openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?
Date Thu, 07 Mar 2019 16:02:49 GMT
Hi -

> 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:
>> 
>> Hi Jim and all,
>> 
>> 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.
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/>.)

Regards,
Dave

>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>   Matthias
>> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Damjan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>> 
>>>>> [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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message