openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release
Date Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:55:59 GMT
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/05/2013 08:16 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
>> hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed.  So I wonder if we can aim
>> for a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
>> high-urgency issues?   We could also use this opportunity to roll in
>> whatever new translations are available.
>>
>> Suggested parameters of the release:
>>
>> 1) No string changes.  So existing translations don't need to change,
>> unless they are correcting a translation defect.
>>
>> 2) We carefully screen the code changes that are made.  A fast
>> turnaround release depends on not introducing any new bugs.  If we can
>> control carefully the changes going in then we can avoid spending a
>> month to re-test.  We'd focus the test effort on the fixes made, and
>> related areas.
>>
>> 3) Use the "release blocker" flag to propose defects for inclusion in
>> the 4.0.1 release.
>
>
> +1 to the 3 above.
>
>
>> 4) New translations are rolled in, since a new translation cannot
>> break core code.
>
>
> That's not automatically correct. Please remember the Calc issue were
> functions names had the same name (was it in Italian?) even when they had
> different purposes. The result were unusable spreadsheets.
>


I think of it this way:  Adding a new translation cannot break other
translations.  It can only break itself.  So adding translations has a
localized impact in terms of testing.

> So, in general yes but it is not 100% save.
>
>
>> 5) The one "feature" that I'd consider rolling in would be changes to
>> work with Mac OS 10.9.  It is not a regression in our code per se, but
>> it is a new issue, and a critical one.
>
>
> I don't follow Mac issues closely but I'm sure there is already a BZ issue.
>
>
>> 6) Obviously, all bug fixes get checked into trunk as well, so they
>> are included in 4.1.
>
>
> Ahm, yes, obviously.
>
>
>> 7) Aim to have 4.0.1 ready for September X, where 0<X<31   The earlier
>> the better, IMHO.
>
>
> I wouldn't set a (more or less) fixed date. In any case we should make sure
> that all the issue candidates are considered.
>

As in most cases it will come down to the question:  Do we hold back
on fixes we've already made because there are other fixes that we have
not yet made?   So I'd start out with a goal date that we can all aim
for. That helps coordinate the effort.  But we all know that dates are
not carved in marble.

-Rob

> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
View raw message