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
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
@Italo, the linked Release plan probably needs a marketing touch-up. The Still-Fresh distinction remain a little too prominent in the copy.
Fixed
@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."
I meant to tag @V Stuart Foote, not Italo.
(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."
(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
(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
(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.