Is there a big deal with discussing a further OOo release on the OOo lists? And note I say lists plural. Remember, a release at OOo requires coordination among several different groups, dev, qa, doc, translation, etc. They have their own lists, dozens of them, that are all involved in preparing a release. We have none of them here, and I don't think it is a very good idea to put all that traffic onto ooo-dev, in addition to the current discussions. The easiest way to make a release on OOo infrastructure is to actually make a release on OOo infrastructure.
-Rob On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see the point of moving such discussion elsewhere. > Look, we did exactly this with subversion and it was NO BIG DEAL. > This list will be expected to determine whether or not such > a goal is worthwhile (and will be supported by the PPMC) so > why not let the discussions happen wherever, including here? > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:32:34 PM >> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >> >> IMHO, if we're discussing a non-Apache release then let's discuss it >> on a non Apache dev list. You've listed some plausible reasons why >> volunteers might want to work on an OOo release on the legacy >> infrastructure. OK. Great. The discussion lists at OOo are part of >> that infrastructure. >> >> Also, we need to consider the OpenOffice.org trademark. If a >> non-Apache project wishes to name their release "OpenOffice.org" then >> they will need to make a formal request to Apache for this and get it >> approved. Perhaps a mere formality in this case, but a necessary one. >> >> -Rob >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> > An Apache release while in incubation is a goal, perhaps even >> > a blocker for graduation for ooo, but it shouldn't come at a cost >> > of abandoning existing user needs for a lengthy period of time. >> > The ASF is a pragmatic bunch, and realizes that this project >> > is coming in with over a decade of prior history attached. >> > >> > That history will now merge with ASF objectives, but it doesn't >> > have to be immediately all-or-nothing. If the user community expects >> > a forthcoming release in a timely fashion, and that cannot be >> > accomplished as a full ASF release, then other avenues (like >> > collaboration with OO regarding distribution) can and should >> > be explored. >> > >> > (IMO). >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 8:17:58 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Oh right, I said to myself knowingly, especially since any release >> >> > under >>the >> >>old infrastructure is essentially an LGPL release. And it would be an >> >>opportunity for cooperation. >> >> > >> >> > Uh, wait, I then said to myself, how do we get that back under Apache >> >>OpenOffice.org unless we manage to have it covered under the Oracle >> >>grant. >>Hmm. >> >> > >> >> > And what do we do about the work that Armand Le Grand has been busily >> >>continuing in the old infrastructure. He can recontribute that, of > course, >> >>but, uh ... >> >> > >> >> > Um, say again, this might work out how? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't see it. What are the hallmarks of an Apache release? >> >> >> >> 1) Apache 2.0 license >> >> >> >> 2) IP check list >> >> >> >> 3) Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to Committers >> >> who have signed the ICLA >> >> >> >> 4) Work done transparently on the Apache lists. >> >> >> >> In fact, if you follow the general.incubator.a.o list you'll see the >> >> Incubation PMC close to shutting down another Podling because they are >> >> not doing their work at Apache, but are doing it elsewhere. >> >> >> >> Yes, getting to a first Apache release will require work. But we only >> >> get there by doing the work. I don't see how releasing something >> >> outside of Apache gets us any closer to an Apache release. >> >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >> > - Dennis >> >> > >> >> > PS: LibreOffice is currently at releases 3.3.3 (presumed stable) and >>3.4.0 >> >>(early adopter) with a 3.4.1 release candidate or two currently under >> >>test. >>I >> >>think there are 3.5 and 4.0 mumbles too, but my eyes have glazed over and >>I've >> >>given up tracking the pace of builds there. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 06:19 >> >> > To: [email protected] >> >> > Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >> >> > >> >> > The other thing I probably should mention here is that this >> >> > presents a golden opportunity to collaborate with LO should the >> >> > "old" ooo infrastructure be considered unable to handle >> >> > another ooo release. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> >> From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:11:09 AM >> >> >> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >> >> >> >> >> >> Point of reference: the subversion project used non-ASF >> infrastructure >> >> >> to conduct releases that would've been blocked by ASF policy on >>licensing >> >> >> >> >> >> had they used our mirror system. It is certainly possible to do > the >> >> >> same sort of thing with ooo for an interim solution, until the >> codebase >> >> >> has been "cleaned up" to meet with ASF policy. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > [ ... ] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
