Hi Dave, Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher: > Hi - > >> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> ++1 >> >>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jim and all, >>> >>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a >>> (public) beta. >>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something >>> "official" we can base our discussions on. >>> >>> So here is my proposal: >>> >>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a >>> developer snapshot. >>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets: >>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev. >>> >>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot": >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png >>> >>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before >>> we create the tag. >>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English >>> dictionary. >>> >>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all >>> hashes and PGP signatures. >>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage. >>> >>> Opinions? > Would we limit the distribution as follows? > We would not distribute to SourceForge. > We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page. > We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not allow > the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra first) > We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of > our openoffice.apache.org <http://openoffice.apache.org/> mailing lists. > We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to > solve user issues. > > (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from > www.apache.org/dist/ <http://www.apache.org/dist/>.)
Speaking for a Developer Snapshot: Yes to all, but I would prefer to put the binaries to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ Regards, Matthias > > Regards, > Dave > >>> Regards, >>> >>> Matthias >>> >>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta? >>>> >>>>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable >>>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> My own release checklist would include: >>>>> 1. Library audit. >>>>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the >>>>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and >>>>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very >>>>> possible. >>>>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild >>>>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files >>>>> back >>>>> then. >>>>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and >>>>> 4.2.0? >>>>> 2. Base: >>>>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new >>>>> SDBC-JDBC >>>>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver. >>>>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix >>>>> any >>>>> differences. >>>>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups, >>>>> etc. >>>>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI >>>>> forms (like MySQL already is). >>>>> 3. Crashreporter >>>>> 3.1 Get it working again. >>>>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete >>>>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla. >>>>> 4. Testing >>>>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration >>>>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any >>>>> regressions. >>>>> >>>>> Damjan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel >>>>> <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>> >>>>>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much. >>>>>> >>>>>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public) >>>>>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating... >>>>>> >>>>>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export >>>>>> the latest translations from Pootle. >>>>>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still >>>>>> need to be updated in source. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> 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 >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
