You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to marketing@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org> on 2011/12/11 02:50:32 UTC
Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
- Dennis
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:04 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/11/11 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>>
>> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>>
>> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>>
>> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>>
>> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>
> I see no reason for changing the version number scheming and agree with Rob and Marcus. We use this version number also for versioning of the
> abi of the UNO core libraries and i woiudl like to keep it consistent.
>
> -1
I agree. Version 4.0 is where the differences will begin to appear.
We do need a marketing campaign about this very podling. Look at TeamOpenOffice.org. Do you think the project should be silent. I don't think so. Version numbers are trivial compared to this type of FUD.
Another thread?!
Regards,
Dave
>
> Juergen
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 12/11/11 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>
> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>
> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>
> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>
> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>
> - Dennis
>
I see no reason for changing the version number scheming and agree with
Rob and Marcus. We use this version number also for versioning of the
abi of the UNO core libraries and i woiudl like to keep it consistent.
-1
Juergen
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 12/11/2011 02:24 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>>
>
> Changing the naming pattern would be useful for whom? Not the user, I
> think. Remember, the beta 3.4 was already released. Coming out with
> anything other than the final 3.4 would be confusing for users.
>
>> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>>
>> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>>
>
> Maybe there is a more detailed string we could put in the about box?
> I have no objections to that. Ditto for encoding this in the ODF docs.
> We can use that to track dev builds, release candidates, etc. This
> is very useful for tracking defect reports, etc.
>
> But from a branding perspective, I think we want to continue the
> exiting numbering scheme. We're trying to project continuity.
+1
In the past we had the following schema:
3.2.1
3 = major (for new releases with important and big features)
2 = minor (with a new feature set since the last major)
1 = micro (a bug fix since the last minor)
The world knows the naming and it worked very well and I see no reason
to reinvent the wheel. In announcements of course we can skip some
zeros. E.g., "The new AOO 3.4 release is out" or "AOO 4: The new release
is on the home stretch". However, for the official naming we should be
exact and clear.
Marcus
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't think it is our business to replace any non-Apache install of anything, whether OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice, Symphony, whatever.
>
Exactly. That's the user's business. If we did anything it would be
to offer to launch the 3rd party uninstall program for the user. So
the actual uninstall logic would be what was defined by that app.
> It might be useful to offer to import user settings from other products where those are understood and it is benign. I'm wary of bringing over plug-ins installed with other products. A separate tool for that might be worthwhile but not sure how much effort it would divert.
>
> And there is always the question of file extension settings being associated with apps. (There could be multiple associations for power users if the apps didn't have identical executable file names all stuck in soffice history.)
>
> Finally, ignoring the technicalities of how close to OpenOffice.org 3.4-dev the first podling release comes, that release is not an OpenOffice.org release. Users are going to be confused either way. I certainly don't want to get in a version-number leap-frog race with LO. (My calculus says LO 3.6 will be in site around that time.)
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 05:25
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>>
>
> Changing the naming pattern would be useful for whom? Not the user, I
> think. Remember, the beta 3.4 was already released. Coming out with
> anything other than the final 3.4 would be confusing for users.
>
>> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>>
>> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>
>>
>
> Maybe there is a more detailed string we could put in the about box?
> I have no objections to that. Ditto for encoding this in the ODF docs.
> We can use that to track dev builds, release candidates, etc. This
> is very useful for tracking defect reports, etc.
>
> But from a branding perspective, I think we want to continue the
> exiting numbering scheme. We're trying to project continuity.
>
>> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>>
>> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>>
>
> One option is to install into a separate directly, but offer to copy
> settings from an exiting install of OOo or LO. Or offer the user to
> uninstall and replace an existing OOo or LO install. Let the user
> choose.
>
> -Rob
>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
RE: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
I don't think it is our business to replace any non-Apache install of anything, whether OpenOffice.org or LibreOffice, Symphony, whatever.
It might be useful to offer to import user settings from other products where those are understood and it is benign. I'm wary of bringing over plug-ins installed with other products. A separate tool for that might be worthwhile but not sure how much effort it would divert.
And there is always the question of file extension settings being associated with apps. (There could be multiple associations for power users if the apps didn't have identical executable file names all stuck in soffice history.)
Finally, ignoring the technicalities of how close to OpenOffice.org 3.4-dev the first podling release comes, that release is not an OpenOffice.org release. Users are going to be confused either way. I certainly don't want to get in a version-number leap-frog race with LO. (My calculus says LO 3.6 will be in site around that time.)
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 05:25
To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>
Changing the naming pattern would be useful for whom? Not the user, I
think. Remember, the beta 3.4 was already released. Coming out with
anything other than the final 3.4 would be confusing for users.
> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>
> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>
Maybe there is a more detailed string we could put in the about box?
I have no objections to that. Ditto for encoding this in the ODF docs.
We can use that to track dev builds, release candidates, etc. This
is very useful for tracking defect reports, etc.
But from a branding perspective, I think we want to continue the
exiting numbering scheme. We're trying to project continuity.
> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>
> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>
One option is to install into a separate directly, but offer to copy
settings from an exiting install of OOo or LO. Or offer the user to
uninstall and replace an existing OOo or LO install. Let the user
choose.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>
Changing the naming pattern would be useful for whom? Not the user, I
think. Remember, the beta 3.4 was already released. Coming out with
anything other than the final 3.4 would be confusing for users.
> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>
> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>
Maybe there is a more detailed string we could put in the about box?
I have no objections to that. Ditto for encoding this in the ODF docs.
We can use that to track dev builds, release candidates, etc. This
is very useful for tracking defect reports, etc.
But from a branding perspective, I think we want to continue the
exiting numbering scheme. We're trying to project continuity.
> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>
> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>
One option is to install into a separate directly, but offer to copy
settings from an exiting install of OOo or LO. Or offer the user to
uninstall and replace an existing OOo or LO install. Let the user
choose.
-Rob
> - Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Distinguishing Apache OpenOffice Releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
I have to through in a little -1.
ASF policy tells a different way:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming
So, a working name would be:
apache-openoffice-incubating_3.4.0_...
Marcus
Am 12/11/2011 02:50 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> I was thinking that, to the extent that AOO is a reboot of OpenOffice.org, it would be useful to break from the OO.o version-numbering progression in some way, especially because the incubator releases have a special status.
>
> I would normally have raised this only on ooo-dev, but it is the connection with automobile models that had me come here instead.
>
> I was thinking that the incubator releases could begin their own distinct progression. My thought was to use identifiers like 3i4, or even A3i4 (no punctuation marks unless there are dot releases). There can also be A3i4-beta, a3i4-rc1, and the like.
>
> I don't know where that goes beyond incubation. Maybe A3x5 or whatever. Even A4x for starters, if it is really that dramatically different when incubation exit occurs.
>
> On the technical side, it should be possible to install all of these side-by-side with each other and also with any other release built on an OpenOffice.org legacy model. (There should be an option to upgrade over previous A3i4, say, but it should not be forced. That's a matter of making it easy for someone to back out a release or beta that is a regression for them.)
>
> - Dennis