![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Yes. The installer should automatically detect the other version and
offer to upgrade or install side by side.
Anything else just makes no sense.
Hum, read the doc 
you may have as many versions as you like (or as
your space disk allow you).
Kind regards
Sophie
Hello Paul
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
>> Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added we
>> can expect to find that some things that don't so well in "Fresh"
>> and yet still
>> find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".
>>
>> To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
>> marketing, double-speak.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such nonsensical
> words?
>
> Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...
>
> Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).
>
> This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability
of some to even understand what is being discussed.I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to be
talking at cross-purposes.Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".
And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people are
used to from so very many other >projects, it *is* the testing branch.
While several other projects use this system not all of them do. Are you baffled at Firefox three release channels that has one long term support another similar to our Fresh branch and a true testing one?
Call me callous but this perspective has been encouraged here on this list for some years so I actually think that while nothing is perfect, far from that, there is a magnifying glass on the matter here.
Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that fresh is unstable and not even a testing branch... but so be it.
Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as they
try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which is the
"stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to and
expecting.Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear explanations
would, and you don't need to change terminology for that. If you didn't
change terminology, and had clear explanations, it is debatable if it
would be better or worse than changed terminology and clear
explanations, but either state would be so many leagues ahead of
changed terminology and no explanations, as it is now, that it is
baffling as to why those in charge are fighting so adamantly to keep
things as they are. Never mind changing the terminology again, who do
they still insist on not putting any explanations on the website?
Paul my stance has not changed. No one refuses to do anything. I simply do not have the time and I am just a volunteer. People on this list think they can just demand something and it will happen. It does not work that way. We are a community and if you want to fix something, by all means go ahead.
The explanation you are alluding to is on my todo list but I have several other items before that. And I am glad if people can help, which in this case start by either using our Redmine to define the contents and introducing oneself on the website mailing list.
If you want
testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for everyone :Fresh branch
(x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.Still branch
(w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
candidates.
This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
candidates for each version of the fresh branch.A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
ones getting it, and not the public at >large?
Actually you do because that part (at least) is on the website already.
Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance of
finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time in
proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone anyway. Let
me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an opinion or who
think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice project to focus on
helping rather than complaining.Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?
See my comment on contributing above.
As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this really
shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.
Never tell a volunteer what to do. It does not work. I know there is no malice in what you are expressing but this point is important. I have a dayjob, a family, hobbies and other tasks and roles inside LibreOffice. And I am not the only one.
I realise that you have previously said that this is the only forum to
complain about this issue, and that the other forums (like twitter, I
think it was), had very few to no complaints about the terminology
change, but so what? What is the downside to putting clear explanations
on the website?
Absolutely none, indeed.
It can hardly make it worse for those >that are already
happy with the situation, and can only make it better for those that
are unhappy or confused, so why so much resistance to it?The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side versions,
should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I realise that will
take considerably longer to implement. Although it still should be
recognised as an important part of this puzzle.
Others have responded on this, but thanks for your input.
Best,
Charles.
Hi,
I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the inability of
some to even understand what is being discussed.Oh, I understand what is being discussed.
What you don't understand is the complaint.
Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".
I'm not arguing about what 'Fresh' relates to.
I'm saying that creating these totally new, never before head of terms
to describe different branches of software - ie, 'Fresh', 'Still' etc -
rather than using some standard terms/terminology that actually are used
by many different projects (admittedly, there is some amount of
variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is ridiculous.
But those doesn't exist anywhere else, because we are not producing a
distro but a desktop software and the concept is completely different.
And yet, this is something that you don't want to ear.
Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.
Which are certainly not stable, testing and development.
If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches, then
name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or something else
that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.
Then, do you think that those two stable won't confuse the users?
Of course, if you just enjoy *creating* confusion, then by all means,
continue reinventing terms with new ones that no one understands and
sound silly on top of it all.
I don't think that anybody contributing in this project wants to lose
users and contributors time. Each time, we explain and discuss to try to
find the best way to resolve and further things.
Kind regards
Sophie
Hi Charles,
Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that fresh is unstable and not even a testing branch... but so be it.
IIRC, this is probably because this is how things were previously
introduced on the previous website inception.
Cheers,
Hi,
I think people are talking about a single installer that does the whole
job. Something that normal users can just double-click on, rather than a
long set of complicated instructions.Yes. The installer should automatically detect the other version and
offer to upgrade or install side by side.Anything else just makes no sense.
What makes no sense for me is to refuse something without even having a
look at it.
Kind regards
Sophie
Hi 
I think i didn't state it clearly enough and something got lost in
translation
Errr, the single installer installs both "Still" and "Fresh" at the same
time as each other? One installer gets both versions at the same time?
Regards from
Tom
Hi Paul,
[...]
The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side versions,
should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I realise that will
take considerably longer to implement. Although it still should be
recognised as an important part of this puzzle.This is very easy on Windows with the SI GUI, see here
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Server_Install_GUIand see here for Linux where it's also really easy:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel
Actually there is an easier way to install multiple versions of LibreOffice on a computer using Debian versions complete with multiple configure folders. They are installed in the /opt/ folder as before. Version 4.0.x is put in the libreoffice4.0 folder, Version 4.1.x is put in the libreoffice4.1 folder, version 4.2.x is put in the libreoffice4.2 folder, and version 4.3.x is put in the libreoffice 4.3 folder of /opt/. (I presently have three folders for libreoffice versions: libreoffice4.1, libreoffice4.2, and libreoffice4.3.)
To be able to use these three versions at the same time I have modified the bootstraprc file found in the program folder of each libreoffice folder. The last line of this file contains this line:
UserInstallation=$SYSUSERCONFIG/libreoffice/4.x
By changing the 4.x at the end of this line to match the number contained in its libreoffice folder. The location of the bootstraprc file is
/opt/libreoffice4.x/program/bootstraprc.
So specifically, my three libreoffice folders contain the following files:
/opt/libreoffice4.1/program/bootstraprc which contains the last line UserInstallation=$SYSUSERCONFIG/libreoffice/4.1
/opt/libreoffice4.2/program/bootstraprc which contains the last line UserInstallation=$SYSUSERCONFIG/libreoffice/4.2
/opt/libreoffice4.3/program/bootstraprc which contains the last line UserInstallation=$SYSUSERCONFIG/libreoffice/4.3
Note: to do this requires a person has administrative privileges.
Dan
Hi,
variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is ridiculous.
But those doesn't exist anywhere else, because we are not producing a
distro but a desktop software and the concept is completely different.
And yet, this is something that you don't want to ear.
Not at all... it is nothing to do with my not wanting to hear anything.
The end result software is completely different, but the concept is
*identical*.
All you need to do to confirm this is read what you (the proponents of
these silly/ridiculous newly invented terms 'Fresh' and 'Still') say to
*describe* these terms to see this.
Saying otherwise is totally disengenuous.
Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.
Which are certainly not stable, testing and development.
Seriously? If you truly believe this, then you have never done any
software development.
If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches, then
name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or something else
that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.
Then, do you think that those two stable won't confuse the users?
Some, yes, but *far* *far* less than 'Still' and 'Fresh', nd it will be
much easier to explain the difference.
What am I refusing to look at? The complicated instructions?
Or are you saying that the installer already works as I described? If it
does, fantastic! It would be huge, but it also was apparently never
announced, otherwise I'd have started installing dev versions as soon as
it was stable.
Aha! I think I have solved the terminology problem!
For many working on the LO project, English is their second language.*
Clearly, when terms were being proposed, someone misheard, which why is why
the two forks were not named “Fresh" and “Stale".
Rearguards,
Hedley
* I have only one language and even that is not too flash.
Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2
> What makes no sense for me is to refuse something without even
> having a look at it.What am I refusing to look at? The complicated instructions?
I think the important point is that if it isn't part of the standard
setup, most ordinary people won't even go looking for a way to set up
multiple versions, they'll just assume it can't be done, or that it is
a complicated procedure. That is why it is so important that the
standard installer offers them a choice.
It is also worth noting that a lot of ordinary computer users will see
a set of instructions, and the moment it has more than two steps will
feel it is complicated, yet if the standard installer simply asks
yes/no type questions and does the grunt work, they'll be quite happy.
But for my money it is mostly about people being shown a way to do it
without looking for it, that will make them actually use it, whereas if
they have to go looking for it, they won't bother.
Aha! I think I have solved the terminology problem!
For many working on the LO project, English is their second language.*
Clearly, when terms were being proposed, someone misheard, which why
is why the two forks were not named “Fresh" and “Stale".
And that right there is one of the problems with the current
terminology. It creates a perception in those who don't know better
that the "Fresh" branch is the one to use, and that "Stale" is
something they shouldn't use, as the term just sounds slightly
objectionable, which also applies to "Still" to a lesser extent. If
this is truly what the LO project wants, then why offer the "Still"
branch at all? Clearly they do see the need for both, but they are not
portraying that choice clearly to the end user. Much will be resolved
once that is explained clearly on the website.
Rearguards,
Hedley* I have only one language and even that is not too flash.
Typed laboriously on my Galaxy S2
> > Hi,
> >> variation) - ie, 'Stable', 'Testing', 'Development' - is what is
> ridiculous.
>
> > But those doesn't exist anywhere else, because we are not
> > producing a distro but a desktop software and the concept is
> > completely different.
I have to disagree, the concept is not different *at all*.
> > And yet, this is something that you don't
> > want to ear.
>
> Not at all... it is nothing to do with my not wanting to hear
> anything.
>
> The end result software is completely different, but the concept is
> *identical*.
I must agree.
>
> All you need to do to confirm this is read what you (the proponents
> of these silly/ridiculous newly invented terms 'Fresh' and 'Still')
> say to *describe* these terms to see this.
>
> Saying otherwise is totally disengenuous.
>
> >> Use STANDARD terms, then precisely define THOSE.
>
> > Which are certainly not stable, testing and development.
Those terms most definitely *are* standard. Not the only standard,
perhaps, but very clearly a common choice.
>
> Seriously? If you truly believe this, then you have never done any
> software development.
>
> >> If you really insist on having two different 'Stable' branches,
> >> then name them something like 'Stable-New' and 'Stable-Old' or
> >> something else that makes much more sense than 'Still' or 'Fresh.
>
> > Then, do you think that those two stable won't confuse the users?
>
> Some, yes, but *far* *far* less than 'Still' and 'Fresh', nd it
> will be much easier to explain the difference.
Personally I would vote for something like "Stable-Current" or
"Stable-Features" and "Stable-Mature", or terms in that vein, but I
have to agree, choosing those sorts of terms would be more in line with
the explanations of what they are intended for that are given so often
here.
> > >
> > > Of course, if you just enjoy *creating* confusion, then by all
> > > means, continue reinventing terms with new ones that no one
> > > understands and sound silly on top of it all.
> >
> > I don't think that anybody contributing in this project wants to
> > lose users and contributors time. Each time, we explain and
> > discuss to try to find the best way to resolve and further things.
And the discussions I feel are good, they do give many opinions voice,
and thus better ideas are born. But we do seem to be at a stalemate,
where one camp keeps showing a dislike of the current terms, and
suggests change, and the other side keeps pointing out that they intend
for the terms to stay. There doesn't seem to be a good argument in
favour of the terms, only a debate about whether the other terms
truly are better. I say they can hardly be worse.
Hi Charles,
Hello Paul
>Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
>
>
>
>> >> Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added
>> >> we can expect to find that some things that don't so well in
>> >> "Fresh" and yet still
>> >> find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".
>> >>
>> >> To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
>> >> marketing, double-speak.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such
>> > nonsensical words?
>> >
>> > Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...
>> >
>> > Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).
>> >
>> > This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.
>>
>> I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the
>> inability of some to even understand what is being discussed.
>
>I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to
>be talking at cross-purposes.
>
>
>> Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".
>
>And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people
>are used to from so very many other >projects, it *is* the testing
>branch.While several other projects use this system not all of them do. Are
you baffled at Firefox three release channels that has one long term
support another similar to our Fresh branch and a true testing one?
I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I do
get an idea of what each is for. But the use of the name Beta makes
that one clear, and Aurora explains that it is in an unstable
state, so all makes sense.
Call me callous but this perspective has been encouraged here on this
list for some years so I actually think that while nothing is
perfect, far from that, there is a magnifying glass on the matter
here.
Yes, I'm sure there is. And worth noting.
Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that
fresh is unstable and not even a testing branch... but so be it.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying? Are you saying you don't
think that there are people that think that "Fresh" is unstable? I'm
not saying I think people think "Fresh" is unstable, I'm saying there
is confusion created by the naming. People don't know *what* "Fresh"
is. That's a bad thing. Some probably do think that "Fresh" is
unstable. Some probably don't, but then are left to wonder what
"Still" is. The naming leads to confusion. That really is my
main point.
>Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
>affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
>state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as
>they try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which
>is the "stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to
>and expecting.
>
>Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear
>explanations would, and you don't need to change terminology for
>that. If you didn't change terminology, and had clear explanations,
>it is debatable if it would be better or worse than changed
>terminology and clear explanations, but either state would be so
>many leagues ahead of changed terminology and no explanations, as it
>is now, that it is baffling as to why those in charge are fighting
>so adamantly to keep things as they are. Never mind changing the
>terminology again, who do they still insist on not putting any
>explanations on the website?Paul my stance has not changed. No one refuses to do anything. I
simply do not have the time and I am just a volunteer. People on this
list think they can just demand something and it will happen. It does
not work that way. We are a community and if you want to fix
something, by all means go ahead.
I'm glad to hear that no one is refusing to do it. I'm glad to hear
that it is valued. And I'm not demanding anything other than
acknowledgment of the fact that the current terminology leaves something
to be desired and needs some better explanations.
So far I have heard a lot of defense of the current terminology, but
most of it has been to point out that the alternatives are not better
(a debatable point), very little has been to point out why the current
terminology is any good. And very little has been said about any other
considerations, like the need for better explanation. If someone had
said "We like the terminology for these [listed] reasons, but you who
disagree are right that clearer explanations are needed", I would have
been quite happy to wait for it to happen.
In point of fact I had no idea that you were the one who needed to
make the changes to the website (or if not the one, at least one of the
ones who could). I was not aware I could do it myself. Yes, this is a
community, but I assumed that there would be at least some rudimentary
security keeping the maintenance of the website to a trusted few (the
marketing team, say), of whom I am at this stage not part. Also, I
would assume that there was more than one person with this power, and
that between all of them, someone would have had the time by now, given
how high a priority this should have been.
I fully understand that you don't have the time, and appreciate the
fact, but not having the time is different to not wanting to make the
change. That you have admitted that the change should happen is
good, now we just need to work out the details of actually making it
happen.
The explanation you are alluding to is on my todo list but I have
several other items before that. And I am glad if people can help,
which in this case start by either using our Redmine to define the
contents and introducing oneself on the website mailing list.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Redmine site. Can you provide a link?
Equally, I am not sure I have the time for this, nor that I am the best
person to word such an explanation, but I can give it a go, and
either access the Redmine site as you suggest, or at the least post it
here for discussion and use by whomever does the actual edits, which
should make their life easier.
>
>
>> If you want
>> testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
>> branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for
>> everyone :
>>
>> Fresh branch
>> (x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
>> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
>> candidates.
>> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
>> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.
>>
>> Still branch
>> (w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
>> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
>> candidates.
>> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
>> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.
>
>A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
>ones getting it, and not the public at >large?Actually you do because that part (at least) is on the website
already.
Really? I don't see it. When I go to the LO site, I see a big banner
with "Download Now", and clicking that takes me to the download page
for "Fresh", which doesn't state anything like that. And I don't see
any link to an "About Our Versions" page. Can you tell me where exactly
I can see that?
Also, I think a slightly more in-depth explanation is needed for the
general public.
>
>
>> Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance
>> of finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time
>> in proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone
>> anyway. Let me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an
>> opinion or who think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice
>> project to focus on helping rather than complaining.
>
>Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?See my comment on contributing above.
>
>As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
>that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this
>really shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.
I think you took this as an imperative. Please understand that it was
meant not as an order, but as an explanation of what, in my opinion,
needs to be done to give your arguments any credit.
Never tell a volunteer what to do. It does not work. I know there is
no malice in what you are expressing but this point is important. I
have a dayjob, a family, hobbies and other tasks and roles inside
LibreOffice. And I am not the only one.
As I explained above, I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. You
are defending a position that many on this list are arguing against,
without much of an argument that I can see. I have said that for my
part I feel the problem lies in the fact that there are no clear
explanations, and that this should be the number one goal, and any
discussion of the exact terminology is less important than that single
fact. A middle-ground if you will. And a reasonable one, I feel. I am
not requiring that anybody do anything. If you disagree with my point,
fine, say so and explain why. But to continue to argue without
addressing what seems to be the main concern of those arguing against
you seems to be pointless, in my opinion.
As I said above, it is not simply that no-one has taken the time to do
this that concerns me, it is that it has been ignored that concerned me.
But you are right in pointing out that now that it is agreed it is an
important step, I can either accept that it will have to wait until
someone has the time to attend to it, or I can pitch in and help. This
is a community, and all offers of assistance are welcome. I am happy
with that. A situation that is bad and everybody agrees is bad is far
less of a problem to me than one that is bad but those in charge (at
least nominally) refuse to see as bad.
>
>I realise that you have previously said that this is the only forum
>to complain about this issue, and that the other forums (like
>twitter, I think it was), had very few to no complaints about the
>terminology change, but so what? What is the downside to putting
>clear explanations on the website?Absolutely none, indeed.
>It can hardly make it worse for those >that are already
>happy with the situation, and can only make it better for those that
>are unhappy or confused, so why so much resistance to it?
>
>The other solution, to make it *easy* to install side-by-side
>versions, should be done irrespective of the terminology, but I
>realise that will take considerably longer to implement. Although it
>still should be recognised as an important part of this puzzle.Others have responded on this, but thanks for your input.
As always, I hope only to add to a constructive solution to the
problem. I do feel like here we have finally made some progress. Those
that feel the terminology is bad must surely feel it is less of a
problem once it has a clear explanation.
And my respect to Charles, Sophie, Tom, and all that have kept this
conversation civil and constructive.
Kind regards
Paul
Hi,
Paul-6 wrote
So far I have heard a lot of defense of the current terminology, butmost
of it has been to point out that the alternatives are not better(a
debatable point), very little has been to point out why the
currentterminology is any good. And very little has been said about any
otherconsiderations, like the need for better explanation.
Fair enough criticism. Let me be specific: CLEAR RISK WARNING.
The terms: Unstable, Stable and Old-Stable HAVE AN INTRINSIC RISK WARNING.
The terms: Fresh and Still ARE DEVOID OF ANY INDICATION OF RISK. They
require a cross-reference. And even then if the cross-reference does not
clearly identify the risk, you will have still succeeded in misdirecting the
user into more risk than they may desire.
Here's an idea: (and it's just an idea)
Plain
English
Risk Level
Libre
Office
No Risk Level
What the user NEEDS to know in terms of RISK.
Unstable /
Testing
Fragrant
This is the testing version.
This is where we try all the new and funky ideas for features.
When we get enough users using a particular feature to give us
confidence that it is ready for release into the stable platform, it
will be.
Tests fail. That's why they are tests.
Documents may not be compatible with the next stable version.
Use this to try the new and experimental features and concepts.
DON'T EVEN THINK OF USING THIS FOR CRITICAL DOCUMENTS.
Stable
Fresh
This is the current stable version.
This version has passed the LO file handling test suite and has not
shown itself to create any problems with existing documents from
previous versions.
This version contains new features which may not be backward compatible.
As issues are found they are corrected with updates.
There is some risk that the new things may not work as desired. If that
happens just click on the old-stable icon and continue in the old-stable
version.
Please report any issues you find.
USE THIS FOR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT CRITICAL.
Old Stable
Still
This is the final version of the previous stable version with all
patches and updates.
This has the least risk of creating problems with any of your existing
documents from previous versions.
This lacks the new features of the stable and testing versions.
USE THIS FOR CRITICAL AND COMPLEX DOCUMENTS FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS.
Archive
Sedentary
These are all the previous final old-stable versions of each series.
They are here for users that found some functionality useful. (i.e.
discontinued word processor format outputs, etc.).
These versions are no longer supported.
DON'T BOTHER ASKING ABOUT THESE VERSIONS, NOBODY WILL ANSWER.
Hello Paul,
Hi Charles,
Hello Paul
>Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
>
>> >> Yes, "Fresh" is stable but because it's had new features added
>> >> we can expect to find that some things that don't so well in
>> >> "Fresh" and yet still
>> >> find that they work perfectly fine in "Still".
>> >>
>> >> To many of us that all sounds like a lot of politicians, or
>> >> marketing, double-speak.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > Why for criminy's sake reinvent these terms using such
>> > nonsensical words?
>> >
>> > Just use *estabalished* terms, aka Debian...
>> >
>> > Stable (Still). Testing (Fresh). Unstable (Development).
>> >
>> > This is really just a ridiculous state of affairs.
>>
>> I am sorry to say this, but what is ridiculous here is the
>> inability of some to even understand what is being discussed.
>
>I'm afraid, Charles, that this applies to you too. Everyone seems to
>be talking at cross-purposes.
>
>> Fresh is not testing. It has never been "testing".
>
>And yet, from the perspective of the terminology many, many people
>are used to from so very many other >projects, it *is* the testing
>branch.While several other projects use this system not all of them do. Are
you baffled at Firefox three release channels that has one long term
support another similar to our Fresh branch and a true testing one?I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I do
get an idea of what each is for. But the use of the name Beta makes
that one clear, and Aurora explains that it is in an unstable
state, so all makes sense.
For you it is maybe, not for others. For instance, if you put this:
https://www.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/channel/#firefox
and that: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
in perspective, some here are going to go into overdrive, as they will not be able to see the difference between the Firefox "standard" channel and the ESR. Then, they will say, "OMG, it means Firefox is not stable, because there's an ESR that is obviously stable, which means Firefox = Firefox Beta, so what does it mean? Are you crazy?".
Pun aside, this is the kind of talk that's been going for some years and while I do not claim that the name or labeling of our branch is perfect or has been perfect in the past, I do note the unspoken assumptions that involve ignorance, deep misunderstanding, mixing of different concepts (distributions, QA stage, branches, and al.) Of course I do note the need for a better explanation as well and I think we agree on this, but while it may not be up to the users to understand what a distribution or a branch is technology-wise, some people here have ensured they would be confused to hell with these notions.
For instance, automatically assuming that our most recent branch is unstable involves an intellectual choice, a labeling of a branch and a peremptory judgement when it is not based on facts and at least some basic knowledge of the system, the basic knowledge being not only readily accessible but having been explained time and over again. If one keeps saying that this branch is unstable or that two branches are confusing, it will also create a self-fulfilling prophecy or at least set a discussion framework that will bend towards these values and judgements. I have rarely seen - and must commend you for being one of the only few having a different attitude- an actual attempt to positively qualify the two branches. I have read one recent post that was proposing to insert, if I got this right, the notion of "RISK". "RISK"? really? Why automatically assume danger? Have you lost content with any of the two branches of LibreOffice ? Were you able to recover it? How frequent was your data loss? I dare to presume not a lot of people experienced that (and for the ones who ever did, it is needless to say that I'm sorry they did experience that, btw), and as such, there is no "RISK", there is no danger, there is no adventure or wild card to be played. Unfortunately again, that is the kind of thing that has circulated on this mailing list for quite some time. I'm sure we can explain things better, but I'm also sure a few people with regular roles here could be willing to understand things better.
Call me callous but this perspective has been encouraged here on this
list for some years so I actually think that while nothing is
perfect, far from that, there is a magnifying glass on the matter
here.Yes, I'm sure there is. And worth noting.
Where I disagree with you is that there are people who think that
fresh is unstable and not even a testing branch... but so be it.I'm not sure exactly what you are saying? Are you saying you don't
think that there are people that think that "Fresh" is unstable? I'm
not saying I think people think "Fresh" is unstable, I'm saying there
is confusion created by the naming. People don't know *what* "Fresh"
is. That's a bad thing. Some probably do think that "Fresh" is
unstable. Some probably don't, but then are left to wonder what
"Still" is. The naming leads to confusion. That really is my
main point.
I know, my point was that the Fresh branch for some is just a bit less tested than the Still one. Others think it is our testing branch, and yet others here believe it is an unstable branch.
>Even if that isn't a true representation of the actual state of
>affairs, people are used to thinking in those terms, and the current
>state of affairs doesn't prevent that, it only confuses people as
>they try to work out which branch is the "testing" branch and which
>is the "stable" branch, because those are the terms they are used to
>and expecting.
>
>Just changing terminology doesn't help people, only clear
>explanations would, and you don't need to change terminology for
>that. If you didn't change terminology, and had clear explanations,
>it is debatable if it would be better or worse than changed
>terminology and clear explanations, but either state would be so
>many leagues ahead of changed terminology and no explanations, as it
>is now, that it is baffling as to why those in charge are fighting
>so adamantly to keep things as they are. Never mind changing the
>terminology again, who do they still insist on not putting any
>explanations on the website?Paul my stance has not changed. No one refuses to do anything. I
simply do not have the time and I am just a volunteer. People on this
list think they can just demand something and it will happen. It does
not work that way. We are a community and if you want to fix
something, by all means go ahead.I'm glad to hear that no one is refusing to do it. I'm glad to hear
that it is valued. And I'm not demanding anything other than
acknowledgment of the fact that the current terminology leaves something
to be desired and needs some better explanations.
oh believe me, we are takers of help and volunteers, and improvements of all kind all the time. We really are.
So far I have heard a lot of defense of the current terminology, but
most of it has been to point out that the alternatives are not better
(a debatable point), very little has been to point out why the current
terminology is any good. And very little has been said about any other
considerations, like the need for better explanation. If someone had
said "We like the terminology for these [listed] reasons, but you who
disagree are right that clearer explanations are needed", I would have
been quite happy to wait for it to happen.
To be fair, it is true that these reasons have not been laid out here, on this list, and that the discussion was taking place involving lots of contributors but on our private, PR - focused list. Hence not much was discussed here but then again, this is the users list, not any team-based list.
In point of fact I had no idea that you were the one who needed to
make the changes to the website (or if not the one, at least one of the
ones who could). I was not aware I could do it myself. Yes, this is a
community, but I assumed that there would be at least some rudimentary
security keeping the maintenance of the website to a trusted few (the
marketing team, say), of whom I am at this stage not part.
We do have security in place and it's not like you can go ahead and change everything, obviously the infrastructure team takes things in stages, but the principle is that if people want to help, they can help. This happens mostly with our worldwide contributors, aka the native-lang teams, who localize and adapt the website for their own communities. We don't really ask them for IDs or anything.
Also, I
would assume that there was more than one person with this power, and
that between all of them, someone would have had the time by now, given
how high a priority this should have been.
There is more than one person of course, but even these are very busy even when being full time on the project. We are blessed with many contributors but this project is also very big.
I fully understand that you don't have the time, and appreciate the
fact, but not having the time is different to not wanting to make the
change. That you have admitted that the change should happen is
good, now we just need to work out the details of actually making it
happen.The explanation you are alluding to is on my todo list but I have
several other items before that. And I am glad if people can help,
which in this case start by either using our Redmine to define the
contents and introducing oneself on the website mailing list.Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Redmine site. Can you provide a link?
Equally, I am not sure I have the time for this, nor that I am the best
person to word such an explanation, but I can give it a go, and
either access the Redmine site as you suggest, or at the least post it
here for discussion and use by whomever does the actual edits, which
should make their life easier.
Sure. It's actually useful to point to all these links. So we have our "RedMine" which is the name of the specific platform we work on for many projects, everyone can access it although some parts require specific credentials: http://redmine.documentfoundation.org . Then of course we have the wiki, http://wiki.documentfoundation.org ; we even have pads, aka collaborative editing spaces, here: http://pad.documentfoundation.org and a file repository geared towards internal use, http://owncloud.documentfoundation.org . For what it's worth, all except the RedMine are directly accessible from the LibreOffice homepage.
>
>> If you want
>> testing, test betas, or release candidates. We have these for both
>> branches, so let me rephrase this so to make it clear for
>> everyone :
>>
>> Fresh branch
>> (x.y.0, x.y.1 , etc.)
>> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
>> candidates.
>> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
>> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.
>>
>> Still branch
>> (w.x.4, w.x.5, w.x.6)
>> for each of these versions, we have several betas and release
>> candidates.
>> This means that testing has happened already on betas and release
>> candidates for each version of the fresh branch.
>
>A good (for us, at least) explanation, but again, why are we the only
>ones getting it, and not the public at >large?Actually you do because that part (at least) is on the website
already.Really? I don't see it. When I go to the LO site, I see a big banner
with "Download Now", and clicking that takes me to the download page
for "Fresh", which doesn't state anything like that. And I don't see
any link to an "About Our Versions" page. Can you tell me where exactly
I can see that?
hmm, click on download, a submenu (dark grey) appears, there is the Fresh, the Still, and a few other entries, one of them being "Development Versions".
Click on that link. We don't push them here as we believe our users should only use stable branches, although I feel this could change.
Also, I think a slightly more in-depth explanation is needed for the
general public.>
>> Cor made a very good point earlier. He highlighted the importance
>> of finding a proper way to clarify this, but not wasting our time
>> in proposing other terms who will never be liked by everyone
>> anyway. Let me encourage all those who pretend to actually have an
>> opinion or who think the Illuminati are leading the LibreOffice
>> project to focus on helping rather than complaining.
>
>Some of us have, but have been pointedly ignored. Why is this?See my comment on contributing above.
>
>As I have said before, put clear explanations on the website. Without
>that, no change in terminology will *ever* be adequate. And this
>really shouldn't be hard to do. And should be a priority.I think you took this as an imperative. Please understand that it was
meant not as an order, but as an explanation of what, in my opinion,
needs to be done to give your arguments any credit.Never tell a volunteer what to do. It does not work. I know there is
no malice in what you are expressing but this point is important. I
have a dayjob, a family, hobbies and other tasks and roles inside
LibreOffice. And I am not the only one.As I explained above, I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. You
are defending a position that many on this list are arguing against,
without much of an argument that I can see. I have said that for my
part I feel the problem lies in the fact that there are no clear
explanations, and that this should be the number one goal, and any
discussion of the exact terminology is less important than that single
fact. A middle-ground if you will. And a reasonable one, I feel. I am
not requiring that anybody do anything. If you disagree with my point,
fine, say so and explain why. But to continue to argue without
addressing what seems to be the main concern of those arguing against
you seems to be pointless, in my opinion.
Fair enough, although the present thread entertained by the usual suspects here, with the same arguments as well
As I said above, it is not simply that no-one has taken the time to do
this that concerns me, it is that it has been ignored that concerned me.But you are right in pointing out that now that it is agreed it is an
important step, I can either accept that it will have to wait until
someone has the time to attend to it, or I can pitch in and help.
Exactly, and I thank you for phrasing clearly the options available.
This
is a community, and all offers of assistance are welcome. I am happy
with that. A situation that is bad and everybody agrees is bad is far
less of a problem to me than one that is bad but those in charge (at
least nominally) refuse to see as bad.
=== SNIP===
As always, I hope only to add to a constructive solution to the
problem. I do feel like here we have finally made some progress. Those
that feel the terminology is bad must surely feel it is less of a
problem once it has a clear explanation.And my respect to Charles, Sophie, Tom, and all that have kept this
conversation civil and constructive.
Thank you as well!
Cheers,
Charles.
Hi
It's not quite that simple 
With Fresh the new features probably will work just fine. They have been
about as thoroughly tested as possible. It's any pre-existing stuff that
could be broken.
If it was just the new features that were possibly broken then there would
be no real worry about using Fresh. people could just carry on using
LibreOffice in the same way they were doing previously.
The problem is often that people try to carry on doing things and suddenly
find that it doesn't work anymore because it's broken in "Fresh". Often
the simplest fix is just to go back to "Still" and then magically
everything works just fine for them again.
Regards from
Tom
I didn't make it clear, but I really wouldn't care what came after the
'-', so I'd be perfectly fine even with something as simple as 'Stable+'
instead of 'Fresh' (what are you marketing? Air freshener? I mean,
seriously).
I don't see these on the Firefox site, I see Firefox, Firefox Beta and
Firefox Aurora, and these seem to have a passable explanation. I would
have liked a slightly better, or more in-depth one, but at least I do
get an idea of what each is for. But the use of the name Beta makes
that one clear, and Aurora explains that it is in an unstable
state, so all makes sense.
For you it is maybe, not for others. For instance, if you put this:
https://www.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/channel/#firefox
and that: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/in perspective, some here are going to go into overdrive, as they will
not be able to see the difference between the Firefox "standard" channel
and the ESR.
This is a really bad example, Charles, and totally misses the main point:
As Paul said, he *didn't see* those from the main Firefox website. That
is *intentional*. Mozilla explained this in great detail when they were
pushed kicking and screaming (sic) to offer the ESR version. They did
not want to do this. Their enterprise users demanded it. They would have
lost a huge user base if they had NOT done this.
So, when they did it, they intentionally made the ESR version *hard to
find*. That is why Paul couldn't find it.
Then, they will say, "OMG, it means Firefox is not stable, because
there's an ESR that is obviously stable, which means Firefox =
Firefox Beta, so what does it mean? Are you crazy?".
No, the vast majority of Firefox users don't even know there is an ESR,
and if they do learn about it, they are usually told something like "oh,
that is the version for large companies who don't like things that
change too much or too fast."
For instance, automatically assuming that our most recent branch is
unstable
<rant>
Charles, fyi, in our office, we are stuck on 4.1.6 because of a major
regression introduced in 4.2 that is still there today.
When our first user reported this after I started updating everyone (at
about 4.2.4), so I had to revert them all (I'd gotten maybe 20
workstations updated that weekend).
I kept promising my boss that 'they will have to fix this, it is a
regression and they treat these seriously' - but here we are, 8 months
later, and we still cannot upgrade. Because everyone found about about
this, a few very vocal users in our office took this opportunity to
start lobbying (again) for replacing Libreoffice with Microsoft Office,
and it looks like they are going to win this time. I know it is only 70
seats, and you probably don't really care, but I do. The fact is, I
cannot even recommend Libreoffice on new clients in good conscience, if
the response to a very serious regression bug report is along the lines
of 'well, you can just fix it yourself, it is free open source after all'.
*Anytime* a long standing feature is totally ripped out and replaced
with something else that causes a major regression, it should be an
absolute top priority to fix it in the very next release. In fact, I
would say that it should be a part of the agreement that any contributor
signs, that if they are the one responsible for a regression like this,
they are *required* to fix it asap.
So, for us, 4.2 and 4.3 are *both* unstable - meaning, we *cannot use
them*, because they lack a very basic capability that we have relied on
since, oh, I don't know... version 1?
In case you were wondering, it is the new 'Inline Fields' functionality,
that when introduced, broke the ability to paste into them, and the bug
is still there today, in 4.3.2.
</rant>
Hi,
[...]
*Anytime* a long standing feature is totally ripped out and replaced
with something else that causes a major regression, it should be an
absolute top priority to fix it in the very next release. In fact, I
would say that it should be a part of the agreement that any contributor
signs, that if they are the one responsible for a regression like this,
they are *required* to fix it asap.
Why should a volunteer fix the bug for your company? Very strange way to
see the LibreOffice ecosystem.
So, for us, 4.2 and 4.3 are *both* unstable - meaning, we *cannot use
them*, because they lack a very basic capability that we have relied on
since, oh, I don't know... version 1?
So help to fix it instead of ranting here and on the issue, volunteers
won't act quicker because you rant about their work. Joel has took the
time to explain you on the issue how it works.
In case you were wondering, it is the new 'Inline Fields' functionality,
that when introduced, broke the ability to paste into them, and the bug
is still there today, in 4.3.2.
</rant>
Kind regards
Sophie