On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen: >>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a >>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So do I. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the >>>>> discussion on >>>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations >>>>>> available as soon as possible. >>>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate >>>>>> the >>>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a >>>>>> new >>>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x >>>>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that >>>>> suggests we >>>>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2; >>>>> otherwise, I >>>>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of >>>>> 4.0-beta >>>>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release. >>>>> >>>>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't >>>>> work. For example, I would propose the following: >>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for >>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1 >>>>> >>>> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a >>>> number >>>> of languages, I would suggest end of the year. >> >> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week. >> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we >> increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even >> more. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it >>>>> (and >>>>> we already have two, Danish and Polish) >>>>> >>>> - Native-language teams do some QA >>>>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1 >>>>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users) >>>>> >>>> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I >>>> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are >>>> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution. >>> >>> If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks >>> files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files. >> >> both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download >> mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have >> the same files as for all other langs. >> >>> >>> I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source >>> files. >> >> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a >> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new >> languages in the same way as the others. > > I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source > release "3.4.1b". >
It depends on what is in the source release. If the tarball contains only the newly added PO translation files, then it could be called 3.4.1 without any confusion. Let's avoid any code changes, since that merely complicates future upgrades. > It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP > scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language > files. We trust, but we must verify. > If the only thing included in the source tarball are PO files then the proof is rather simple, yes? Just include the PO files, the LICENSE and NOTICE and a README that says to unzip these files over the already released full 3.4.1 source tarball. RAT scan of the PO files should be easy enough (assuming it understands PO files). Otherwise we can manually inspect the files for license headers. > I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or > develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this > issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know > what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated. > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >> Juergen >
