On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific >> high-urgency issues? [...] > > Good plan. I'm adding some remarks below, to see the release not only > from the users point of view, but from the community perspective too. > >> 3) Use the "release blocker" flag to propose defects for inclusion in >> the 4.0.1 release. > > OK, but by default the "proposed 4.0.1 release blocker" flag (when it > exists) should be set for: > 1) All the issues with keyword "regression" found after 4.0 was released > 2) All the issues nominated as release blockers for 4.0 and unresolved. > > It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap, > i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't > need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate > the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more relevant.
in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as well. We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0 were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now. And even regressions have to be analyzed where the root cause comes from. > >> 4) New translations are rolled in, since a new translation cannot >> break core code. [...] > > Here (and, by the way, the infamous problem for Italian was a broken > translation of style names a few years ago; indeed, this kind of > problems does not affect other translations) it is really important that > we are able to clearly communicate to volunteers that they can target > 4.0.1. > > This is not the case at the moment: we have volunteers who are ready to > work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers > 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv for more. where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody should plan with other peoples time and willingness > > The opportunity is now and we should definitely make it a priority for > 4.0.1, so we can tell volunteers that 4.0.1 can be released in their > language and that they can start contributing immediately. This has the > potential to motivate contributors. I agree in general but there is a limitation as you know > >> 5) The one "feature" that I'd consider rolling in would be changes to >> work with Mac OS 10.9. It is not a regression in our code per se, but >> it is a new issue, and a critical one. [...] > > A minor and low-risk "feature" is updating bundled dictionaries. As I > explained in a mail to this list, the update behavior is not optimal > from a usability point of view so it's best to update dictionaries just > before the new release. Needless to say, I'd volunteer for that. +1, it seems to fix a problem that is really annoying Juergen > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
