Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646 This release will fix it?
----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> > À: "OOo Apache" <dev@openoffice.apache.org> > Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00 > Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
