Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Peter Hillier-Brook Peter Hillier-Brook
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Given that the release of LibreOffice 3.4.2 is targeted at enterprise
users, I find it surprising that the product is thought to be ready for
release. At lease 2 significant bugs have been introduced and remain
present that would, to my mind, discourage personal, let alone
enterprise users. They are:

1  Inability to connect to address data sources - at least in Linux systems.

2  Inability to add/change icons in toolbar customisation - no scroll bar.

Apart from the bugs themselves, what does this say about the product in
general as a usable tool? Were I still an enterprise user, I would be
very wary about allowing this release into my office.

Peter HB

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Mike Hall Mike Hall
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

On 01/08/2011 11:42, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:

> Given that the release of LibreOffice 3.4.2 is targeted at enterprise
> users, I find it surprising that the product is thought to be ready
> for release. At lease 2 significant bugs have been introduced and
> remain present that would, to my mind, discourage personal, let alone
> enterprise users. They are:
>
> 1  Inability to connect to address data sources - at least in Linux
> systems.
>
> 2  Inability to add/change icons in toolbar customisation - no scroll
> bar.
>
> Apart from the bugs themselves, what does this say about the product
> in general as a usable tool? Were I still an enterprise user, I would
> be very wary about allowing this release into my office.
>
> Peter HB
>
It does seem to have been released a little early. Installed fine (Win
32 Vista), but crashes during the initial processes during "enabling
Hungarian...". I will have to revert to an earlier version. Very
annoying. It seems strange to release a product with, according  to the
bug list, more than 40 critical issues. I doubt this will enhance its
reputation.

--
Mike Hall
www.onepoyle.net



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
NoOp NoOp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Peter Hillier-Brook
On 08/01/2011 03:42 AM, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> Given that the release of LibreOffice 3.4.2 is targeted at enterprise
> users, I find it surprising that the product is thought to be ready for
> release. At lease 2 significant bugs have been introduced and remain
> present that would, to my mind, discourage personal, let alone
> enterprise users. They are:
>
> 1  Inability to connect to address data sources - at least in Linux systems.
...
Yep:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32948
Odd part it that it mostly works in 3.3.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Peter Hillier-Brook
I have reported on Bugzilla that docx files which have an equation don't show any text after the equation.

This was a regression from version 3.3.x and is present in version 3.4.2 which is an enterprise release :D

I guess enterprise users don't care about equations or don't use docx (which makes me wonder why the 6th application in this Suite is the LibreOffice Math equation editor... :) )

BTW I still don't understand why this enterprise release jumped Beta testing and went directly to Release Candidate...
Peter Hillier-Brook Peter Hillier-Brook
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by NoOp
On 01/08/11 18:23, NoOp wrote:

> On 08/01/2011 03:42 AM, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
>> Given that the release of LibreOffice 3.4.2 is targeted at enterprise
>> users, I find it surprising that the product is thought to be ready for
>> release. At lease 2 significant bugs have been introduced and remain
>> present that would, to my mind, discourage personal, let alone
>> enterprise users. They are:
>>
>> 1  Inability to connect to address data sources - at least in Linux systems.
> ...
> Yep:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32948
> Odd part it that it mostly works in 3.3.

I reverted to 3.3.3 and encountered the same problem, so our experiences
differ. I can no longer remember when it last worked, but it may have
been 3.2.x. I feel a little experimentation coming on.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Thorsten Behrens Thorsten Behrens
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Pedro
Hi there,

just picked two mails from this thread more or less randomly, as
they show some common pattern:

Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> Given that the release of LibreOffice 3.4.2 is targeted at
> enterprise users, I find it surprising that the product is thought
> to be ready for release. At lease 2 significant bugs have been
> introduced and remain present that would, to my mind, discourage
> personal, let alone enterprise users.
>
Software quality is a somewhat fuzzy area, and one that is perceived
very individually, usually. The bugs you list are no regressions
from the previous 3.4 version, so by definition, since 3.4.2 fixes
many other bugs, it's better than 3.4.1, which in turn was better
than 3.4.0.

Generally, assessing whether a specific version will be suitable for
your company, or home use, is an individual decision - now,
yesterday, and back in the day with OpenOffice.org. You'll always
end up deciding if you need this nice new features, or whether the
new mail merge wizard is broken so fundamentally that you can't use
the version.

Of course, for companies deploying LibO, we recommend getting
professional support, that allows you to get *your* bugs fixed
in time. You've quite a choice there, another advantage of having a
more diverse ecosystem.

plino wrote:
> BTW I still don't understand why this enterprise release jumped Beta testing
> and went directly to Release Candidate...
>
Because the amount of changes relative to 3.4.1 was tightly
controlled and relatively small. Let me outline the process here a
bit:

 * major code line approaches initial release - that requires a set
   of betas
 * initial release of a code line (e.g. 3.4.0) happens, more bugs
   are found in production use (that curiously don't turn up during
   beta/rc phase - an observation we've made also during OOo times)
 * the bug fixing on that code line continues (usually guided by bug
   severity, but of course also by specific customer demands - e.g.
   one of the participating companies' customer escalates a bug,
   company fixes it, fix goes into next bug fix release)
 * translation / help updates continue on that code line
 * frequent bugfix release on the code line happens (3.4.1, 3.4.2
   etc). Code only enters that code line after review, no new
   features are allowed. If something regresses, usually the fix is
   simply reverted.
 * bugfix version gets released, usually after two release
   candidates are published.
 * more bugs are fixed on that code line ...

HTH,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Thorsten Behrens wrote
 * frequent bugfix release on the code line happens (3.4.1, 3.4.2
   etc). Code only enters that code line after review, no new
   features are allowed. If something regresses, usually the fix is
   simply reverted.
That is an interesting point. It simply means that any regression that happened between 3.3.x and 3.4.x will be ignored because they didn't happen between 3.4.x releases.

And therefore previous regressions like the ones reported on these fora (plural for forum) and tracker will propagate into future releases. I think something in this process needs a little review... But I'm not a developer so what do I know?
Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

plino wrote (05-08-11 20:18)

>
> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>
>>   * frequent bugfix release on the code line happens (3.4.1, 3.4.2
>>     etc). Code only enters that code line after review, no new
>>     features are allowed. If something regresses, usually the fix is
>>     simply reverted.
>>
>
> That is an interesting point. It simply means that any regression that
> happened between 3.3.x and 3.4.x will be ignored because they didn't happen
> between 3.4.x releases.
>
> [...] But I'm not a developer so what do I know?

Glad to read that, because indeed, your reasoning above is completely
illogical :-D

--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Cor Nouws wrote
Glad to read that, because indeed, your reasoning above is completely illogical :-D
Since regressions that occurred between 3.3.x and 3.4.x were not "simply reverted" and that only regressions between  3.4.x releases are fixed at this stage, what are the chances that previous regressions are going to be considered?

E.g. I know it doesn't really matter to the devs that a user can no longer load a docx document which contains an OLE object because docx is from the evil MS. Shame on the user for using OOXML. Just go back to 3.3.x or use ODF, right?
Tor Lillqvist-2 Tor Lillqvist-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

> E.g. I know it doesn't really matter to the devs that a user can no longer
> load a docx document which contains an OLE object because docx is from the
> evil MS.

You do?

You are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not seen any actual developers
use language like "evil MS" or "M$" and argumentation like that. I have seen
such thoughts on this very list, which developers don't pay much attention to.
Note that no developers took part in the recent silly "ignore m$ legacy" thread,
for instance.

--tml



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Pedro
plino wrote (06-08-11 00:24)

>
> Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> Glad to read that, because indeed, your reasoning above is completely
>> illogical :-D
>
> Since regressions that occurred between 3.3.x and 3.4.x were not "simply
> reverted" and that only regressions between  3.4.x releases are fixed at
> this stage, what are the chances that previous regressions are going to be
> considered?

So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your
previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the
next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent
uninterested people?

> E.g. I know it doesn't really matter to the devs that a user can no longer
> load a docx document which contains an OLE object because docx is from the
> evil MS. Shame on the user for using OOXML. Just go back to 3.3.x or use
> ODF, right?

It is said nowhere, and proven wrong too by the facts, that regressions
from 3.3.x to 3.4.x are not fixed.
You simply seem not interested in understanding what is going on, nor do
not show that you know what you talk about. Then to me it looks better
if you stick with your decision from a month or so ago, and just leave
the mail lists, as you wrote me.
Really, postings like those add nothing positive or constructive. While
there is enough to do.


--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Cor Nouws wrote
So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your
previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the
next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent
uninterested people?
I just rewrote what I meant since the previous post wasn't clear.

I'm sorry if that is what you understand from my words. I never said they are incompetent (that would be absurd) nor uninterested (otherwise they wouldn't be spending their time on this project).

Cor Nouws wrote
You simply seem not interested in understanding what is going on, nor do
not show that you know what you talk about. Then to me it looks better
if you stick with your decision from a month or so ago, and just leave
the mail lists, as you wrote me.
Really, postings like those add nothing positive or constructive. While
there is enough to do.
I did leave the mailing lists but subscribed again to this particular one.  I think that even non-programmers can contribute to this project.

My point here is that for a dev, a bug is a bug. For a user a particular bug that stops him from being able to work on a document is particularly serious. Releasing version 3.4.2 as enterprise ready when such bugs can be introduced by a regression (and remain) doesn't make much sense. I would say version 3.3.x IS enterprise ready.

This is a warning that problems like this are occurring and need to be better triaged. That is my opinion.

As you see there was a constructive message in my post. In any case negative input is also important, it shows where people are unhappy and could be a pointer to something that needs to be fixed. It is no reason to tell people to go away.
Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Tor Lillqvist-2
Tor Lillqvist-2 wrote
You are barking up the wrong tree here. I have not seen any actual developers
use language like "evil MS" or "M$" and argumentation like that.
Agreed. It was a small provocation :)

But it confuses me that bugs (and especially regressions) such as the one I mentioned are known to exist in version 3.4.x and yet it is widely announced as "for enterprise users"

Obviously TDF thinks that moving forward fast will show enterprises that this is an actively maintained project but aren't enterprises more interested in stability and compatibility?

TDF already has version 3.3.3,  a really stable version which is still being actively fixed. Why push forward 3.4.x with such known limitations?
Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

In reply to this post by Pedro
plino wrote (06-08-11 10:13)
> Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> So now you skip the stupid wrong initial reasoning you made in your
>> previous post and start with another idea that to me just looks as the
>> next poisonous attempt to do as if developers are incompetent
>> uninterested people?
>>
>
> I just rewrote what I meant since the previous post wasn't clear.

No you did not.
In your first post you wrote
  " It simply means that any regression that happened between 3.3.x
    and 3.4.x will be ignored because they didn't happen between
    3.4.x releases. "
In the second you wrote
  " Since regressions that [snip] what are the chances that previous
    regressions are going to be considered?  "

> I'm sorry if that is what you understand from my words. I never said they
> are incompetent (that would be absurd) nor uninterested (otherwise they
> wouldn't be spending their time on this project).

Your continuous strange and wrong assumptions, tend in a different
direction.

> Cor Nouws wrote:
>>
>> You simply seem not interested in understanding what is going on, nor do
>> not show that you know what you talk about. Then to me it looks better
>> if you stick with your decision from a month or so ago, and just leave
>> the mail lists, as you wrote me.
>> Really, postings like those add nothing positive or constructive. While
>> there is enough to do.
>>
>
> I did leave the mailing lists but subscribed again to this particular one.
> I think that even non-programmers can contribute to this project.

Well, is that really news ?
Pls tell, what would be the contribution of your choise.

> My point here is that for a dev, a bug is a bug. For a user a particular bug
> that stops him from being able to work on a document is particularly
> serious. Releasing version 3.4.2 as enterprise ready when such bugs can be
> introduced by a regression (and remain) doesn't make much sense.

Wrong assumption. Any bug is considered for fixing.

> I would say version 3.3.x IS enterprise ready.
>
> This is a warning that problems like this are occurring and need to be
> better triaged. That is my opinion.
>
> As you see there was a constructive message in my post.

Since people actively involved in development, testing, marketing
bugtracking started discussing this subject some two, three weeks ago,
the quasi funny initial post that you wrote in this thread, is difficult
to understand as constructive. Sorry.

> In any case negative input is also important,
> it shows where people are unhappy and could be a pointer to something that
> needs to be fixed.

It is important that users give their opinion and indeed, also when they
are not happy.
But after you do that for one, two times on the same subject, it is time
to change over to another mode: what (little bit) more then complain
could I try to do to help.

> It is no reason to tell people to go away.

I did not tell that. I referred to you own previous decision and
suggested that that might be better, if there are no positive,
constructive posts to expect.

Cheers,

--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pedro Pedro
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Keep using your ad hominem arguments and ignore the issues that user are reporting.

You are absolutely right.

Version 3.4.2 is perfect. My mistake.

Bye!
m.a.riosv m.a.riosv
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Viability of the 3.4.2 Release

Ok,and You arethe truth.El 07/08/11 1:29, plino escribi:Keep using your ad hominem arguments and ignore the issues that user are
reporting.


You are absolutely right.


Version 3.4.2 is perfect. My mistake.


Bye!


--
View this message in context:http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Viability-of-the-3-4-2-Release-tp3215651p3232189.htmlSent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted