Hi Marcus, Am 08.03.19 um 18:31 schrieb Marcus: > Am 08.03.19 um 17:01 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus: >>> Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher: >>>>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ++1 >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel >>>>>> <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a >>>>>> (public) beta. >>>>>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something >>>>>> "official" we can base our discussions on. >>>>>> >>>>>> So here is my proposal: >>>>>> >>>>>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a >>>>>> developer snapshot. >>>>>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets: >>>>>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev. >>>>>> >>>>>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot": >>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged >>>>>> before >>>>>> we create the tag. >>>>>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated >>>>>> English >>>>>> dictionary. >>>>>> >>>>>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all >>>>>> hashes and PGP signatures. >>>>>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Opinions? >>>> >>>> Would we limit the distribution as follows? >>>> We would not distribute to SourceForge. >>>> We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page. >>> >>> and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list >>> of links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what >>> we have available now. ;-) >> >> Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-) >> The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates. > > ah, OK. When have we changed from Beta to Dev Snapshot? Sorry, I think > I've missed this point of time.
Some lines above... ;-) It is only a proposal, but Dave's response was related to a Developer Snapshot. Matthias > > Marcus > > > >>>> We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but >>>> not allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure >>>> with Infra first) >>>> We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to >>>> all of our openoffice.apache.org <http://openoffice.apache.org/> >>>> mailing lists. >>>> We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a >>>> way to solve user issues. >>>> >>>> (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this >>>> version from www.apache.org/dist/ <http://www.apache.org/dist/>.) >>>> >>>>>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable >>>>>>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when >>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My own release checklist would include: >>>>>>>> 1. Library audit. >>>>>>>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting >>>>>>>> everything and >>>>>>>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older >>>>>>>> gbuild >>>>>>>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map >>>>>>>> files back >>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both >>>>>>>> 4.1.0 and >>>>>>>> 4.2.0? >>>>>>>> 2. Base: >>>>>>>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new >>>>>>>> SDBC-JDBC >>>>>>>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver. >>>>>>>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ >>>>>>>> one, fix any >>>>>>>> differences. >>>>>>>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, >>>>>>>> groups, >>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the >>>>>>>> Base UI >>>>>>>> forms (like MySQL already is). >>>>>>>> 3. Crashreporter >>>>>>>> 3.1 Get it working again. >>>>>>>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now >>>>>>>> obsolete >>>>>>>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla. >>>>>>>> 4. Testing >>>>>>>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module >>>>>>>> integration >>>>>>>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any >>>>>>>> regressions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel >>>>>>>> <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a >>>>>>>>> (public) >>>>>>>>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can >>>>>>>>> export >>>>>>>>> the latest translations from Pootle. >>>>>>>>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF >>>>>>>>> files still >>>>>>>>> need to be updated in source. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>>>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
