Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next timeslot is on 
Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere. 
Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <peter.kov...@posteo.de>:
>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

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

Reply via email to