[steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO

Dear all, all discussions seem to hint at that the first stable release
of LibreOffice is going to be a 3.3.0 release. I would like to have you
consider a different version for the following reasons:

- LO 3.3.0 suggests it is equivalent to OOo 3.3.0 (which it is not, we
  have different bugs :-)). Seriously. LO 3.3.0 suggests 100%
  interoperability with OOo which we can't guarantee.

- It is the first release of LO, but we consider it stable and useful,
  so 1.0 would make most sense to me. That shouts "USE ME", but at the
  same time does not convey "I am an OOo ripoff with a different brand
  by some people with too big egos."

I'd love if you could briefly think about that in the next SC
meeting. I'll be happy about any decision, but it should be discussed
(and communicated) publicly.

Thanks, Sebastian

Hi Sebastian,

Dear all, all discussions seem to hint at that the first stable release
of LibreOffice is going to be a 3.3.0 release. I would like to have you
consider a different version for the following reasons:

- LO 3.3.0 suggests it is equivalent to OOo 3.3.0 (which it is not, we
   have different bugs :-)). Seriously. LO 3.3.0 suggests 100%
   interoperability with OOo which we can't guarantee.

- It is the first release of LO, but we consider it stable and useful,
   so 1.0 would make most sense to me. That shouts "USE ME", but at the
   same time does not convey "I am an OOo ripoff with a different brand
   by some people with too big egos."

I'd love if you could briefly think about that in the next SC
meeting. I'll be happy about any decision, but it should be discussed
(and communicated) publicly.

thanks for the proposal. There have been already discussions about that, and we came to the conclusion to start with 3.3, but not to follow all version changes OOo does. Time will tell how our release cycle and future version numbering would look like.

I doubt we'll go back to LibO 1.1, now that 3.3 has been announced, but I'm open for the future which step(s) we want to make.

Happy to hear thoughts of the other SC members. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi Florian, Sebastian,

Hi Sebastian,

Dear all, all discussions seem to hint at that the first stable release
of LibreOffice is going to be a 3.3.0 release. I would like to have you
consider a different version for the following reasons:

- LO 3.3.0 suggests it is equivalent to OOo 3.3.0 (which it is not, we
  have different bugs :-)). Seriously. LO 3.3.0 suggests 100%
  interoperability with OOo which we can't guarantee.

- It is the first release of LO, but we consider it stable and useful,
  so 1.0 would make most sense to me. That shouts "USE ME", but at the
  same time does not convey "I am an OOo ripoff with a different brand
  by some people with too big egos."

I'd love if you could briefly think about that in the next SC
meeting. I'll be happy about any decision, but it should be discussed
(and communicated) publicly.

thanks for the proposal. There have been already discussions about that, and
we came to the conclusion to start with 3.3, but not to follow all version
changes OOo does. Time will tell how our release cycle and future version
numbering would look like.

I doubt we'll go back to LibO 1.1, now that 3.3 has been announced, but I'm
open for the future which step(s) we want to make.

Agreed, I think we should revise the naming of our version and make
our own progression pattern (athouhg not àla Ubuntu please, I love to
learn a new English animal name every 6 month, most of the time nobody
is able to remember it :wink: and that is easy also to figure out which
version between the stable or the developer one.

Happy to hear thoughts of the other SC members. :slight_smile:

You've mine :slight_smile:

Kind regards
Sophie

Hi,

Von: Sophie Gautier <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>
An: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org

>
>>
>> Dear all, all discussions seem to hint at that the first stable release
>> of LibreOffice is going to be a 3.3.0 release. I would like to have you
>> consider a different version for the following reasons:

I put it to the agenda, so that we can have some kind of "official"
statement:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Agenda_2010-11-03

Agreed, I think we should revise the naming of our version and make
our own progression pattern (athouhg not àla Ubuntu please, I love to
learn a new English animal name every 6 month, most of the time nobody
is able to remember it :wink: and that is easy also to figure out which
version between the stable or the developer one.

I'd rather continue OOo version number schema for the moment.
My main reason is interoparability with extensions and third party
applications. At the moment at least extensions might check for
a minimum / maximum version number of the application. The application
brant itself is not taken into account. To pass such tests we need
(at least internally) to follow the OOo versions - and I'd not
suggest to separate internal / external version numbers.

We might work on this for future versions - and maybe we even must
work on this, in case LibreOffice and OOo diverge a lot.

regards,

André

I'd rather continue OOo version number schema for the moment.

[...]

We might work on this for future versions - and maybe we even must
work on this, in case LibreOffice and OOo diverge a lot.

+1 for both, so to say :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Christoph

Please keep the version numbering as is, for the time beeing. If we had to change it, it had to be done when we announced LibreOffice. Besides, when we change numbers to 1.0 we better get a new name because our message is that this is a new product in the markeplace. Now it is too late unless we give up LibreOffice name.

Hi there,

I'd rather continue OOo version number schema for the moment.

  I think being similar enough to it is worthwhile. On the other hand, I
think being slaved to Hamburg's development schedule is unfortunate
overall. I'd like to release on a different cadence.

  But for now it is fine of course. And in future a major version bump -
sounds reasonable.

  ATB,

    Michael.