Hi Peter, Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > Awesome! thanks a lot. > > + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay. > > And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and > worked them through.
Thanks! You left two requests (from me) open... Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)? Regards, Matthias > > On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote: >> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none? >>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6. >>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't. >>>> >>>> At least this is my understanding... >>> >>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group >>> "relman" >>> in our Bugzilla?! >>> >>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't >>> have sufficient rights... >> >> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully >> with the correct user names. ;-) >> >> Please check for yourself if it's working now. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote: >>>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>>>>>> Okay I had a look now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 >>>>>>> reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are these all of them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to >>>>>>> note the issue number. :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants >>>>>>> still to add from the dev list? >>>>>> There are more to come... ;-) >>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>>> All the best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I >>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge. >>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x >>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one >>>>>>>> else >>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski >>>>>>>> <j...@jagunet.com>: >>>>>>>>> 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! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >> 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
