Version Numbers?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
Next » 12
Sean White Sean White
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Version Numbers?

As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
peoples minds that we are a separate project.

--
Sean White,
Concerned User

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Robert Derman Robert Derman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

Sean White wrote:
> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
>  
I couldn't agree more.  As a new project it should have its own
numbering scheme.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

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

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Sean White
On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
>

+1

The executables should also be renamed from soffice to loffice etc.
Failing to do so causes issues with application association
(particularly in Windows installs).




--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

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

Re: Version Numbers?

Le 2010-11-19 19:35, NoOp a écrit :
> On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
>> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
>> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
>> peoples minds that we are a separate project.

Not now. The programme is not very different from OpenOffice. As long as
it feels like OpenOffice, I think that calling it "version 1" would be a
throw back in history. Many folks would think they are much better with
OpenOffice... it is at version 3.3, after all.

When (if) a new user interface is developed, then it will be very easy
to sell that the new LibreOffice 1 is an entirely new program.


--
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada) -- http://mgagnon.net

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

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

Re: Version Numbers?

On 11/19/2010 06:22 PM, Michel Gagnon wrote:
> Le 2010-11-19 19:35, NoOp a écrit :
>> On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>>> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
>>> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
>>> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
>>> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
...

I wrote none of that. Please mind your attributions.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Sean White Sean White
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

NoOP is right, I wrote the quoted text.  Your explanation is well
noted and I can see the reasoning behind it.  The sooner we can change
the interface and feel of LibreOffice then the better, as I for one
don't want such a Oracle aligning feature as version numbers staring
me in the face every time I start up my non-proprietary office suite

On 11/20/10, NoOp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/19/2010 06:22 PM, Michel Gagnon wrote:
>> Le 2010-11-19 19:35, NoOp a écrit :
>>> On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>>>> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office
>>>> project
>>>> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
>>>> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
>>>> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
> ...
>
> I wrote none of that. Please mind your attributions.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


--
Sean White,
I've Seen the Cow Level

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Rainer Bielefeld Rainer Bielefeld
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by mgagnonlv
Michel Gagnon schrieb:

> Not now.

I think so, too.

Rainer

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Ron Faile Ron Faile
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Sean White
On 11/20/2010 2:30 AM, Ron Faile wrote:

> >NoOP is right, I wrote the quoted text. Your explanation is well
> >noted and I can see the reasoning behind it. The sooner we can change
> >the interface and feel of LibreOffice then the better, as I for one
> >don't want such a Oracle aligning feature as version numbers staring
> >me in the face every time I start up my non-proprietary office suite
> >
> >On 11/20/10, NoOp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >On 11/19/2010 06:22 PM, Michel Gagnon wrote:
> >> Le 2010-11-19 19:35, NoOp a écrit :
> >>> On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
> >>>> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office
> >>>> project
> >>>> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their
> version
> >>>> numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to
> reinforce in
> >>>> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
>
> Take a look at the UI improvements page,
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Default_UI_Improvements
>
> I just uploaded a file (item 11) with some ideas that might set LibO
> apart. Namely a new menu structure. Would be interested in your comments.
>
> Ron


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Claus Agerskov Claus Agerskov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Sean White
Sean White skrev:
> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project
> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version
> numbering system.  Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in
> peoples minds that we are a separate project
I will suggest another version scheme like the one the Linux
distribution Ubuntu uses.

The year and month: 9.04, 9.10, 10.4 and 10.10.

I know it is very difficult to release at a specific month because there
could be a lot of issues that postpone a release date.

Maybe it should only be the target to have one major release each year
and smaller updates and security releases with minor version numbers:

Yearly major release: 11 and 12
Update release: 11.1, 11.2 and 12.1
Security releases: 11.0.5, 11.1.5, 11.2.5, 12.0.5 and 12.1.5 (security
release 5)

Just a suggestion.

The most enjoyable

--
.: Claus Agerskov :: [hidden email] :: 27 59 69 96 :.
.: Robinievej 129 :: 2620 Albertslund :.
.: AgerCon :: www.agercon.dk :.
.: Konsulentydelser inden for åbne standarder og fri software :..


--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Ron Faile Ron Faile
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Sean White
I just uploaded a file (item 11) on the UI improvements page,
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Default_UI_Improvements 
with some ideas that include a new menu structure. Would be interested
in your comments.

Ron

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Sean White Sean White
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Ron Faile
The UI improvements look good and might just make it easier for people who
liked the MSOffice Ribbon and/or dislike the current UI.  I think the design
could go along way

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Ron Faile <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/20/2010 2:30 AM, Ron Faile wrote:
>
>> >NoOP is right, I wrote the quoted text. Your explanation is well
>> >noted and I can see the reasoning behind it. The sooner we can change
>> >the interface and feel of LibreOffice then the better, as I for one
>> >don't want such a Oracle aligning feature as version numbers staring
>> >me in the face every time I start up my non-proprietary office suite
>> >
>> >On 11/20/10, NoOp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >On 11/19/2010 06:22 PM, Michel Gagnon wrote:
>> >> Le 2010-11-19 19:35, NoOp a écrit :
>> >>> On 11/19/2010 03:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>> >>>> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office
>> >>>> project
>> >>>> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their
>> version
>> >>>> numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce
>> in
>> >>>> peoples minds that we are a separate project.
>>
>> Take a look at the UI improvements page,
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Default_UI_Improvements
>>
>> I just uploaded a file (item 11) with some ideas that might set LibO
>> apart. Namely a new menu structure. Would be interested in your comments.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
> Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
>
>


--
Sean White,
I've Seen the Cow Level

--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

Florian Reisinger-2 Florian Reisinger-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Claus Agerskov

Sean White skrev:> As a concerned user, if LibreOffice is meant a independent office project> derived from the OpenOffice code then why do we still use their version> numbering system. Wouldn't it be better to start from 1 to reinforce in> peoples minds that we are a separate projectI will suggest another version scheme like the one the Linux distribution Ubuntu uses.The year and month: 9.04, 9.10, 10.4 and 10.10.I know it is very difficult to release at a specific month because there could be a lot of issues that postpone a release date.Maybe it should only be the target to have one major release each year and smaller updates and security releases with minor version numbers:Yearly major release: 11 and 12Update release: 11.1, 11.2 and 12.1Security releases: 11.0.5, 11.1.5, 11.2.5, 12.0.5 and 12.1.5 (security release 5)I think it would be easier to understand, if it's "classic."Betas: 0.9.1 (Beta 1)1.9.3 ( Third Beta for Version Number 2 ) => Mayor ReleaseMayor Release 1.0 , 2.0 ...Update and Security Release: 1.1 1.5  Kind regards
Florian Reisinger
Linz Austria



     
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***

jonathon-3 jonathon-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by Sean White
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/19/2010 11:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>why do we still use their version numbering system.

If version numbers are very different from those used in OOo, then
extensions created for OOo won;t work in LibO, and vice versus.

jonathon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6Wk1AAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/eswH/j5iibfNUEJiE0hYlON3P9Wt
/JyokiWHDtbUgHbrDPO3ksHUWL5phYTtzq21cymZRbcc5x2GFOKmUnKaeeM9D0YT
HzDZ8/ixuEheGDbuVEsI64t5ga+2JpP0xdlAdlBMwYHCa8pb9R/q+c5fWO3RUWZj
tldthx0eZ7+ha/yiKfuk5N1/5GOMbre7sNJXBnwzfQRaZxQAKVzRM33dVOcxrBh9
FIQAL2qPb1o+l9qgSzKCOIuzEBqahMOmCMj2nlUDRlxb1Elbd9ffMG3BzFBoeRGK
6QO0xeRQ+uSDaiNOsz8bJQYCL61hvVTj08IUJJMa8gyATnzhIjNkaJ63OzC/3ts=
=+CKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

James Wilde-2 James Wilde-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?


On Nov 21, 2010, at 19:47 , jonathon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/19/2010 11:26 PM, Sean White wrote:
>> why do we still use their version numbering system.
>
> If version numbers are very different from those used in OOo, then
> extensions created for OOo won;t work in LibO, and vice versus.

...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does?  And only then?

I missed Sean White's message, but I have from the beginning wondered why we're using v3.3 beta and not v1 beta.  LibO is not OOo.

//James


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

jonathon-3 jonathon-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote:

> ...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does?  And only then?

Unless there is a "compatibility tag" for extensions, the way that there
is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses,
if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions.

jonathon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6Y+sAAoJEOpnmQXT8Ln/f0oIAMKz0gyISnEoLZMOufwNthWt
wyCJmqPDStCSUtr0gV8OF8s6giOtkP7Z8ex1NSdyekRsJ9Xixh2raR9jFUNyigan
xN9Z9gPTiu+6f9vkPZ+AQYgKsr2eWAra2ERow4UgzAxHakivoeiqFzRVYvyvi1O/
3hExpjxW1TFE2NbAoRIBwL0ESSOHYCBi0nkIPtyYgu8+DqjBvh0qfC4kGLQSmTLS
betDY//sB6jUOmuHInU9XY1rEOo/dOUbMdn0f4Ra5+dtTjrsZaQiACXTbG5q+4o3
piBUvmzdkkc09Qgbd/eGPYqIJxk3McZCJnopMm4KhD7/vwuF3AkoW6a6itYpxMA=
=Eij8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

James Wilde-2 James Wilde-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?


On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote:
>
>> ...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo does?  And only then?
>
> Unless there is a "compatibility tag" for extensions, the way that there
> is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses,
> if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions.
>
Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions, but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not work with the other.  Why not accept that from day 1?

//James

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Thiago Chaves Thiago Chaves
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM, James Wilde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions,
> but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going
> to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not
> work with the other.  Why not accept that from day 1?
>

That's a very good point. +1

-Thiago

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Sebastian G. <bastik> Sebastian G. <bastik>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

In reply to this post by James Wilde-2
> On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote:
> >
> >> ...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo
> does?  And only then?
> >
> > Unless there is a "compatibility tag" for extensions, the way that there
> > is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses,
> > if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions.
> >
> Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions,
> but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going
> to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will
> not work with the other.  Why not accept that from day 1?
>
> //James

I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO grow apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but miss some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the version number of LO differs.

Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept incompatibilities.

not to you James:
Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome for example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous.

LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move onward.

Regards,
bastik
--
GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos.
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Sean White Sean White
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me to
ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do myself.
 So my solution to your problem of incompatible extensions is to set up a
new mailing list for OO to LO extension porting.  the public can send the
extension which the people on the mailing list can then port over.

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote:
> > >
> > >> ...and?  Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo
> > does?  And only then?
> > >
> > > Unless there is a "compatibility tag" for extensions, the way that
> there
> > > is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses,
> > > if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions.
> > >
> > Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions,
> > but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are
> going
> > to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will
> > not work with the other.  Why not accept that from day 1?
> >
> > //James
>
> I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO grow
> apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the
> version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but miss
> some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the version
> number of LO differs.
>
> Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept
> incompatibilities.
>
> not to you James:
> Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome for
> example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous.
>
> LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move
> onward.
>
> Regards,
> bastik
> --
> GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos.
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]<discuss%[hidden email]>
> Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>


--
Sean White,
I've Seen the Cow Level

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Sebastian G. <bastik> Sebastian G. <bastik>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Version Numbers?

That's a good solution, that will have to come in place whenever incompatibles arise.

BTW: I depend totally on others when there's something to code or port.

Regards,
bastik


Sean White wrote:
> One of the things i LOVE about open source software is the ability for me
> to
> ask someone else to code something or port something that i cant do
> myself.
>  So my solution to your problem of incompatible extensions is to set up a
> new mailing list for OO to LO extension porting.  the public can send the
> extension which the people on the mailing list can then port over.
>
I wrote previously:

> > I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO
> grow
> > apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the
> > version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but
> miss
> > some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the
> version
> > number of LO differs.
> >
> > Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept
> > incompatibilities.
> >
> > not to you James:
> > Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome
> for
> > example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous.
> >
> > LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move
> > onward.
> >
> > Regards,
> > bastik
--
GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos.
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Next » 12