openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
Subject Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Date Sat, 18 Aug 2018 11:38:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager.
 Hope it helps to get this from the table.

Great!

If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.

And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <Petko@Apache.org>:
>> I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>>
>> do not see a chance.
>>
>>
>> On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>>> This release will fix it?
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com>
>>>> À: "OOo Apache" <dev@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>>
>>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <petko@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>>> <peter.kovacs@posteo.de>:
>>>>>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>>>>>> failed on this.
>>>>>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> conning Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
>>>>>> 4.1.6 I
>>>>>> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> beta phase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de>:
>>>>>>> Back to the topic:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>>>>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation,
where we
>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And
one argument
>>>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is
not showing
>>>>>>> sympathy
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software
for 2 more years
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think
that the
>>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer
>>>>>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version.
Damjan and I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue.
Just for
>>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0.
I think it is my
>>>>>>> fault
>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line,
but that stuck
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity.
And more then
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would
not conclude
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion
we could
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops
out of
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But
we need to
>>>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>>> someone for
>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage
to follow it
>>>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x
code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS:
>>>>>>>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which
means another
>>>>>> ~2.5
>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks
a beta
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is
CentOS7.
>>>>>>>>>>> Building
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should
keep the code
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>>>>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That
will make it
>>>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>>>> back port
>>>>>>>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x
until EOL of
>>>>>>> CentOS6.
>>>>>>>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update
to
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> newer.
>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase
the
>>>>>>>>>> CentOS
>>>>>>>>>> version we
>>>>>>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc.
This has a
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>>>>>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring
the
>>>>>>> 32-bit
>>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could
be
>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't
know what
>>>>>>>>> impact this
>>>>>>>>> will have overall though.
>>>>>>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>>>>>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds?
If so,
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From
SF.net
>>>>>> stats
>>>>>>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW:
>>>>>>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from.
And
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS        %
>>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>>> Windows        86,1165
>>>>>>>> Macintosh     7,8424
>>>>>>>> Unknown         4,9012
>>>>>>>> Linux         1,0621
>>>>>>>> Android         0,0762
>>>>>>>> BSD         0,0011
>>>>>>>> Solaris         0,0006
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for
Linux
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older
machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows
version with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ant
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to
test AOO 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who
cared. No
>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x
was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue
making it unsuited
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just
that we now *can* use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding
for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's
be real, our
>>>>>> continued
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real
thing we have going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant
ripples in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias
Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim
Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM,
Peter Kovacs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <petko@Apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6
Release on the way in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July.
>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready
it will only be a beta. And we
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion
for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security
fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12?
Why the need for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If
we build with Java 8 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept
what can be done
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> AOO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x
if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>



Mime
View raw message