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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:01:40 GMT
Hi Marcus,

Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus:
> 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. ;-)

Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-)
The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates.

Matthias

>
> 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