Some friendly advice is to be careful how you "promote" that buildbot link. The ASF has very strict rules regarding the promotion of releases versus build artifacts- which are only supposed to be exposed to fellow developers: see
http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what HTH ----- Original Message ----- > From: drew <d...@baseanswers.com> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:09 PM > Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed > > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: >> >> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> Hi Mechtilde, >> >> >> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML > closely they are discussed. >> >> >> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php >> >> >> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since day > one. >> >> >> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache > Infra on buildbots for several platforms. >> >> >> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197 >> >> >> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog > about it and let people know... >> > This is indeed an on going project. I am trying to work with > infrastructure to get this up and running. As such, the infrastructure team > is > a limited resource, and basically, we are waiting for our turn. (right now > they > are dealing with other fires, like someone who uploaded a 9GB website and > pushed > CMS right to the edge... DAVE ;-) >> >> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the > logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical. >> >> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order. >> >> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of > Gavin's attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority? > > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files, > should take precedence for branding purpose. > > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site. > > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4 > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most > it sounds like. > > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application. > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the > full blown new name and branding, not the website. > > just my .02 > > //drew > >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> > >> > A. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote: >> >> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >>> Hash: SHA1 >> >>> >> >>> Hello Jürgen, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: >> >>>> Hi Mechtilde, >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, > Mechtilde<o...@mechtilde.de> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hey, >> >>>> >> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to > distribute >> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice. >> >>>> >> >>>> But: >> >>>> >> >>>> What should a user do? >> >>>> >> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which > anyone can install for >> >>>> testing. >> >>>> >> >>>> The DEB binary from > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ >> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system. >> >>>> >> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing > happened. As >> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm on > the buildbot. >> >>>> >> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform? >> >>>> >> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms. >> >>>> >> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not to > have binaries >> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to > find a solution. We don't >> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the > release engineers did a lot >> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux > versions as possible. >> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on >> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and > would have been build for >> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system > libraries. This is much >> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the > future... >> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO > version to test >> >>> it before a release. >> >>> >> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should > update the build bot >> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the > note from Ariel. And it >> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot > machine as well. That >> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably address most the > systems (an update >> >>>>> on Linux system is done quite often, isn't it) >> >>> It depends on the based distribution. >> >>> >> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer > version of >> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from. >> >>> >> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for > our binary releases and >> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various > systems for testing >> >>>>> purposes. >> >>> That's what I ask for. >> >>> >> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements, so > let us start to >> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our > build/release process >> >>>>> over time. >> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from > Apache? >> >>> >> >>> Thats my question >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards >> >>> >> >>> Mechtilde >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Juergen >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind Regards >> >>>> >> >>>> Mechtilde >> >>>> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - > http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >>> >> >>> > iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG >> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe >> >>> =ulAm >> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > >> >> >
