openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject [NOTICE] Windows build machine setted up
Date Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:53:43 GMT
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Rich Bowen <
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','');>> wrote:

> On 08/07/2015 04:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 07/08/15 09:50, Michal Hriň wrote:
>>> Thanks for providing a binary, but I am a bit concerned that a version
>>> is
>>> made public, before the PMC have even spoken about being ready to make
>>> a
>>> release candidate or started voting on a release candidate.
>>> Is this coordinated with the release manager for 4.1.2 ?
>>> Please do not misunderstand me, I think it is great that work is being
>>> done, I am just surprised we are ready to go public with 4.1.2 even as
>>> a
>>> pre-view.
>>> <hrin>
>>> OK. Binary is deleted.
>>> This was not coordinated, that was only snapshot .. not release
>>> candidate. All in all Linux 32bit builds from AOO410 branch are on
>>> buildbots, so everybody can downlaod it, this is not secret.
>>> Sorry, that I was excited and want to show it publically.
>> no problem you did a good job and I don't see any problem, you did not
>> publish anything official and just provided a new fresh binary for
>> preview and testing if your build env is working as expected and can be
>> used for a Windows release build. Please continue your tests and keep us
>> informed. I'm would be happy if I don't have to prepare windows builds.
> I'm finding this conversation perplexing, and, no doubt, I lack some
> back-story.
> Surely it's wonderful that someone is producing binaries for folks to try
> out, right? Why would we want them to be deleted, and not publicized?
> Binaries are not (as has been discussed DOZENS of times) official
> releases. And anyone is free to take our code and push out binaries.
> Can someone explain to me what the problem is here? We should be
> encouraging the work that Michal is doing, celebrating it, tweeting it, and
> encouraging everyone and their grandmothers to try out this new build.
> What am I missing?

Since I was the cause, let me explain what I tried to write,

I think the work done is very good, and wrote so, and I do not think
anybody asked for it to be deleted.

My concern was the naming 4.1.2 early preview. Thats sounds official (not
as an apache release, but you know that for AOO the binary is downloaded
factors more than the release source tar ball) and I do not want a
confusion to arise between what the release manager does and what
individual committers does.

I think Michael is doing a very important job with preparing builds for the
upcomming release, his work is known here, so much more reason to be
carefull when naming intermidiate builds. Andrea wrote it more direct, this
is a michael build based on the 4.1.0 branch, this is totally correct and
something a lot of people should test.

So I do not think you missed a lot, but as always it is real difficult to
write something without
getting misinterpreted or misunderstood.

jan i.

> --
> Rich Bowen - - @rbowen
> - @apachecon
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message