Am 07.09.2018 um 14:53 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I am going to hold off until we have some stuff in AOO416, other than > external lib upgrades, which are different from AOO415
I just wanted to do test builds to see if it builds again after some patches broke the build process... No problems at the moment. > >> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >> wrote: >> >> Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether >>> it really is one or not ;) >>> >>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds! >> Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up: >> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/ >> >>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jim, >>>> >>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can >>>>> use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older >>>>> platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as >>>>> good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as >>>>> feasible for those users. >>>> Definitely! >>>> We already have some release blocker asked for. >>>> >>>> How to proceed? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Andrea, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: >>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote: >>>>>>>> How about this one: >>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736 >>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process. >>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a >>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't >>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and >>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand >>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be: >>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users >>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler) >>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer >>>>>>> Windows release... just an example) >>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally >>>>>> find its way into a release. >>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"... >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Andrea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>>> <mailto: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
