LibreOffice Still?

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
How do new users know what the difference is between the 2 branches?

Clearly it is not so easy for new people to figure it out otherwise we
wouldn't keep on having to answer this same question from so many new
users.

As a longer-term users i feel sufficiently experienced to know which branch
i prefer but how is a new user expected to know the difference?

Also if we are expecting the new users to do all the bug-finding and
bug-testing for us who are they doing it for? Who benefits from all the
bug-fixing done by these new users?
Regards from
Tom

[sophi]

Hi all,

Hi
How do new users know what the difference is between the 2 branches?

Clearly it is not so easy for new people to figure it out otherwise we
wouldn't keep on having to answer this same question from so many new
users.

So you answer them and they will know, this is how support works. You'll
always have people who don't know what is ctrl+c for when it exists for
the same functionality in several software over several years. And you
will explain it over and over. Don't think that writing it somewhere
will be enough, that won't be read, we all know it.

As a longer-term users i feel sufficiently experienced to know which branch
i prefer but how is a new user expected to know the difference?

Yes, but you keep thinking on the same model: stable vs unstable when
both are stable change your mind by thinking older in time = more
bugfixes, newer in time = more features but more bugs.

Also if we are expecting the new users to do all the bug-finding and
bug-testing for us who are they doing it for? Who benefits from all the
bug-fixing done by these new users?

Who do you think? the users of course, each bug is triaged and will
be fixed one day or another and will find his place in the current
version, and will be backported in the older one still in life if there
is absolutely no risk or it it's a regression.
Kind regards
Sophie

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
The difference is that Charles is saying that both branches are as stable
as each other.

Florian was saying that new users have to do the bug-finding on the "Fresh"
branch in order to help it become more stable.

Florian's seems to explain what we find on this mailing list = that new
users and magazine articles grumbling about bugs and issues quickly settle
down when we suggest they move to the "Still" branch. Some then come back
and ask why they weren't pointed to the more stable branch in the first
place.

Regards from
Tom

[Charles-H_Schulz]

Hello Tom,

First, both Nino and Sophie's answers are really good. Mine was just trying to be simple and short.
I think, just like Sophie suggested, that you are still thinking along the "stable-unstable" pattern.

My answer, by the way, does not contraddict Nino or Sophie. Let me take two -already used- examples to show you there is no contradiction.

MS Office 2011 and MS Office 2013. Both are stable. Both are still up for sale. What's the real difference? More features in MS Office 2013, sure. But both are stable. However 2011 gets more patches, is more tested than Office 2013 (in this case users both pay and get to be "guinea pigs").

Second example: Chevrolet Impala 2013 and 2011. What's the difference? Well, there are a few cosmetic changes, perhaps one or two equipment that changed; maybe a few more liveries available, but there's also been a set of optimized industrial manufacturing processes that have been improved between 2012 and 2013. Note: both are "stable", aka. fit to have millions of people driving these cars. Are these drivers guinea-pigs? Yes in a sense. I challenge you to find any sort of distribution process of manufactured good, service, software, where uers or customers are not guinea pigs in one way or another; Free Software is just really transparent and honest about it, because after all, you're not paying for anything when using it.

Hope this helped,

Charles.

[Nino_Novak1]

This seems to contradict what both Charles and what Florian Reisinger were
saying.

No. See below:

[...]

It also kinda explains the graphic on the;
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
page, although that graphic doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do other
people understand it? There used to be a neat little graph which kinda
boggled the eyes at first but began to make sense after staring at it for a
while.

By clicking on the graphics you come to its upload page with all former
versions: just chose the one you want to see, e.g. this:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/archive/2/2c/20130819233457!LibOReleaseLifecycle.png>

So Nino's answer suggests that some people might prefer the branch that has
matured because by that time it is more stable. So releases with a higher
3rd digit are more mature, more stable and less likely to have problems.
The only downside is that you get less features.

exactly.

However this seems to contradict what Charles was saying about both
branches being fully stable. So which is wrong?

Maybe it's about the usage of the word "stable".

Charles uses it in kind of a "strict sense" in software development: a
software may be called stable if no crasher bugs are reported/open. (I don't
know the exact actual definition in LibreOffice as I did not find it
explicitly written somewhere). Florian simply assumes that the state
"stable" is reached after the 6th bugfix release. So their definitions
seemingly differ and it might be considered helpful to work on a common
definition. But there is no doubt that both try to use it "according to
definition" (or presumable definition).

You seem to use it in an undefined way, kind of a "common sense". Which is
also right, but - as is the nature of undefined terms - does not reflect the
product's state but rather your (or someone else's) expectations.

So, strictly spoken, Charles/Florian are right. But commonly spoken, you are
right.

There is additionally the problem of comparing two differend kinds of fruit:
it's difficult to compare the maturity of oranges and apples. Strictly
spoken, you cannot say, this orange is more mature than this apple. In this
analogy, every minor branch *is* a different fruit as it has different
features from other minor branches
Therefore one simply shouldn't compare them regarding "stableness". It will
always stay an opinion showing that the person uttering it does not really
understand what she is talking about

Regards,
Nino
omg, what a long posting ,-)

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
Ok, so the question is why have 2 different branches at all?

The "Fresh" branch has the advantage of having more features but what
advantage does the older branch have?

In the case of Chevrolet Impala 2013 and 2011 i seriously doubt that both
models are being manufactured at the same time. Even if they are then why
would people choose the older model?

With MS Office 2007 and 2010 it's the (trial version of) 2013 that people
are given on new machines purchased from a shop. There are good reasons
and advantages to buying the 2007 or 2010 = if nearly everyone you do
business with or share files with uses 2007 then using 2010 or 2013 is
going to cause problems. Similarly with the 2010. So you kinda have to
get the same one as everyone else. This sort of nonsense doesn't happen
with LibreOffice or other office suites (unless sometimes if you
deliberately use newer features)

So we have been given good reasons for using the "Fresh" branch, such as
getting all the newest features. The question remains as to why people
would choose to install the "Still" branch.

Since there doesn't seem to be a good reason for installing the "Still"
branch why do we still offer it when all it seems to do is cause
confusion? What are the pros and cons of the "Still" branch in comparison
to the "Fresh" branch?

Regards from
Tom

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
Ok, in the case of fruit, say apples and oranges. There are clear
differences between them. They might be available (or better) in different
seasons. One is usually orange and the other usually green or red. One
might be juicier than the other. One more acidic than the other.
Different tastes and textures. Most of us are very clear about the
differences and can easily make an informed decision about which is
preferred at a given moment.

So again the question has apparently gone back to "What is the advantage of
the "Still" branch. Why would people choose it or what circumstances would
suit "Still" better than "Fresh"?"

Regards from
Tom

[Nino_Novak1]

The main advantage is its age: it's more mature; it has been in use for a
longer time; people know it better; more questions have been answered in all
the support forums etc.

You see, the main problem is not having two branches, it's having two
branches which do not differ too much - just half a year. Therefore, both
are rather "fresh", there is no "really mature" version, at least not in the
public.

So the thing to really complain about is the lack of a really mature (2-3-4
years or more) version! Therefore, all the bug fixing etc does not really
improve the stability of the software as branches end their lifetime too
soon after receiving their last bugfix update.

I'm not sure what the effects would be if there was a Long Time Support
version. Maybe, everybody would switch to this LTS verison and bug reporting
would decrease dramatically. But maybe also, that peoples' satisfachtion
would grow considerably and therefore also commitment and loyalty. Who knows?

In a first step I'd very much like the community to decrease the release
frequeny to once a year instead of every 6 months.

Nino

[sophi]

To have less bugs and regressions that make it more sure to use by
average users. When you are at the 4th or 6th cycle of a release, you
can consider that almost all of the functionalities have been used and
if there was bugs or regressions they have been reported and depending
on there severity/impact, they have been corrected. Which is not true
for the more recent release with less usage and less users, it needs
more time and cycles.
Kind regards
Sophie

[Charles-H_Schulz]

Nino,

Right on target; I could not have said it better. As for the release pace there is a theory that suggests that slowing it to a rearly rythmn would decrease the intetest of developers. But that is obviously a theory, and cannot be an exact science.

Best,

Charles.

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
Ok, so that sounds like the 4th or 6th "cycle" of a branch has reduced the
bugs and regressions = i think most people would call that making it more
stable wouldn't they?

Then the point about recent releases having had less usage seems to be
saying that it is not quite so stable.

Actually that does make a lot of sense. When new features are added it
would be surprising if there were no unexpected problems. I think most
people would understand that and understand that as being slightly less
stable than it will be in the future. That all makes total sense.

I am beginning to like the sound of "mature branch" and "young branch". Of
course a google search for mature, or young, might bring up some bad sites
that we wouldn't want to be associated with. It's annoying because
otherwise that might be a really good way of describing the difference
between the 2 branches.

So i think we still need to try to think of a really short name for each
branch that describes what it's advantage is over the other branch.

Still vs fizzy don't seem to be popular but was worth a try. SliTaz's
"stable" vs "cooking" seems to have been rejected already. Stable vs
unstable doesn't cover it. Development vs stable suffers the same
problem. Has anyone else got ideas? I think it would be great to have a
wiki-page or something where people can post their ideas slightly
anonymously and then maybe people could vote for which ones they prefer.

Regards from
Tom

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
Errr, i think the LTS idea works well as long as there is a 6 monthly
release, or at least a much faster-paced release cycle for another branch.

The 6 monthly alone is difficult for many people to keep up with, even for
big fans, but it does do a lot for excitement and energy. It motivates
people to try to get their improvements or new features in quickly and
rewards them by getting their ideas out their and being used in the real
world extremely quickly. I agree and think that is a big motivator.
Regards from
Tom

[krackedpress]

We have developed a "cycle" for each line where we know that x.x.0 is the newest and x.x.6/7 is the most mature of that line. So we should use that idea.

Yes we have two lines.

Yes there is an idea of maturity vs. younger/fresher

Yes the newer line should have more features to work with or a more developed user interface

So maybe we could stop thinking "this line and that line" but focus on how mature/developed the current versions of each line is.

Have a little sidebar with this idea of this version is "this mature" for its line and the other version is "this mature" for its line.

What we need is terms that reflect the idea of the "age" of the version, or what the cycle number really means.

x.x.0 - toddler version of the line
x.x.3 - teenager
x.x.5 - in college
x.x.6/7 - graduated and best working of the line

Betas are the newborn version of the line, if you go with the above age description.

Can we somehow create terms like that, but in more of a business terminology?

[Charles-H_Schulz]

Hello Tim,

We have developed a "cycle" for each line where we know that x.x.0 is
the newest and x.x.6/7 is the most mature of that line. So we should
use that idea.

Yes we have two lines.

Yes there is an idea of maturity vs. younger/fresher

Yes the newer line should have more features to work with or a more
developed user interface

So maybe we could stop thinking "this line and that line" but focus on
how mature/developed the current versions of each line is.

Have a little sidebar with this idea of this version is "this mature"
for its line and the other version is "this mature" for its line.

What we need is terms that reflect the idea of the "age" of the
version, or what the cycle number really means.

x.x.0 - toddler version of the line
x.x.3 - teenager
x.x.5 - in college
x.x.6/7 - graduated and best working of the line

Betas are the newborn version of the line, if you go with the above
age description.

Can we somehow create terms like that, but in more of a business terminology?

Indeed we are missing such an explanation. Care to open a wiki page on this?

Best,

Charles.

[arakish]

So, you do go through stages. You just misnomered them.

Why not just use that?

Stages:
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate
Final Release Candidate (LO v4.3.0)
Stable (LO v4.2.6)

As said in my previous post. The download page is confusing enough.
Unconfuse it with the above stages. This "fresh" and "still" does not jive
with software.

In your own words, you are saying that v4.3.x has more features, but may
still be quite buggy, thus NOT stable. Although the latest v4.2.x version
may have less features, it is much less buggy, thus MORE stable.

As said, just stick with the standards. Quit being stupid with these "new"
labels. Fresh and Still has nothing to do with software.

In fact, with ALL open source software, I have always found that the very
latest release, such as LO v4.3.0, are horrible. Too many bugs and crashes
to be useful, despite the new features. Unlike most persons, I NEVER
download the latest supposedly "stable" version. It always proves to NOT be
stable, especially when the version number ends with a zero (0). I will
always wait until a later version, perhaps v4.3.3. 7734, I have even been
known to skip versions. In this case, I might wait until LO v4.4.3.

Additionally, I have found that a listing of the bug fixes means very little
to me. What about the bugs yet to happen? That is what concerns me the
most. Of course, the bugs yet to happen can never be foreseen until they
actually do occur. But, I am willing to only use the latest "stable"
version, in this case LO v4.2.6, than a version ending with a 0. I'd rather
have the greatest stability versus new features any day. Although I may
want the new features, I can wait until the Final Release Candidate is made
more stable.

Summation:
Why not just use the following for your stages? It makes much better sense
than what you are trying to use now.

Stages:
Alpha
Beta
Release Candidate
Final Release Candidate (LO v4.3.0)
Stable (LO v4.2.6)

rmfr

[Charles-H_Schulz]

Hello Tom,

A few thoughts on the LTS - it's good we are on the users list just for this topic I think.

LTS (Long Term Support) is often misunderstood. Canonical introduced the notion of LTS, but few realize that they were able to do so and are able to maintain this kind of version for the sole reason that there are customers directly funding the LTS. In other words, you can have a LTS of Ubuntu because there are people/companies/governments directly paying for it, usually under the form of support contracts.

While TDF is not a company, it is also not directly funding development (i.e hiring dozens of developers for instance), nor does it provide professional support. It is thus up to the companies providing support and developing LibreOffice that can provide something like a LTS version. In practice that is what you get with Collabora, Canonical, Red Hat, others like Igalia, Itomig (although I could be wrong, maybe their services are more tailored).

Creating a LTS costs money, invested in support and backporting mostly. This money must be found somewhere, and so must the skills necessary for development and support. LTS will never, however magically produce a "better quality release"; but it will produce a set of nice support contracts . I know there is a myth that if a LTS for every major Free Software components was to be released, things would be better and peace would come unto this world, but unfortunately that is not how it works. LTS versions do not imply a better quality and less bugs; they do however imply large upstream contracts and deals.

As a note of interest, my previous experience as a board member of the foundation and my current (educated) guess as a contributor have highlighted an interesting pattern: most of of the donations to the Document Foundation do not come from large corporations. They come from regular people and small businesses. We -I won't hesitate to speak on behalf of the entire foundation here- are very grateful to you and all the people who help this project. But *I* cannot help drawing a few observations from this pattern: if we are to satisfy our benefactors, then we are primarily an end-user project (understand: a consumer oriented project) and we should not be craving heftier donations from large deployments in the entreprise. It is something to keep in mind for the future, I think.

Best,

Charles.

[Tom_Davies1]

Hi
+1
too.
Regards from
Tom

[Paul16]

> Clearly it is not so easy for new people to figure it out otherwise
> we wouldn't keep on having to answer this same question from so
> many new users.

So you answer them and they will know, this is how support works.

This works for support *after* they have gotten the software, this
should *never* be the case for people who want to download the
software, that choice should *always* be pretty obvious.

If I go to a page to download some software I want, and can't figure
out which version I should use, or at least have some sort of idea
about the choice being made, I consider just giving up on the software.
I'm sure most people are the same.

Yes, but you keep thinking on the same model: stable vs unstable when
both are stable change your mind by thinking older in time = more
bugfixes, newer in time = more features but more bugs.

But you're getting the very definition of stable wrong:

more bugs = less stable

So this really *is* a debate about stable vs unstable. That's not to say
that the younger product is *unstable*, but it does mean that the older
product is *more stable*.

Paul

[Paul16]

I don't know the cars in question, so maybe that specific case is
different. But in my general experience, when two car models are sold,
the only reason the older one is still sold is because they have unsold
vehicles that they need to get rid of, so they offer them at a lower
price, and the only reason to get an older model is because it is
cheaper. There is *no* other reason, unless parts are different, in
which case the older model's parts are usually cheaper as well,
although sometimes the reverse is true. The older one is in no way
safer, usually the reverse.

In the case of Office 2011 vs. 2013, again, I haven't bought Office for
so long I don't know the specifics, but I would be very surprised if
price wasn't the only reason the older software was still sold. In most
cases where a new version like that is brought out, the older version
is due to be retired pretty soon. Unless there is a specific feature or
compatability issue, in which case it is (or should be) clearly stated
to potential buyers.

Paul

[Paul16]

No, not magically, but by the very nature of it being around for longer
it will, in the end, result in a more stable product.