openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: Release Manager for 4.2.0?
Date Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:20:26 GMT
On 16/06/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
> On 03/27/2016 01:13 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Anyway, there are some issues we need to get done as a team ...before
>> appointing a release manager makes sense:
>> 1) Enough code. Done. The merge of the recent gbuild work totally
>> justifies a 4.2.0 release. Also, in 4.1.2 we only included a tiny
>> fraction of the fixes that (at that time) were available on trunk. So
>> here we are already OK, and we've been OK for months.
>> 2) Localization. I got shell access to the Pootle server a few days ago.
>> I'm still looking around, and if someone else want to join this is an
>> important part. We need to have a solid process for updating
>> translations (the full route: new strings in code -> Pootle -> back to
>> code -> in localized builds) in place.
> As the localization changes are quite significant from 4.1.2 to 4.2.0,
> can you give us an update on the porting process?  Are there
> instructions, etc?

I haven't been able to check all of this yet, sorry. But Infra provided 
full access in the meantime, meaning that the bottleneck here is only on 
our side and not on the Infra side.

>> 3) Buildbots and ASF-owned build machines. Buildbots are not essential
>> for a release: 4.1.2 was built (like all previous releases in history)
>> on non-ASF hardware; even if we build 4.2.0 on ASF-owned hardware, we
>> can't use buildbots for it; we need to setup new systems. ...
> On this. Why can't we use the buildbot assuming we can get all of them
> working satisfactorily? I know there are, for example, some library
> upgrades/differences between the buildbots and what we've used in the
> past, but if we're upgrading to a new version, why can't we just spec
> this in the system requirements for 4.2.0?

We have a "baseline", minimal system requirements that are supposed to 
be valid for all the 4.x releases. We build releases on old (but still 
supported) system to guarantee maximum compatibility for users. No ASF 
buildbots match our baseline (they are all more advanced). 
Unfortunately, the discussion on this got stalled on the Infra list when 
Infra wrote it would be very problematic for them to create VMs for us 
matching our specifications - they decided to focus on only one, recent, 
Linux-based distribution for their Linux VMs. There might be solutions 
involving Docker, but this only makes things more complex.

> Can we flesh out specs in this direction? New versions of software often
> dictate system software changes.

The major difference would be, I think, in the required glibc version 
for Linux builds.

> I really feel we should
> move on from specialized release build hardware.

It is not specialized hardware in itself, it is a fairly ordinary system 
that is "specialized" since it is only available to one person. The best 
thing would be to get the same system moved to ASF-owned VMs, accessible 
to all PMC members who want to do so. At present, the discussion with 
Infra is stalled as explained above.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message