Joined: Sep 18, 2003 Posts: 46 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: Question about version naming
This is not a question of great consequence. I'm just curious.
The current version is NeoOffice 2.0 Aqua Beta 3 Patch 12, and you have just announced that NeoOffice 2.1 is in development.
So will there be an official NeoOffice 2.0 Aqua final release (with no beta number and no patch number), or will the nomenclature continue to use betas, numbers and patch numbers right up until 2.1 Beta 1 Patch 1 appears?
Thanks for all your good work. _________________ Wheat Williams
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 1285 Location: Witless Protection Program
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject:
Welcome back Wheat, We have not heard from you in a while.
There is another message around here (I just can't find it right now), where Smokey mentioned going to NeoOffice 2.1 and Patrick and Ed were already planing to do so. Even thought Neo is currently in Beta, Patrick plans on upgrading to OOo 2.1 code base AND add lots of Enhanced features.
With all these changes, update to OOo 2.1 code and such, it makes sense to got with NeoOffice 2.1 (Aqua) for the final release. That way the version numbers match better.
While this may seem strange, if Patrick and Ed can make such GREAT updates -- "I", for one, am not going to complain!
Philip ( just when you thought it was safe . . . MORE features! )
Joined: Sep 18, 2003 Posts: 46 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject:
This is just my two cents.
I think it might be better from a public relations standpoint if the developers adopted a better revision/patch nomenclature system.
Calling your current product Beta 3 Patch 12 after many months of Betas-this and Patches-that gives the impression that the program isn't working or stable, and "not yet ready for prime time", if I may use an Americanism. And as far as I can see, this program works pretty well and is stable in its current form.
Just calling it NeoOffice 2.013, or something similar, would instill more confidence in the people considering using it.
Again, you guys do great work, and this program continues to be of great use to me. Thanks. _________________ Wheat Williams
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject:
Both Patrick and I have very conservative naming strategies and prefer to let something be out in the field for quite a long time before we're willing to call it final. That said, we tend to hold ourselves to high standards and aren't even willing to release something as an "Alpha" build unless it's already fairly stable.
Other engineers are a bit more cavalier about their use of the terms "alpha" and "beta", but we both just feel it's always better to err on the side of caution.
2.1 is coming up fairly soon, so we won't be taking the time to respin the 2.0 AB into a final; we'll just skip right to 2.1.
If OOo hadn't gotten version-number envy and called the 2.0.4 release 2.1 instead, the next release of NeoOffice would have been called NeoOffice 2.0 :p
But (as mentioned elsewhere), we feel it's important to keep reasonably in-sync with the OOo major (N.n) version numbers so that users who need to can compare/know the version easily.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
)
