Hi Jim, Have a look at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/genUpdateFeed/generate-update-feed.sh?view=markup
80 <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/genUpdateFeed/generate-update-feed.sh?view=markup#l80> elif [ $idx -eq 2 ]; then 81 <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/genUpdateFeed/generate-update-feed.sh?view=markup#l81> productbuildid[$version]=$data It looks like a version can only have one build id. It would be safe to bump to m6(9788) but it is not so safe to do m6(9789). Unless generate-update-feed.sh is updated. Regards, Dave > On Oct 31, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Actually, it looks like buildid (9788) is likely > should also be bumped, looking at the way downloads > are done... Do linux and Windows would be m5(9788) > and mac would be m5(9789) or m6(9789) > > I am *guessing* that the m# is SVN related > and the buildid number is courtesy build # related?? >> On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> It would be easy to bump the build number 414m6 just for macOS. >> Of course, the date is also changed, even if we keep the same >> build number. >> >> I am up for whatever makes sense. The issue is that it's >> not a code "problem" at all. >> >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I do not know if this is the right choice, but we should include doing >>>> both in our thinking. Rebuild 4.1.4 for Mac only, test, and upload as soon >>>> as possible. Meanwhile, create, test, and vote on 4.1.5, to pick up the >>>> upgrade service. >>> >>> I agree this what we need to think about. With the new 4.1.4 route we >>> should make sure that we can tell the difference between the bad original >>> and the repaired build. Is the date sufficient or would build number be >>> better? I really don’t like the idea of people being confused about what >>> they need to do to fix issues. Right now the message is to downgrade to >>> 4.1.3. >>> >>> I would like to know what Andrea and Matthias think since they have been >>> working with the upgrade system. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>>> >>>> On 10/31/2017 9:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>>>> There have been over 1,000,000 downloads of 4.1.4. How many were of the >>>>> bad Mac version? >>>>> If we replace then how would those people know to upgrade? >>>>> This issue makes me think we need to have this be a new version so that >>>>> we can setup the upgrade service correctly. >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Dave >>>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Question: Assuming we have "correction" builds available, >>>>>> what do we do? Simply replace the online version with >>>>>> these? >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
