On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote: > >> On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least >>>> I >>>> cannot see any mentions on this ML. >>>> >>> > Indeed, and thanks for raising it! The two main discussions we had in > Budapest concerned the Infrastructure actions (and here I already reported > with the message Kay indicated) and the next release (and on this I didn't > have time to report yet; good that you started this discussion). > > Regarding the next release. Of course, most of us have no idea what the >>> discussion in Budapest actually entailed with respect to this, but the >>> latest discussion can be found from this link -- >>> http://markmail.org/message/aehavvvhiz6les6q >>> >> > Yes, basically we agreed with that plan, but an important new addition we > have is digital signing (to be precise, digital signing that Windows will > accept). > > My take on the above is that a goal before the next release was to have a >>> complete buildbot infrastructure in place at Apache ... >>> >> ...making that a requirement for >> a release seems to be a perfect excuse to continue talking. >> We could on the other hand, if we pulled together, bring out a windows >> release in a couple of weeks, with digital signing >> > > I'm open to both options: re-releasing the Windows 4.1.1 binaries with > digital signing or releasing 4.1.2 (source + binaries for all platforms) > with digital signing, possible new languages and bugfixes. > > We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense: > - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December > I don't like the above idea at all! I think this would be VERY confusing to our user community. > - 4.1.2 in January > I think a release of any kind in January is too optimistic. My feeling is that until we get buildbots in place on Apache gear, with testing, it's kind of premature to discuss a next release. This, of course, means that all binaries for all languages will need to be built on Apache buildbot. Will space be an issue? And, we need a new release manager. And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a decision that we do not want to provide Linux-32 binaries, we need a 32-bit Cent OS 5 buildbot. I'' create a new ticket today. > Setting a translation deadline early in 2015 (like 4 January or 11 > January) would allow us to work with translators during the end-of-year > holidays and get a couple more languages in, as well as identifying the > bugs to be fixed. For example https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ > show_bug.cgi?id=125567 is a good candidate, but still needs substantial > investigation it seems. > > This is of course only my opinion and possibly a very lonely one. >> > > It's a good one. Let's see how to move on. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out." -- Lou Reed
