plino wrote (06-08-11 10:13)
Cor Nouws wrote:
So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your
previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the
next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent
I just rewrote what I meant since the previous post wasn't clear.
No you did not.
In your first post you wrote
" It simply means that any regression that happened between 3.3.x
and 3.4.x will be ignored because they didn't happen between
3.4.x releases. "
In the second you wrote
" Since regressions that [snip] what are the chances that previous
regressions are going to be considered? "
I'm sorry if that is what you understand from my words. I never said they
are incompetent (that would be absurd) nor uninterested (otherwise they
wouldn't be spending their time on this project).
Your continuous strange and wrong assumptions, tend in a different
Cor Nouws wrote:
You simply seem not interested in understanding what is going on, nor do
not show that you know what you talk about. Then to me it looks better
if you stick with your decision from a month or so ago, and just leave
the mail lists, as you wrote me.
Really, postings like those add nothing positive or constructive. While
there is enough to do.
I did leave the mailing lists but subscribed again to this particular one.
I think that even non-programmers can contribute to this project.
Well, is that really news ?
Pls tell, what would be the contribution of your choise.
My point here is that for a dev, a bug is a bug. For a user a particular bug
that stops him from being able to work on a document is particularly
serious. Releasing version 3.4.2 as enterprise ready when such bugs can be
introduced by a regression (and remain) doesn't make much sense.
Wrong assumption. Any bug is considered for fixing.
I would say version 3.3.x IS enterprise ready.
This is a warning that problems like this are occurring and need to be
better triaged. That is my opinion.
As you see there was a constructive message in my post.
Since people actively involved in development, testing, marketing
bugtracking started discussing this subject some two, three weeks ago,
the quasi funny initial post that you wrote in this thread, is difficult
to understand as constructive. Sorry.
In any case negative input is also important,
it shows where people are unhappy and could be a pointer to something that
needs to be fixed.
It is important that users give their opinion and indeed, also when they
are not happy.
But after you do that for one, two times on the same subject, it is time
to change over to another mode: what (little bit) more then complain
could I try to do to help.
It is no reason to tell people to go away.
I did not tell that. I referred to you own previous decision and
suggested that that might be better, if there are no positive,
constructive posts to expect.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
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
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release (continued)
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