer the slower paced actual fixing and additions that > worked, then the fastpace "maybe it will work" and see if the users find the > problems the developers missed. > I don't stay abreast of LO, since I'm not using LO. My opinion is that there > seems to be less to writer then there used to be. the dictionary is now > working. Hopefully, a better update can be established so the user doesn't > have to figure out whether they have the latest or not. Possibly some way to > notify of upcoming updates?
In OpenOffice you should be able to do a Help/Check for Updates via the menu. Also, OpenOffice 3.4.1 checks for updates every week (by default) and notifies the user if there is an update available. -Rob > I WAS happy with v3.3, but I'm not not a heavy user of AOO, because it isn't > 100% compatible with Microsoft Office, especially in the spread sheet > department. I need converted "xls" to work with my AutoCad software, which > currently it will not. That's mostly the fault of AutoDesk, who doesn't keep > up with new world of office software. I am not one to hang on to expensive > Office software because of one program that requires its usage. > I am happy that Open Office is alive and progressing at a solid pace of > excellence. I'm also ecstatic that its mainline rather then in "Incubation", > that word gave me the shivers. > > Take Care. > Scooter > College Park, MD USA > > Rob Weir wrote on 7/20/2013 11:33 AM: > >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Virgil Arrington <cuyfa...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday July, 19, 2013, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>>> We've discussed AOO 4.0 many times, on the blog and in social media, >>>> and this has been covered in the press. Yes, we don't issue a press >>>> release every week or every time we change code indentation, like some >>>> other projects seem to do. But we do take care of major >>>> announcements. >>> >>> >>>> I think the pace of development is one reason for the better quality. >>>> I'd like to release more often as well, but I don't want to >>>> compromise on quality. But I think there is room for improvement >>>> here. And we are discussing having a public beta for AOO 4.1. >>> >>> >>> I have complained on the LO user's list of its pace of releasing new >>> versions. There are several to choose from at its download page, and the >>> latest often contains bugs that had been fixed in earlier releases. It >>> can >>> be quite frustrating to download an update only to find a bug that you >>> had >>> thought was fixed. >>> >>> But... >>> >>> The slow pace of development at Apache is equally frustrating. AOO 3.4.1 >>> is >>> a nice program ... except for the inability of the U.S. English version >>> to >>> properly hyphenate words (See bug 119087). This bug has been around for >>> years preventing the use of AOO for serious work in America when >>> hyphenation >>> is required. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it will be corrected in >>> Ver. 4, but it has been frustrating to wait for Apache to release a new >>> version until it gets everything right. Perhaps some sort of interim >>> release >>> fixing known and critical bugs could be made. >>> >>> Surely there can be some compromise between LO's torrid release pace and >>> AOO's seemingly non-existent pace. >>> >> I think the compromise then is with quality. >> >> Think if it this way: any release has fixed and variable costs. The >> main fixed cost is testing. Any release, no matter how small, needs >> to be tested. And given the complexity of AOO (from a code and >> architecture viewpoint) this means a test of every area of the >> product. We have over a thousand test cases defined for AOO that we >> try to run on all major platforms before we release. This is a fixed >> chunk of work and it can take a couple of months. The variable costs, >> of course, are the development work that goes into adding features and >> fixing old bugs. >> >> Now, in theory, we could have a release every quarter, but that would >> mean we do only 1 month of feature work and 2 months of testing. >> That, I think, would be very inefficient. >> >> We could also drop our quality goals and do less testing. Or ship >> based on dates without any fixed test execution goals. That would >> allow us to release more frequently as well. >> >> I don't think either kind of "compromise" is what our users really want. >> >> IMHO, if we want to release more frequently then we need to find a way >> to accomplish the same quality goals, but in less time. So cut the 2 >> months of testing down to 1 months, or even less. This could be done, >> hypothetically, with more test automation and/or more test volunteers. >> >> Also, a public beta or "bug finding contests" is not a substitute for >> formal QA. These things tend to be highly redundant, shallow feature >> testing. But they can be a good way to get early feedback. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >>> Virgil >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
