No worries. I have my VMs ready to go. > On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
