See the page- that is properly descriptive so is ok from my standpoint. Something similar with a buildbot link is certainlyreasonable.
----- Original Message ----- > From: drew <d...@baseanswers.com> > To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:33 PM > Subject: Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed > > 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----- >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
