openoffice-l10n mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:52:13 GMT
On 23/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
> WARNING: This is quite long!

And the discussion was even longer, but I'll start with answering this one.

And I'll first note that:

1) Work is not starting now. We have years of code already committed and 
not shown in previous releases.

2) Like for every release, we make plans but at a certain point we have 
to cut the release and this "wishlist" is thus a tentative guideline.

> *PRIORITIES*
> 1. Update the localization.
> We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1
> release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization
> updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur,
> Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI
> translations and Help translations.

Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall 
correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages to be 
expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think 
any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course 
improve with time). So in short 4.2.0 means that we can add strings to 
the code, which means we can make them available to translators, which 
in turn means we can (we have to) update all translations.

> We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know
> anything about this process.

I'm slowly working on this but I still have something to find/learn. 
I've sent the l10n list a mail sending that I'm planning to test a first 
import in early September - just to test the process.

> 2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
> I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
> for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.

Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an 
example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP 
since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java 
1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7, 
otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly 
test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide 
ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.

> 3. Issues for inclusion
> We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not
> include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period.

The version number is not a detail. We call it 4.2.0 since UI changes 
are allowed. On the other hand, we don't have to include all patches; 
actually, seeing all the code that already went in, I would be more on 
the conservative side here.

> Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would
> surely be worth investigating.
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068

These are automatically found defects, good for easy fixes but probably 
not really important.

I'd rather suggest that we give some attention to the 4.1.2 regressions, 
especially this one (the only one so far): 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622

> *BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION*
> 1. Move to different buildbots?

Not needed. A "nice to have" if they standardize it, but buildbots (I 
mean, the Linux version they use) are not so relevant for a release.

> 2. Configuration Issues
> Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is
> not the version recommended in our Building Guide.

The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be checked.

> *PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* ...
> It has
> been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries
> with this release.

The ASF buildbots and releases cover two different fields. I've been 
misunderstood from time to time, but just to make it clear: I would 
never want that we use the buildbots for releasing (at least for Linux), 
since you want a recent Linux on buildbots and on old Linux on the 
release VM (where this VM is hosted can be deferred to a separate thread).

> Andrea has volunteered to set up a production environment for us. SEE:
> http://markmail.org/message/b4dbjdeu4llczqwt

I see that discussion has been misunderstood. I'll reply there. It 
suffices to say, here, that I'm not suggesting to use buildbots for the 
release builds. Which basically means I agree with your point of view in 
this respect.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message