On 10/5/2016 2:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:
Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.
Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members
fr
On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:
Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.
Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members
free to vote and specify what they have done. N
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.
You may want to add your own sign
Am 10/04/2016 06:39 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are
waiting for more expert advice.
I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing
d
On 10/4/2016 4:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.
A PMC member, t
On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are
waiting for more expert advice.
I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing
dependency order, so that a module gets built too
Am 04.10.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Marcus:
Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Marcus wrote:
wow, *all signed source code packages* ?
I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They a
Am 10/04/2016 10:04 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Marcus wrote:
@Andrea:
Can you please check the
"apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.tar.gz.sha256" file? It's in
binary mode and not useable for checksum comparsion.
It can be used if you download it.
sorry, no. That's the reason why I poste
> On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
>>> for a release.
>>>
>>> A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vot
Marcus wrote:
@Andrea:
Can you please check the
"apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.tar.gz.sha256" file? It's in
binary mode and not useable for checksum comparsion.
It can be used if you download it. But I've now forced all checksum
files to be treated as text, which should allow you to cli
Testing the reference builds is indeed extremely important, and should
be most of the testing.
The significance of the builds from source is that a PMC member can only
cast a binding +1 vote if they have done one, and we need at least three
binding +1 votes to release. They also need to have a
Hello,
for my understanding, beside doing a good build it is necessary to have
and totest defined reference builds.
The way I see it, it is not easy to do a good build if you didn't have
enough practice doing it.
I didn't myself any C/C++ build before. So IHMO I will waste time to
improve my bui
On 10/3/2016 3:30 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Marcus wrote:
wow, *all signed source code packages* ?
I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are eq
Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Marcus wrote:
wow, *all signed source code packages* ?
I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Marcus wrote:
wow, *all signed source code packages* ?
I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts
Marcus wrote:
wow, *all signed source code packages* ?
I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to a
Am 10/03/2016 09:49 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.
A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
decide when to start a vote.
Done on Linux-64, successful.
I've build today that branch with release options
On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.
A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it
Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.
A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's co
Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.
A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's control. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-p
21 matches
Mail list logo
