[Scribus] Is 1.3.4 stable enough

mamem at gmx.net mamem
Fri Oct 19 10:29:09 CEST 2007

OK, it's clear, I gave a new try to the 1.3.4. and nuked another file
There are so many bugs in it, the formating is getting lost, it's slower
than the and so many things working in doesn't work in
1.3.5. etc usw and so on...
It's clear, I'll wait and stick to the branch...

Martin Kempf

Christoph Sch?fer a ?crit :
> Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2007 01:04:52 schrieb Marc Sabatella:
>>> Well, second paragraph, i read "this new developement release",
>>> "developement" says it all i think...
>> That phrase has meaning only to people steeped in the tradition of open
>> source application development.  Assuming your intent is for Scribus to be
>> used by people who are not themselves open source programmers, then I don't
>> think specialized terminology like "development release" cuts it to convey
>> the distinction.
>> And for what it's worth, "development release" isn't even really accurate
>> according to my understanding of the term (as a former software engineer
>> with only a peripheral connection to open source programming).  To me, the
>> term implies a release stream in active development - one in which one can
>> reaosnably expect further minor releases, bugs to be fixed, etc.
>> What I don't understand is why is there is such resistance to the idea that
>> maybe a snother sentence or two could be added to the web pge explaining,
>> in plain Engliosh for non open-source-programmers, what this release is
>> about. Obviously, the folks who already know don't need to be told, but it
>> really shouldn't be that hard to see how an outsider could benefit from a
>> *little* more explanation.
> There is no resistance. It has been acknowledged that the communication could 
> have been better. Maybe the packages on sourceforge should be renamed to 
> unstable. That'd be clearer. It should also be stated clearly in the 
> announcement and release notes for 1.3.5.
> Regards
> Christoph

More information about the scribus mailing list