[Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
oolst at nouenoff.nl
Tue Dec 6 12:12:38 PST 2011
Michael Stahl wrote (06-12-11 13:20)
> On 03/12/11 18:27, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
>>> Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
>>> feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
>>> master -------- Beta0 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
>>> \----- Beta1 --- stabilisation - Beta2
>>> etc. :-
>> Correct. While explaining the whole event to someone else, suddenly it
>> became clear to me it might be much clearer when we have another naming
>> master ----- Alpha1 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
>> \----- Alpha2 --- stabilisation - Beta1
>> The great advantage of this is, that people having some expectation on
>> what a beta1 is, will not be disappointed.
>> Also, the whole schedule will not change, only the naming will be
>> conform what people get offered.
>> Will be something that marketing is going to praise us for, isn't it?
> sounds most reasonable to me; i'd say that that calling some random
> revision on the dev branch that happens to build on all platforms a
> "beta0" is rather bad communication :)
Especially when that random revision is preceded by an extreme load of
I have had the pleasure to do quite some work with various daily and
local builds the last months and quite often without (big) problems.
(Of course I only use a sub set of all features).
So I am not at all pessimistic about the quality ... *once* the probably
unavoidable build/merge/conflict problems after the freeze have been solved.
So yes, naming that supports communication to be conform what people
expect, would be useful IMHO.
More information about the Libreoffice-qa