Hi Peter, Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs: > I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release > Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
Great! If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it. That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what happened when a Release Manager got unavailable. And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds. Regards, Matthias > > Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org>: >> I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I >> >> do not see a chance. >> >> >> On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
