![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Can someone tell me if LibreOffice 3.4.4 Final (2011-11-09) is the
lates version? I thought I read somewhere that a v3.5 was out there,
but I'm not sure.
Thanks.
Hi Caesar,
Caesar wrote (06-01-12 13:58)
Can someone tell me if LibreOffice 3.4.4 Final (2011-11-09) is the
lates version?
We all can tell you that 
However, currently 3.4.5 rc2 is on the servers...
I thought I read somewhere that a v3.5 was out there,
but I'm not sure.
Indeed, well understood too.
There is 3.5.0 beta2 currently.
We had a bug hunt session last week for this version. Probably you picked up the news from that ?
If you are interested: always welcome to test.
And we plan a second bug hunt session on January 20 / 21.
Some info (also for download etc. ) is here
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1
If you are more in general interested in the upcoming releases and related info, you can have a look here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
Hope this helps.
Kind regards,
The latest stable version is 3.4.4.
Versions 3.4.5 and 3.5.0 are in prerelease, I think 3.5.0 is at RC1 level. Both are scheduled for release in the next few weeks, I believe 3.5.0 then 3.4.5.
Are you going to ask this every day?
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Latest-version-tt3634798.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Are you going to ask this every day?
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Latest-version-tt3634798.html
The varied replies and sources of information indicate this is not
clear, so yes, we can expect this question to come often. That's often a
hint to improve the information available.
I'd rather have frequent repetitive questions than frequent repetitive
failed installs (aka "sorry, not trying that again" users).
Right now I am advising people who ask me to wait for 3.5 which will
most likely incorporate many bug fixes that will improve first-time
users experiences.
F.
Fabián Rodríguez-2 wrote
The varied replies and sources of information indicate this is not
clear, so yes, we can expect this question to come often. That's often a
hint to improve the information available.
Fabian, did you bother to click on the link I provided?
When an answer is not clear people ask for more details. They don't simply
open a NEW TOPIC to ask EXACTLY the same question. I think the OP didn't
bother to read any of the answers given yesterday...
Fabian is not the OP. Caesar is.
Kind regards
Johnny Rosenberg
ジョニー・ローゼンバーグ
Johnny Rosenberg wrote
I think the OP didn't bother to read any of the answers given
yesterday...Fabian is not the OP. Caesar is.
That is exactly what I said. The OP of this thread (Cesar) didn't read any
of the answers given yesterday on the thread that he (Cesar) opened with the
EXACT same email.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fabián Rodríguez-2 wrote
The varied replies and sources of information indicate this is not
clear, so yes, we can expect this question to come often. That's often a
hint to improve the information available.Fabian, did you bother to click on the link I provided?
No, I assumed you meant what you wrote initially. The Op didn't ask the
same question, he most probably sent the same message twice by mistake.
When an answer is not clear people ask for more details. They don't simply
open a NEW TOPIC to ask EXACTLY the same question. I think the OP didn't
bother to read any of the answers given yesterday...
Right, that should've been a hint that it was probably an honest mistake
- which is not uncommon on mailing lists. What if he didn't read the
answers ? They are now there, searchable, available for others.
I am actually surprised mailing lists are found by most users. Bothering
to register here and post if a huge effort for most people I know use
computers, I'd never ask them to do that - much less grab my virtual
baseball bat and hit them when they somehow fail at any implicit rules.
Staying on the subject, the download page is confusing, advertising two
"final" versions, without hinting at the differences.
F.
- --
- --
Fabián Rodríguez
I wrote my comment at the wrong place sorry. This is what I meant:
”> Fabian, did you bother to click on the link I provided?
Fabian is not the OP. Caesar is.”
Maybe I just misunderstood you anyway.
Kind regards
Johnny Rosenberg
ジョニー・ローゼンバーグ
Fabián Rodríguez-2 wrote
Right, that should've been a hint that it was probably an honest mistake
- which is not uncommon on mailing lists. What if he didn't read the
answers ? They are now there, searchable, available for others.
Why shouldn't he? This is a mailing list. He gets the answers in his email
box... If he sent the same message with one day of interval it means that he
checked his email today...
Fabián Rodríguez-2 wrote
much less grab my virtual
baseball bat and hit them when they somehow fail at any implicit rules.
That is not what this is about and has never been my attitude here. I
couldn't care less about the rules.
I do care about people wasting time.
Fabián Rodríguez-2 wrote
Staying on the subject, the download page is confusing, advertising two
"final" versions, without hinting at the differences.
Couldn't agree more.
Peace!
<snip>
Staying on the subject, the download page is confusing, advertising two
"final" versions, without hinting at the differences.F.
OK, this is more like a question that needs a good answer.
3.3.4 and 3.4.4 are both listed as final versions.
What it should be included, besides the date, is what those two versions represents.
3.3.4 is the last of that "line". It is a stable release that some people use for the business version of LO.
3.4.4 is the current line, with 1 or 2 version left of that line. It was used as the "cutting edge" line/version for LO when the 3.3.x line was still being worked on.
I would love to see some better descriptions for each "final" version of LO. When 3.5.0 comes out, will there be 3 "final" versions listed?
As of Feb 14th 2012 there should be the following "final" version out - with final being the current versions that are not in RC status.
3.3.4
3.4.5
3.5.0
That will make it even more confusing for people.
How about
3.3.4 - Business version - the old reliable version
3.4.4 / 3.4.5 - Personal version and cutting edge business version
3.5.0 - must cutting edge version for experiments.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
<snip>
Staying on the subject, the download page is confusing, advertising two
"final" versions, without hinting at the differences.
[...]How about
3.3.4 - Business version - the old reliable version
3.4.4 / 3.4.5 - Personal version and cutting edge business version
3.5.0 - must cutting edge version for experiments.
"Current" version and "Development" should be the only ones clearly
advertised. Perhaps "older versions" is somtimes useful.
In fact "Development" should not be anywhere near the download page, at
least not after > 1 yr. of releases.
I am certainly not using nor recommending 3.3.4 after all the bug fixes
I find in the later versions. Why would I ?
F.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:05:42 -0500, Fabian Rodriguez
<magicfab@member.fsf.org> wrote Re Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Latest
version?:
No, I assumed you meant what you wrote initially. The Op didn't ask the
same question, he most probably sent the same message twice by mistake.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. My thanks to all for the
comments.