On 03/20/2016 09:48 AM, Carl Marcum wrote:
>
>
> On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> [BCC to the PMC]
>>
>> >From the Chair,
>>
>> If this is considered an Apache release and identified as
>> provided by the Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache
>> release requirements must be satisfied.
>>
>> I know of no records on the AOO project obtaining an
>> exception for this case from the Foundation. If there are
>> any, please make known where that information is preserved.
>>
>> There is no difficulty with the formalities other than
>> requiring patience and ensuring that certain requirements
>> on release packaging are satisfied. The recent difficulty
>> is not having enough PMC members who were able to satisfy
>> the binding vote requirement. So long as there are, as
>> there seem to be now, this can go forward the same as the
>> previous release that Carl escorted through the process.
>>
>> One step that would be useful to take is having some
>> identification of the UNO Tools version releases that
>> progresses separately from the Apache OpenOffice main
>> product release cadence. It would be very useful and
>> practical to have a naming of files and versioning in the
>> source-code release [candidates] that is distinct from the
>> AOO version progression in some manner, since only some of
>> these will be bundled in the AOO releases of full
>> OpenOffice. I imagine with practice, the delivery of the
>> UNO Tools and facilitation of their use by others will
>> become straightforward.
>>
>> There was already discussion of ASF release policies on a
>> related thread. Here is the relevant policy and practice
>> material.
>>
>> <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html>,
>> along with
>>
>> <http://apache.org/dev/release.html>.
>>
>> Note that any committer (with a registered PGP
>> signature) can pull
>> together a release, although it is the PMC that is
>> responsible for
>> assuring its acceptability and approval.
>> Acceptability is also in
>> specific, narrow terms. See the rules for voting on
>> releases and
>> what those who vote approval are required to have
>> done. Read from
>>
>> <http://apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release>
>> down to
>> just before the Release Distribution topic.
>>
>> The Apache OpenOffice project does not have autonomy on
>> this matter. A key responsibility of the PMC is assuring
>> that the release process and its integrity are achieved
>> and sustained. It happens that the ability of a PMC to
>> accomplish releases in this manner is an indicator of the
>> project's viability.
>>
>> If the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee
>> words and procedurally-approves a narrow, specific request
>> for an exception with regard to the UNO Tools of Apache
>> OpenOffice, it can be taken to Apache legal and elsewhere
>> where review and approval at the Foundation level is
>> required.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 04:31
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Releasing the Apache OpenOffice API plugin
>>> for NetBeans
>>>
>>> Am 03/20/2016 11:29 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>> On 20/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
>>>>> Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
>>>>>> Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts
>>>>>> for
>>> availability
>>>>>> at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as
>>>>>> official
>>> project
>>>>>> releases requiring a vote? ...
>>>>> @all:
>>>>> Is there anything that would speak against that Carl is
>>>>> going on with
>>>>> this procedure from the past?
>>>> I suggest that we continue as in the past. The NetBeans
>>>> plugin is not
>>>> related, code-wise, to the OpenOffice "main" releases at
>>>> all, and we
>>> can
>>>> just let Carl maintain it with lazy consensus as usual,
>>>> with no need
>>> for
>>>> a formal release.
>>> that's good. It's also my impression that we don't need
>>> any more formal
>>> way.
>>>
>>> @Rory:
>>> Sorry, it seems I should have point out my opinion more
>>> visible. ;-)
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>
>>
> I do prefer this is from the project and if it needs a vote
> that's okay I can put together instructions.
>
> I just didn't want take people away from other tasks unless
> that's the way we want it done.
>
> A few issues I'm not sure how to handle as an official ASF
> release in this case.
>
> 1. You can host the .NBM artifact somewhere besides
> NetBeans.org but the plugin page I referenced would become
> nothing more than an advertisement and not count downloads,
> comments, votes, etc. For those features and for the
> NetBeans IDE updater mechanism to work it must be hosted at
> NetBeans.org.
> Maybe hosted at ASF and Netbeans would count?
>
> 2. The artifact is binary only with no source.
>
> 3. The artifact must be Java keytool signed and not PGP. At
> least the one hosted at Netbeans.org.
>
> 4. The artifact is built with the NetBeans IDE which PMC
> members would need to install.
>
> Maybe we can come up with an acceptable procedure where the
> source is zipped and PGP signed and becomes the release
> hosted at ASF and a NetBeans.org compatible artifact is
> created from it to satisfy both requirements.
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
>
I think if the plugin is hosted at NetBeans.org as it has
been in the past, there is no need at all for a vote. A
plugin like this seems very similar to an extension in some
respects.
On the other hand, since it is NOT an extension per se,
should plugins of this nature be included in the Apache
OpenOffice SDK even though it is specific to NetBeans?
This is part of our distribution that is included in our
release vote. Maybe the SDK would be a good place for this
plugin.
Thoughts?
--
--------------------------------------------
MzK
"Time spent with cats is never wasted."
-- Sigmund Freud
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
