Space: Apache OpenOffice Community (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS) Page: AOO 3.4.1 Reflection and Review (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Reflection+and+Review) Comment: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Reflection+and+Review?focusedCommentId=30737357#comment-30737357
Comment added by Kay Schenk: --------------------------------------------------------------------- >From my perspective, having working buildbots (with appropriate caretakers) is >critical to the credibility of our binary releases. This is not to diminish >the efforts of volunteer developers on their individual systems. I guess I am >feeling, given mentor comments on general@incubator for the 3.4.1 release, we >need to reinforce both to the ASF and our user base WHAT steps we take to >produce these binary releases and why what we do is safe and will work for >them. This should be documented via a page on the project site as well I >think. Which meshes well with this item-- "do we need a more formal written down release check list that we can easy reuse for every release. What is important here?" I would answer yes, but I don't know what to include. This should be documented as well as part of a QA process available for public consumption. I know many opensource projects will not undergo the kind of scrutiny OpenOffice will/does. But this product has a history in commercial supply/support. So, I feel we need to shore up any items that speak to credibility/assurance. Change your notification preferences: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewnotifications.action
