Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Pedro wrote:
This is something that the BoD needs to decide. If the Lifecycle
has no value, then stop wasting time and resources on maintaining
the previous branch. If it makes sense then don't recommend the
new branch until it reaches x.x.3

This seems ultimately to be still an issue of how is worded, right? Also please
bear in mind that sweeping x.x.0-x.x.2 [1] under a rug will not
necessarily make the experience a better one, once we switch users
to x.x.3 subsequently.

If the answer to the above question is yes, and you're willing to
invest effort towards improving it, let's move this over to the
website list. Doing one thing without stopping to do the other
should be the aim.

[1] I would not take the "x.x.3 will be recommended" as the law -
    maybe x.x.2 is already good enough, maybe only x.x.4 is.


-- Thorsten

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.