OOo version numbering conventions

Talk about anything at all....
Post Reply
mark_orion
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:53 am

OOo version numbering conventions

Post by mark_orion »

I am curious if there is a difference between even and odd minor numbers in the OOo version numbering - like the Linux kernel versions. Are even releases like 3.2 more focusing on features while odd releases 3.1 3.3 focus on stability?
User avatar
acknak
Moderator
Posts: 22756
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:25 am
Location: USA:NJ:E3

Re: OOo version numbering conventions

Post by acknak »

Yes. The plan (as I understand it, anyway) is to release a new version four times a year, with alternating versions getting primarily bug fixes or primarily new features. Minor releases (3.2.1) are made for high-priority bug fixes.

As far as I can tell, this is not a hard and fast rule: there are bug fixes in every release; sometimes there are changes made in a nominally "bugfix" release. It's mostly a matter of which area the developers are focused on: it's hard to do both bugs and features all the time.
AOO4/LO5 • Linux • Fedora 23
User avatar
RGB
Posts: 1456
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:34 am

Re: OOo version numbering conventions

Post by RGB »

mark_orion wrote:I am curious if there is a difference between even and odd minor numbers in the OOo version numbering - like the Linux kernel versions. Are even releases like 3.2 more focusing on features while odd releases 3.1 3.3 focus on stability?
Since 2.6, Linux kernel do not use that convention anymore ;) (wine project use it, but nobody uses the "stable" version...)
As acknak pointed out the "theory" is <big refactoring>.<new features>.<bugfix>, but those big categories are a bit blurred... like on any big software project, I think.
There are two types of people: those who believe that there are two types of people and those who do not.

openSUSE Leap with KDE Plasma / LibreOffice
Post Reply