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
