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 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 17:31:15 GMT
Am 08.03.19 um 17:01 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> 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.

ah, OK. When have we changed from Beta to Dev Snapshot? Sorry, I think 
I've missed this point of time.

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