[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: OpenOffice 3.1



On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 17:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > But even if that wasn't the case I generally don't bump major versions
> > of OOo in a released product.
> 
> Is 3.0 -> 3.1 really that major? I must say I prefer the way packages like
> the kernel or KDE are handled, where this kind of updates are pushed.

I've a different view on that though, I really don't like the constant
kernel update train. From my perspective every update that goes out is
like an admission of failure that we didn't get it right at the time of
release :-) 

I'm a little puzzled that people appear a little disappointed that OOo
3.1 isn't intended to be pushed back to F-10. This is the devel list, so
presumably everyone here has it looking at them on their rawhide boxes
already. F-11 is only a couple of weeks away from release, and so
everyone can move from stable F-10 to stable F-11 and get it then.

I mean, its a perfectly fine position to take that there should be a
"stable" distribution that consists of a rolling set of constant stable
updates and upgrades, but if Fedora is one of those why do F-10/F-11/etc
releases at all ? And if the Fedora cycle was so long that the time
between releases meant that applications got very stale between releases
then I'd be all in favour of some sort of means of getting OOo 3.1 out
to the people, but its a fairly short cycle of roughly equal length to
the OOo one.

C.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]