openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?
Date Thu, 07 Mar 2019 20:03:45 GMT
Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> ++1
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@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. ;-)

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 <damjan@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.seidel@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-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message