On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:57 AM, drew jensen <drewjensen.in...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 08:47 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> > > I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a >> > > bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms >> > > are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and >> > > then follow with this bullet item: >> > > >> > > "Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, >> > > with plans to release these outside of Apache." >> > > >> > >> > Howdy Rob, >> > >> > > Is this accurate and worth saying? >> > >> > Yes IIRC and yes IMO. >> > >> > >> > >> > > Would it make sense to also >> > > include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for >> > > more information? >> > >> > I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for >> > each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more >> > appropriate for a title). >> > >> >> Hi Drew-- >> >> We have a page -- actually a former "project" at -- >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ >> >> that needs a LOT of cleanup. >> >> Any volunteers to take the lead on cleaning this up and just highlighting >> what we're dealing with now? FreeBSD, OS/2, and Solaris? > > Hi Kay, > > Yes, I'll work on that page today and ping the list when it is in > stagging. >
This isn't a reliable way of having a proposed change reviewed. Anyone else publishing any other, unrelated, change to the website would cause your change to be published as well. A surer way is to make changes via the CMS, submit but don't commit, then click "diff", and chose to mail the diff to ooo-dev. Or in this case, since it is not technically difficult or controversial, JFDI is fine. If some one wants to make more changes, then they can. Almost anything gets us closer. For example, I made some changes earlier today, on branding and fixing some broken links. -Rob > //drew > >> >> >> >> > Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent >> > for future announcements. >> > >> > > >> > > Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close >> > > ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support >> > > these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the >> > > release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the >> > > project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. >> > >> > I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to >> > include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to >> > be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. >> > >> > Just my .02 >> > >> > //drew >> > > >> > > Does this seem fair and appropriate? >> > > >> > > If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and >> > > OS/2, for more information. >> > > >> > > The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > -Rob >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >
