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 17:38:13 GMT
Hi Marcus,

Am 08.03.19 um 18:31 schrieb Marcus:
> 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.

Some lines above... ;-)

It is only a proposal, but Dave's response was related to a Developer
Snapshot.

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