Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
included in future releases and we could benefit from the
momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
vacations during December as well.

I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much more attention.

Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a 4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for deeper tests before release this.

So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook. And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that can be published, too. *)

However, my 2ct.



*) Just a note for everyone:
Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it is automatically published.

It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reply via email to