On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt < > > jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote: > >>> Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the > release > >> of > >>> AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and > >>> guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users, > >>> including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest > >>> benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code > >>> project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at > >>> Apache. > >>> > >>> What do you do? Where do you start? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think > it > >>> is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate > >>> easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common > >> questions > >>> and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance. > >>> > >>> I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a > "Summary > >>> of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review" document on the wiki. I think this > >> will > >>> help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due > >>> diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the > >>> unusual things that came up in this project, such as the "mere > >> aggregation" > >>> inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages. > >>> > >>> Here it is: > >>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities > >>> > >>> Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of > >>> course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other > topics, > >>> add those as well. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> You have probably missed this > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ > >> > >> We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate > >> these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion. > >> > >> > > I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the release > > package, what is included, what different directories do, etc. It is > good > > for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking at > > the files. > > I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on > general@i.a.o > > Yes, that is part of what informed the choice of material to present. But it is worth looking beyond that. The old saying is "every new class of testers finds a new class of bugs". The same could be said of reviewers. Marvin found one class of issues. Other IPMC members will have their own particular interests and areas of concern. > Here is what I would want to see. > > (1) BUILD instructions. An accurate and complete description of the build > of the binaries from source including how much time it takes on various > platforms. This would help an IPMC plan how much time they will need to > check the release. This is about the mechanics. Also, how to run the RAT > report. > > (2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies, SGA, > RAT excludes and why, etc. > > (3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the > standard location. Additions for the Binary packages should end up in the > appropriate place in those packages after the build. I expect that these > may differ slightly depending on the target platform? > > > > > The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did, > what > > we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the logic > > of what we did. Your page is more about the end results. > > > > But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree. > > Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other > Wiki page is about To Dos. For the release, I think that there are > different aspects of the project's contents that need to be explained in > the each of four contexts. > > For now I've cross-linked the two pages. -Rob > (1) BUILD - how does one assemble the source into a usable binary? > (2) README - what are the project's components? > (3) LICENSE - what are the legal obligations? > (4) NOTICE - what are the copyrights? > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > >> > >> Juergen > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> -Rob > >> > >> > >
