Bug 159611

Summary: Explain the weird version jump in the release notes
Product: LibreOffice Reporter: Dan Dascalescu <ddascalescu+freedesktop>
Component: DocumentationAssignee: Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG    
Severity: normal CC: italo, olivier.hallot, vsfoote
Priority: medium    
Version: 24.2.0.3 release   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
URL: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
Whiteboard:
Crash report or crash signature: Regression By:

Description Dan Dascalescu 2024-02-07 03:11:20 UTC 
The jump from v7 to v24 seems weird, and it's not explained in the release notes at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/24.2

Others have noticed it as well:
- https://www.elevenforum.com/t/libreoffice-version-jump-seems-odd.22080/
- https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/why-are-recent-dev-builds-for-version-24-x/92449
Comment 1 V Stuart Foote 2024-02-07 22:45:51 UTC 
Nothing to explain.  Just a more meaningful naming of projects timed-release development model.

Two major releases per year, with incremental patches. Spelled out in the release plan:  https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
Comment 2 V Stuart Foote 2024-02-07 22:51:34 UTC 
@Italo, the linked Release plan probably needs a marketing touch-up.

The Still-Fresh distinction remain a little too prominent in the copy.
Comment 3 Italo Vignoli 2024-02-07 23:45:58 UTC 
Fixed
Comment 4 Dan Dascalescu 2024-02-09 02:46:07 UTC 
@Italo: while the version jump makes perfect sense to the core devs, please try to see it from a casual user's perspective. The jump has resulted in raised eyebrows, as I have pointed in the bug description.

What I'm suggesting is adding one line at the top of https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/24.2 along the lines of

"We switched from a Major.Minor.Patch versioning system, to a YY.M system in order for users to more easily see how far behind their version of LibreOffice is."
Comment 5 Dan Dascalescu 2024-02-09 02:46:49 UTC 
I meant to tag @V Stuart Foote, not Italo.
Comment 6 V Stuart Foote 2024-02-09 13:01:01 UTC 
(In reply to Dan Dascalescu from comment #5)
> I meant to tag @V Stuart Foote, not Italo.

Hmm, that is already in the Release Notes:

Core/General --> "A new calendar-based numbering scheme (YY.M) is introduced since this release."
Comment 7 V Stuart Foote 2024-02-09 13:08:53 UTC 
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dan Dascalescu from comment #5)
> > I meant to tag @V Stuart Foote, not Italo.
> 
> Hmm, that is already in the Release Notes:

s/that/something/

> 
> Core/General --> "A new calendar-based numbering scheme (YY.M) is introduced
> since this release."

Of course we can expound, and suppose we really are on a YY.M.Patch naming. The hint  "in order for users to more easily see how far behind their version of LibreOffice is." is fair.

Anyhow still => NAB
Comment 8 V Stuart Foote 2024-02-09 13:13:33 UTC 
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #7)
> 
> Of course we can expound, and suppose we really are on a YY.M.Patch naming.
> The hint  "in order for users to more easily see how far behind their
> version of LibreOffice is." is fair.

done
Comment 9 Dan Dascalescu 2024-02-09 19:24:27 UTC 
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dan Dascalescu from comment #5)
> > I meant to tag @V Stuart Foote, not Italo.
> 
> Hmm, that is already in the Release Notes:
> 
> Core/General --> "A new calendar-based numbering scheme (YY.M) is introduced
> since this release."

I hadn't read that far. I only use Calc, so I only read the top of the release notes page, and the Calc section.