Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
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
- 4.1.2 in January
IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources,
when doing 2 releases in such a short time frame.
But I would tend to do only the bigger release (4.1.2) - let's say in
January/February. When ...
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.
.. we first have solved 2 things:
- A new release manager (like Kay already mentioned) is also needed.
Please remember I've tried to list all tasks for a release here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release+Planning+Template
- Of course working buildbots are key as well when the release manager
hasn't the ability/resources to do the builds on her/his own. ;-).
My 2 ct.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
