[scribus] Problem...

[Dale Erwin]

On 10/1/2011 9:09 AM, Mike Sleger wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2011, at 8:08 AM, john Culleton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:00:58 -0600
>> Mike Sleger<chappa-ai at q.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Mike Sleger wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:56 AM, john Culleton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:25:47 -0400
>>>>> Oleksandr Moskalenko<malex at scribus.net>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2011, at 1:17 PM, john Culleton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now why doesn't the download page say that more clearly? I don't
>>>>>>> have a good answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> John Culleton
>>>>>>> Wexford Press
>>>>>>> "Create Book Covers with Scribus"
>>>>>>> http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I updated the information on the Download page at
>>>>>> http://wiki.scribus.net/canvas/Download. Please check it out and
>>>>>> leave your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly put. Now I hope newcomers will heed the message!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would rearrange the page somewhat, putting the pointers to
>>>>> 1.4.0rc together and right under the 1.3.3.14 download pointers.
>>>>> This means putting the 1.4.0 svn and the 1.4.0 tarball right under
>>>>> "Read instructions for Debian/Ubuntu Linux Package archive access."
>>>>>
>>>>> The overall page sequence would be:
>>>>> All the 1.3.3.14 stuff
>>>>> All the 1.4.0 stuff
>>>>> All the 1.5.0 stuff
>>>>
>>>> I would arrange the versions so the latest ones are at the top of
>>>> the list and the newer ones at the bottom.  You want the latest
>>>> information to be the first links a user sees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My bad - I was in a hurry.  The newest versions should be at the top
>>> of the list, and the older versions should be lowest on the list.
>>> People shouldn't have to look around for the latest version to
>>> download - it should be the first download link they see.
>>
>> If you mean to put 1.4.0 at the top I agree. But I would not put the
>> development version 1.5.0 at the top.
>
> No, "development" versions should be in a noticeably separate section clearly identifiable as "development", so the naive new users don't mistakenly download something not intended as "production".  Allow me to clarify - the newest "production" release should be at the top of the list (this being the version you're wanting new users to download).

Maybe not even the first couple of Release Candidates.  Release 
Candidates are still, after all, beta versions.

Is there an ETA on the 1.4.0 Gold Release?  Are more Release Candidates 
expected?

-- 
Dale Erwin
Lurigancho, Lima 15 PERU

http://leather.casaerwin.org




=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.26, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18431)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======