Re: [board-discuss] [4.0] Review
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 12:05 +0100, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote:
Hi to all board members,
as 4.0.0 is rolled out there should be a review about what happened:
The good points, the bad points
What can we do in the same way, what in a better way the next time?
What is needed to get it better?
A discussion may cause some budget thoughts, community handling,
marketing concepts, Whiteboards, Easy Hacks etc.
We will certainly do a retrospective like this from an engineering
perspective in the ESC call tomorrow - clearly there were several
lessons we already learned from this release, but getting these better
tied together would be a useful plan.
Sophie was coming up with a better timeline / set of deadlines for the
marketing / organisational things around the release put together which
(I hope) would help improve communication between teams and general
timeliness. Failing that - having a developers in the marketing calls
earlier would be helpful I think.
Discovering a load of un-translated strings very very late in the day
(from the .ui files) was another late-discovered, one-off problem
impacting translation completeness - ultimately the software is built by
humans so there will always be some problems: so far my impression is
that the release has rather reasonable quality for a .0 release - with
few-to-no catastrophic / brown-paper-bag type bugs: which is good.
Hopefully unit testing is helping with that.
email@example.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy