On 16/06/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
On 03/27/2016 01:13 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Anyway, there are some issues we need to get done as a team ...before
appointing a release manager makes sense:
1) Enough code. Done. The merge of the recent gbuild work totally
justifies a 4.2.0 release. Also, in 4.1.2 we only included a tiny
fraction of the fixes that (at that time) were available on trunk. So
here we are already OK, and we've been OK for months.
2) Localization. I got shell access to the Pootle server a few days ago.
I'm still looking around, and if someone else want to join this is an
important part. We need to have a solid process for updating
translations (the full route: new strings in code -> Pootle -> back to
code -> in localized builds) in place.
As the localization changes are quite significant from 4.1.2 to 4.2.0,
can you give us an update on the porting process? Are there
instructions, etc?
I haven't been able to check all of this yet, sorry. But Infra provided
full access in the meantime, meaning that the bottleneck here is only on
our side and not on the Infra side.
3) Buildbots and ASF-owned build machines. Buildbots are not essential
for a release: 4.1.2 was built (like all previous releases in history)
on non-ASF hardware; even if we build 4.2.0 on ASF-owned hardware, we
can't use buildbots for it; we need to setup new systems. ...
On this. Why can't we use the buildbot assuming we can get all of them
working satisfactorily? I know there are, for example, some library
upgrades/differences between the buildbots and what we've used in the
past, but if we're upgrading to a new version, why can't we just spec
this in the system requirements for 4.2.0?
We have a "baseline", minimal system requirements that are supposed to
be valid for all the 4.x releases. We build releases on old (but still
supported) system to guarantee maximum compatibility for users. No ASF
buildbots match our baseline (they are all more advanced).
Unfortunately, the discussion on this got stalled on the Infra list when
Infra wrote it would be very problematic for them to create VMs for us
matching our specifications - they decided to focus on only one, recent,
Linux-based distribution for their Linux VMs. There might be solutions
involving Docker, but this only makes things more complex.
Can we flesh out specs in this direction? New versions of software often
dictate system software changes.
The major difference would be, I think, in the required glibc version
for Linux builds.
I really feel we should
move on from specialized release build hardware.
It is not specialized hardware in itself, it is a fairly ordinary system
that is "specialized" since it is only available to one person. The best
thing would be to get the same system moved to ASF-owned VMs, accessible
to all PMC members who want to do so. At present, the discussion with
Infra is stalled as explained above.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
