Am 10/24/2014 10:29 AM, schrieb RA Stehmann:
On 24.10.2014 10:11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 24/10/14 10:00, RA Stehmann wrote:
On 23.10.2014 18:16, Rob Weir wrote:
A short term goal, in addition to whatever 5.0 discussions we want to have.
Let's try for a 4.1.2 release containing:
1) Whatever new languages/language updates we have, including of
course dictionary updates.
2) Fixes for any critical bugs, especially any introduced in AOO
4.1.1. Do we know yet which bugs these are? Do we have a short list
of the most critical ones?
3) Patches merged in from new dev volunteers.
I think #3 is extremely important here. Although not as evident to
users, these small fixes and small enhancements reflect wins in the
community. We've had many new dev volunteers in the past few months
working on "easy fixes". Let's try to help them get their good work
into the hands of users via a release, and give us all the good
feeling that comes from shipping code.
So this might be a slower release, since we're focused on new
volunteers and mentoring them takes time. But I think this is a
worthwhile investment in the community.
What do you think?
It's ok for an exceptional case, but normally we should follow the
established release schema: x.y.0 and than x.y.1 and than either x+1.0.0
or x.y+1.0.
It was communicated and is well known by the users, and we should
demonstrate reliableness.
I don`t like a x.y.5 or higher version for AOO. I love distinction ;-).
Let's see the logic behind the version numbers
<major>.<minor>.<micro>
<major>: huge release with visible changes and new features including
incompatible API changes if necessary. Translation updates are most
often necessary to address the UI visible changes.
<minor>: smaller improvements of features that don't need any
translation. And of course any kind of bug fixes.
<micro>: only selected bug fixes and most often only critical ones. This
includes any potential security issues.
Keeping this in mind a 4.2 would probably make more sense but will we
have enough fixes and minor improvements in place?
I'm with you and Rob in this special case. Rules need exceptions.
But we have to communicate this exception very well and should
afterwards follow our approved schema again.
maybe I've missed something but I cannot remember that we have
discussed, agreed and published a release schema regarding version numbers.
IMHO it was just an accident up to now that we've released only a x.y.0
*or* x.y.1 numbering.
I don't see a problem to do a .2 version. If we find enough food for it
and it's enough time to do a new release, why not doing it?
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
