Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

[tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release



Tor Lillqvist-2 wrote:

You are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not seen any actual
developers
use language like "evil MS" or "M$" and argumentation like that. 

Agreed. It was a small provocation :)

But it confuses me that bugs (and especially regressions) such as the one I
mentioned are known to exist in version 3.4.x and yet it is widely announced
as "for enterprise users"

Obviously TDF thinks that moving forward fast will show enterprises that
this is an actively maintained project but aren't enterprises more
interested in stability and compatibility?

TDF already has version 3.3.3,  a really stable version which is still being
actively fixed. Why push forward 3.4.x with such known limitations?

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Viability-of-the-3-4-2-Release-tp3215651p3231049.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.