Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ? > On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in > early 2017. Feels like a good rhythm to aim for. > > Phil > > On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
