any progress in the discussion, would be nice to get a decidion so we can start making the release.
rgds jan i On Friday, December 26, 2014, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 26 December 2014 at 13:11, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> On 26/12/2014 jan i wrote: >> >>> May I suggest that once you get access (no rush here, we need to prepare >>> the release first), that you create 1-2 PMC credentials so that access is >>> not lost if one credential gets locked. >>> >> >> Definitely. I'm now being the contact person since we don't have >> appointed a release manager yet. In the end, for sure I will not be >> producing Windows builds and it makes sense that people who produce the >> builds have access to the system. >> >> B) It is unacceptable to call something 4.1.2 and release it on Windows >>>> only >>>> >>> ... But I have say >>> AOO has a different way of using x.y.z than other projects. The x.y.2 >>> signals a patch, and that is normally only done for the platforms who >>> have >>> the problem. >>> >> >> Historically we never released for one platform only. If we do it for >> 4.1.2 there will be people who erroneously believe we have dropped Mac or >> Linux; this is my concern more than the use of numbering. >> > And I agree that i a valid concern especially considering our current > status. > > >> >> If I follow your "unacceptable" then I hope we will never have a serious >>> security issue on a single platform, since we would have to have to wait >>> for a release on all platforms, that would in my opinion be unacceptable. >>> >> >> If the needs arises, I'm sure this can be discussed. But this is not the >> case now. And historically, again, indeed security updates were included in >> the normal release cycle. But as far as I know we were never in the >> position to have to get a release out within 24 hours due to security >> issues. So I would keep this discussion for when it happens. >> >> C) It is unacceptable to call something 4.1.2 if it is 100% identical to >>>> 4.1.1 on Linux and Mac. >>>> >>> Hmmm so if we have a security issue... >>> >> >> I'm speaking for 4.1.2, I'm not speaking in general. >> >> 1) Put online new 4.1.1 Windows binaries >>>> >>> This should really be a no-go. If we do that the checksums will change >>> >> >> Not necessarily, it all depends on how we restructure the web pages and >> the files tree on SourceForge. But nobody preferred this option across all >> discussions we had so far, so option 2 deserves more attention. >> > ok. > >> >> 2) Create a 4.1.2 with minor updates and bugfixes, cherry-picking some >>>> trunk updates. ... >>>> >>> We cannot cherry-pick trunk updates, that would make it a 4.2 !!! >>> Patches are meant to be critical fixes, and not random bug-fixes. >>> >> >> Probably we agree, we simply use different wording. For 4.1.2, the >> reference would be the 4.1.0 -> 4.1.1 changes. See >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/ >> AOO+4.1.1+Release+Notes and http://s.apache.org/AOO411-solved from >> there: we included bugfixes that did not have impact on UI, that did not >> introduce new features, that updated translations (this would be out in >> 4.1.2 as I explained) or dictionaries, or that allowed building/running >> more smoothly in certain environments. What they all had in common was to >> be low-risk and reviewed. Not all of them were really "critical". I would >> do the same for 4.1.2, maybe fixing even just a handful of annoying bugs. >> > I have no r > problem with your definition. > > >> >> I like option 2, but I am strongly against cherry picking updates on >>> trunk. >>> If we have serious bugs then they can be included. I do however not >>> believe >>> we have such bugs, otherwise we would have discussed 4.1.2 long time ago. >>> I am open for option 2 as you describe it, if its called 4.2 >>> >> >> All we need to agree upon is what we mean by "serious". This is not hard. >> I think we can agree that 4.1.1 to 4.1.2 will be like 4.1.0 to 4.1.1, >> except that we put the threshold for inclusion higher, so we include fewer >> fixes (nowhere near the 89 fixes we had in 4.1.1). >> >> +1 > > lets get moving.....I dont think we need a vote to make 4.1.2, we need a > branch/tag in svn, include the bugs you have marked, a test build, and then > we can vote on the source. Or close one eye, and make final signed release > just in english, have the vote, and then make the other languages. > > rgds > jan i. > >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> >> > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
