[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
- Subject: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
- From: "Charles-H. Schulz" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 14:54:00 +0100
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Top posting from my phone...
This is not an easy answer to give. Both strategies have pros and cons. My
advice would be to start where we are but alter the numbering scheme wildly:
3.3, 3.5 and then 4.0 instead of 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 like OOo.
Le 3 nov. 2010, 12:03 PM, "Michael Meeks" <email@example.com> a
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:57 +0100, Andre Schnabel wrote: > I'd rather
continue OOo version number s...
I think being similar enough to it is worthwhile. On the other hand,
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
firstname.lastname@example.org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
-- E-mail to email@example.com<steering-discuss%2Bhelp@documentfoundation.org>for
instructions on how to unsubscribe...
E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
|Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO||Stefan Weigel <email@example.com>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [steering-discuss] next confcall on Wednesday 1900 UTC
- Next by Date: Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
- Previous by thread: [steering-discuss] marketing confcall on Nov 11th
- Next by thread: Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO