[Scribus] Many Versions = 2

[Eric Watson]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Craig Bradney wrote:

>
>> In my mind, the confusion about the existing snapshots is that on
>> www.scribus.net , in the "News" section, there is a prominent link  
>> to the
>> 1.3.4
>> release announcement, and at scribus.sourceforge.net, there are 1.3.4
>> rpms and a Windows installer. However, the recommendation is to use
>> 1.3.5 instead, for which there has been no similar announcement, and
>> for which there don't seem to be any snapshots at sourceforge. So (as
>> the development version) 1.3.4 is publicized and available, but not
>> recommended, whereas 1.3.5 is unpublicized and unavailable, yet
>> recommended.
>>
>> Maybe the confusion would be cleared up by an announcement in the
>> "News" section of the site that 1.3.5 is the recommended  
>> "development"
>> version, with links to 1.3.5 snapshots at sourceforge.
>
> 1.3.5 is not the "recommended" development version - that is 1.3.4.  
> We do not
> recommend an unstable unreleased svn version normally. We have two
> recommended versions:
> 1.3.3.10 for stable use
> 1.3.4 for development/testing use
>
> 1.3.4 has bugs that are being fixed in its next-in-line version,  
> 1.3.5. Once
> 1.3.5 is released, there will be an announcement deprecating &  
> replacing
> 1.3.4.

Fair enough. As I said in an earlier message, I haven't yet had a  
chance to try out 1.3.4 and 1.3.5, but I had gotten the impression  
that there are lots of 1.3.4 bugs that have been fixed in 1.3.5, so I  
thought it might be worth a try.

> Please stop spreading the confusion by talking about recommendations  
> to use
> 1.3.5svn for real work. It is not ready for this at all. It is there  
> for
> testing that its bugs, and 1.3.4 bugs selected to be fixed in 1.3.5,  
> are
> fixed.

I hope I haven't given the impression that 1.3.5svn is recommended for  
real work. I began in this thread by saying that

>> I am producing a newsletter in 1.3.3.9 on OS X, and recently built  
>> 1.3.5 Aqua to experiment with moving the project from 1.3.3.9 to  
>> 1.3.5, because I'd really like to use character styles.

By "experiment", I meant to imply that I understand that 1.3.5 might  
not work for my small newsletter project. However, it might, and my  
thought was that, if I'm going to try out a development version, I  
should try out the one that is under active development, so that I can  
better contribute to the project. I'm sorry to have caused confusion  
by overstating my own opinion and implying that the team recommends  
people use 1.3.5 for experimenting.

Eric