[Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

Rainer Bielefeld LibreOffice at bielefeldundbuss.de
Thu Jun 7 03:11:24 PDT 2012

Petr Mladek schrieb:

> Well, it looks a bit ugly. In addition, we can't mention "rc" because it
> must not appear in the final build.

H Petr,

thank you for your detailled comment. I will have to check all details 
later, here some first thoughts:

"rc" should not appear in Help/About", that's an additional info added 
to Bugzilla Version like "Master".

> Could we use the same scheme also in bugzilla? I mean:
> (3.6.0alpha1)
> (3.6.0alpha1+daily)
> (3.6.0beta1)
> (3.6.0rc1)

Yes, a big advantage would be if we coud rework the scheme a little so 
that the version number is more or less in accordance with the timeline. 
Currently I do not understand " (3.6.0beta1)". If that is 
Mozilla intention I would prefer something like  for alphas  for betas for RC (example) and/or  release for RC (example) and/or  release for release(example)

Only a first thought

But generally we can think about making that "alpha" and "beta" also an 
"additional information" (No problem if it additinally is in Help/About) 
and make a "w.x.yy.zz" Numbering scheme the main information (also 
readable for Bug Submission Assistant)

A Very bad thing is that we can not search the Bugzilla Bug picker for a 
Version copied from Help about, and so currently something like 
"" might be more fault-prone than a "3.6.0beta1" for transfer / 
selection by human beings. But I believe that is a base for further 
thougts, and the priority should be a logic Version sheme in "Help 
About", Bugzilla pickers will have to follow (somehow).

> I think that we do not need to care that much about 3.4 and 3.5 betas;
> they are dead anyway.

I would like to have 3.5 and 3.6 in the correct scheme, for 3.3 and 3.4 
I currently want to leave the Bugzilla versions more or less as they 
are, only stripping the leading "LibO "

Best regards


More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list