I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but failed on this. Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity is conning Wednesday.
I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after 4.1.6 I agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least one maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In the beta phase. Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>: >Back to the topic: > >If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process described >here: >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release > >That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion). We have >to get 4.2.0 releasable! > >Regards, > > Matthias > > >Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus: >> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk: >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>>> >>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we >decided >>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, >>>>> if they >>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing >sympathy >>>>> for a >>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years >until >>>>> they >>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer >>>>> Topic can >>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have >>>>> pointed >>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I >>>>> think we >>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my >fault >>>>> that I >>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for >me. >>>>> >>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one >topic >>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that >>>>> anyone >>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let us conclude for now: >>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of >>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. >Some >>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search >>>>> someone for >>>>> this. >>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up. >>>>> >>>> >>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code. >>>> >>>> PS: >>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 >>>> years. >>>> >>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta >release. >>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building >>>>> without >>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in >>>>> trunc CentOS >>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to >>>>> back port >>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of >CentOS6. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something >>>> newer. >>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*. >>>> >>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right? >>>> >>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS >>>> version we >>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much >>>> bigger >>>> impact for our users. >>> >>> You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the >32-bit >>> Linux >>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving >away >>> from >>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what >>> impact this >>> will have overall though. >> >> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 >> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a >> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats >> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today). >> >> BTW: >> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not >the >> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on. >> >> OS % >> ----------------------- >> Windows 86,1165 >> Macintosh 7,8424 >> Unknown 4,9012 >> Linux 1,0621 >> Android 0,0762 >> BSD 0,0011 >> Solaris 0,0006 >> >> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will >> be for 64-bit. >> >> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them? >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines? >>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant >>>>>> 1.9.12. As >>>>>> long as we use Java 8. >>>>>> >>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with >Java 8. >>>>>> Nothing else. >>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response >from >>>>>> other >>>>>> members! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported >plus >>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for >>>>>>> AOO... ie, >>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who >>>>>>> may be >>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for >>>>>>> us... It's >>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our >>>>>>> eco-system and we >>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel >>>>>>> <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. >Even >>>>>>>>>> if we >>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have >>>>>>>>>> some stuff to >>>>>>>>>> get out to the people. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on >>>>>>>>>> security. >>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172 >>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can >use >>>>>>>> it... ;-) >>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with >AOO >>>>>>>> 4.1.x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Matthias >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
