On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 12:15 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote: > 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
Thanks - ok, read that. For a concrete example the OO.o project has historically had a link from the download page to Developer Snapshots: http://www.openoffice.org/download/next/index.html I've noted a number of the developers on the mailing list here bring up the idea of the weekly build - and that is where my thinking was, so where I used buildBot, I'd substitute, this Developer Snapshot which I'd presume will end up coming from the buildBot.. //drew > > > > ----- 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----- > >> > > >> > >> > > >
