subject:"\[PROPOSAL\] Public Beta for 4.2"


Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:



On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs  wrote:

How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We 
need to track build versions.


Agreed... Right now we have:

RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=m1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420

We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
something like

RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=b1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420

for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.


at least the download scripting is knowing a beta release and is 
prepared. *)


Example:

// Beta Release: General properties.
DL_BETA.VERSION = "4.2.0-Beta1";
DL_BETA.NAME= "4.2.0 Beta1";
DL_BETA.MILESTONE   = "AOO420m1";
DL_BETA.BUILD   = "1234";
DL_BETA.SVN_REV = "r1234567";
DL_BETA.REL_DATE= "2017-Dec-XX";

So, a typical filename could be:
Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0-Beta1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz

*)
At least the scriping has parts to process to handle special steps and 
areas fot a beta release. However, of course it need to be tested and 
likely to be adapted. But don't worry I will take care ot this.


Marcus




If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta 
splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove 
all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.

By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our 
work process.

All the best
Peter

Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :



On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC

for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
4.2.0RC1


If this does not break something of course.

I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC

which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
RC in names and graphics is not what we want.

And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is

not what we had voted for.

The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need

maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
filenames.

Marcus


I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the

final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.




FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Patricia Shanahan


I agree with the flow in the second paragraph.

As an additional note, betas are not releases, and will be described as 
being experimental. We can make up any process we like for deciding to 
make one available to beta testers.


When we think we have a production-ready beta, and build a release 
candidate derived from it, we have to follow the Apache release vote 
process, including at least three PMC members doing builds on machines 
we control etc.


On 12/3/2017 1:25 PM, Peter kovacs wrote:

How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We 
need to track build versions.

If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta 
splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove 
all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.

By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our 
work process.

All the best
Peter

Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :



On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC

for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
4.2.0RC1


If this does not break something of course.

I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC

which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
RC in names and graphics is not what we want.

And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is

not what we had voted for.

The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need

maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
filenames.

Marcus


I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the

final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.




FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Jim Jagielski


> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs  wrote:
> 
> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We 
> need to track build versions.

Agreed... Right now we have:

RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=m1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420

We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
something like

RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=b1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420

for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.

> 
> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta 
> splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove 
> all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted 
> on.
> 
> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our 
> work process.
> 
> All the best
> Peter
> 
> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>> 
>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
 Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>> 4.2.0RC1
> 
> If this does not break something of course.
 I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
 And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>> not what we had voted for.
 The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>> filenames.
 Marcus
>>> 
>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>> 
>> 
>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Peter kovacs

How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We 
need to track build versions.

If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta 
splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove 
all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.

By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our 
work process.

All the best
Peter

Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>4.2.0RC1
 
 If this does not break something of course.
>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>not what we had voted for.
>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>filenames.
>>> Marcus
>> 
>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>> 
>
>FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Kay Schenk



On 12/02/2017 04:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is 
fantastic!

Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...


Someone here is forgetting that the biggest chunk of work for 4.2.0 is 
with localization. We need to fix the code -> Pootle -> code process and 
this won't be trivial at all since we have scarce documentation, little 
knowledge and a half-broken situation in Pootle when the last import was 
done at some unspecified time. It is not impossible of course, but it 
does need some serious work.


+1...this is a BIGGIE for 4.2.0 in my mind.



So you can provide all the builds you wish, but I would expect that most 
of them display localization issues and a localization cycle in 40+ 
languages usually takes a couple months (once we have fixed the process).


I'm absolutely in favor of a public beta, well publicized and clearly 
marked as beta (with its own splash screen etc). This is not the point. 
Point is, if you want something out in 2017 then English+kid languages 
will be enough, and please call it Alpha or Beta-1 or something that 
makes it clear that there will have to be another Beta in a few months 
with working localized versions.


Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



--
--
MzK

"Don't you know that it's worth
 every treasure on earth
 To be young at heart."
  -- song, "Young at Heart"

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 03.12.2017 um 01:09 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
>>  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
>> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
>> with everyone.
>
> Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for
> 4.1.4! Note: this includes the fact that Matthias (if available)
> should produce the Windows builds, since we've discovered with 4.1.4
> that build issues are arcane to find at times, and we know that
> Matthias' Windows builds worked well for 4.1.4.

Yes, I am available... ;-)

Regards, Matthias

>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2


Am 01.12.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:

 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 


Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up.


thanks for this. In the meantime I've also done some changes.


I can RM if that's OK with everyone.


Yes, please. :-)

Marcus




On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna  wrote:

On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
to some 4.1.4 regressions.

I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
the relationship.

On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...

I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.


On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello

I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
) for some langs



On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.


I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.

And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
towards the final release build.

For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
wants to handle.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org






--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


+1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
soon as possible.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Jim Jagielski


> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for 
>>> Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1
>>> 
>>> If this does not break something of course.
>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which get 
>> approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in names and 
>> graphics is not what we want.
>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not what 
>> we had voted for.
>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe just a 
>> rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a new upload 
>> with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.
>> Marcus
> 
> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the final 
> testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going wrong with 
> the process at a point where it can affect millions.
> 

FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Patricia Shanahan


On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC 
for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 
4.2.0RC1


If this does not break something of course.


I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which 
get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in 
names and graphics is not what we want.


And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not 
what we had voted for.


The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe 
just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a 
new upload with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.


Marcus


I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the 
final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going 
wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for
for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1

If this does not break something of course.

I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which
get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in
names and graphics is not what we want.

And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not
what we had voted for.

The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe
just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a
new upload with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.

Marcus

On 03.12.2017 10:14, Marcus wrote:

Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus > wrote:

Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
filenames for the installation files.

Here are the results on macOS:

that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash
screen.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Keith N. McKenna

On 12/1/2017 4:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 
> 
> 
> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
> with everyone.
I have added the Release Notes page from the template at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5+Release+Notes.
I believe that you are the best person for RM for this.

Regards
Keith
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
>>> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>>
>>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
>>> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
>>> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
>>> the relationship.
>>>
>>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
 fantastic!
 Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
 and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
 pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...

 I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>
> Regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
>> available
>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>> ) for some langs
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
 In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
 not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
 team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
 this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
 bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>
>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>
>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>
>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>>> towards the final release build.
>>>
>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>>> wants to handle.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
> ## Debian Developer
> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
> ## PGP encryption welcome
> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

>> +1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
>> soon as possible.
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Peter Kovacs

I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for 
for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1


If this does not break something of course.

All the best
Peter

On 03.12.2017 10:14, Marcus wrote:

Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus > wrote:


Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't 
know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate 
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png 



oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic 
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different 
filenames for the installation files.




Here are the results on macOS:


that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta" 
should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash 
screen.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-03 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 03.12.2017 um 10:14 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
 know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
 Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
 But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
 naming/graphics:
 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

>>>
>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>
>>
>> Here are the results on macOS:
>
> that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
> should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash screen.

These are the original graphics from 2014...

Technically seen there is no way to put the "beta" behind the product name:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/default_images/framework/res/beta/backing.png

But I am working on that for a while and I would like to propose a
"redesign" of the Start Center:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127158#c15

Of course this would include a nicer version for beta builds.

Regards, Matthias

>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2


Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus > wrote:


Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't 
know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate 
naming/graphics:

https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png


oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic 
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different 
filenames for the installation files.




Here are the results on macOS:


that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta" 
should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash screen.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Don Lewis

On  1 Dec, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce
> 4.2.0-B1.

I think we are still a ways from being ready for a Beta release.  For
instance, we need to do another sweep of the bundled software to see
what needs to be updated.  For instance, I recently saw a new CVE for
curl.  Unfortunately my time is pretty limited for the next month. There
are some other code quality issues that I've stumbled across that I want
to address.

In the meantime, I have no objection to better publicising our dev
builds for the brave to try out and find the problems.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Jim Jagielski wrote:

I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
with everyone.


Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for 
4.1.4! Note: this includes the fact that Matthias (if available) should 
produce the Windows builds, since we've discovered with 4.1.4 that build 
issues are arcane to find at times, and we know that Matthias' Windows 
builds worked well for 4.1.4.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:

I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...


Someone here is forgetting that the biggest chunk of work for 4.2.0 is 
with localization. We need to fix the code -> Pootle -> code process and 
this won't be trivial at all since we have scarce documentation, little 
knowledge and a half-broken situation in Pootle when the last import was 
done at some unspecified time. It is not impossible of course, but it 
does need some serious work.


So you can provide all the builds you wish, but I would expect that most 
of them display localization issues and a localization cycle in 40+ 
languages usually takes a couple months (once we have fixed the process).


I'm absolutely in favor of a public beta, well publicized and clearly 
marked as beta (with its own splash screen etc). This is not the point. 
Point is, if you want something out in 2017 then English+kid languages 
will be enough, and please call it Alpha or Beta-1 or something that 
makes it clear that there will have to be another Beta in a few months 
with working localized versions.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.

This is my list (only Windows):
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/aoo-build-pack-beta.lst

>
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
>> according to:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
>>
>> Don't know if there is a better way...
>>
>> Maybe you can see more in:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>>>
>>>build --all -P -- -P
>>>
>>> Like this?
>>>
>>>build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P
>>>
>>> Or this?
>>>
>>>build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P
>>>
>>> Or here?
>>>
>>>build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta
>>>
>>> None seem to work :(
>>>
>>> =
>>> Building module solenv
>>> =
>>>
>>> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>>>
>>> dmake:  Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>>>
>>>
 On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
 know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

 Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.

 But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
 naming/graphics:
 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>
> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
 I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.

 We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)

>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Jim Jagielski

Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.

> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
> according to:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
> 
> Don't know if there is a better way...
> 
> Maybe you can see more in:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>> 
>>build --all -P -- -P
>> 
>> Like this?
>> 
>>build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P
>> 
>> Or this?
>> 
>>build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P
>> 
>> Or here?
>> 
>>build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta
>> 
>> None seem to work :(
>> 
>> =
>> Building module solenv
>> =
>> 
>> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>> 
>> dmake:  Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>> 
>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>> 
>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>> naming/graphics:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>> 
>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>> filenames for the installation files.
> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
> 
 Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>>> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>>> 
>>> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>>> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
according to:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst

Don't know if there is a better way...

Maybe you can see more in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk

Regards, Matthias


Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>
> build --all -P -- -P
>
> Like this?
>
> build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P
>
> Or this?
>
> build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P
>
> Or here?
>
> build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta
>
> None seem to work :(
>
> =
> Building module solenv
> =
>
> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>
> dmake:  Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>
>
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>
>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>
>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>> naming/graphics:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>
> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
> filenames for the installation files.
 That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
 (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).

>>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>>
>> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>>
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Jim Jagielski

OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:

build --all -P -- -P

Like this?

build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P

Or this?

build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P

Or here?

build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta

None seem to work :(

=
Building module solenv
=

Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv

dmake:  Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'


> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
 Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
> 
> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
> 
> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
> naming/graphics:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
> 
 oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
 should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
 filenames for the installation files.
>>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>> 
>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
> 
> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
> 
> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
 know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

 Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.

 But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
 naming/graphics:
 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>
> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)

I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.

We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)

>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Jim Jagielski


> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>> 
>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>> 
>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>> naming/graphics:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>> 
>> 
>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>> filenames for the installation files.
> 
> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
> 

Wow. I had no idea that existed :)

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Marcus

Am 02.12.2017 um 14:44 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:

Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.

But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
filenames for the installation files.

That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
(sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).

oha, the last beta is bloody long ago that I've forgotten that this
build target already exists. ;-)

Marcus

Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/

But these are dmg's not installers.

On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias
Seidel wrote:

Hi Jim,

Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?

I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns

I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and
had no
chance to test it.

Regards, Matthias

Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
builds available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
) for some langs

On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

In light of our current situation with getting builds together
but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what
does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I
think that this would be an advantage for the project and might
serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.

I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to
make it visible.

And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing
quality towards the final release build.

For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to
our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which
nobody wants to handle.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>
>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>
>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>> naming/graphics:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>
>
> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
> filenames for the installation files.

That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
(sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).

I am just uploading a fresh Beta build for Windows:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/

Regards, Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>>>
>>>  http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ 
>>> 
>>>
>>> But these are dmg's not installers.
>>>
 On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias
 Seidel  wrote:

 Hi Jim,

 Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?

 I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns


 I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and
 had no
 chance to test it.

 Regards, Matthias


 Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
> builds available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
> ) for some langs
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>>
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together
>>> but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what
>>> does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I
>>> think that this would be an advantage for the project and might
>>> serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
>> advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to
>> make it visible.
>>
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
>> of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing
>> quality towards the final release build.
>>
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
>> I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to
>> our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which
>> nobody wants to handle.
>>
>> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-02 Thread Marcus

Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.

But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:

https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
filenames for the installation files.

Marcus

Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/

But these are dmg's not installers.

On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Jim,

Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?

I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns

I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
chance to test it.

Regards, Matthias

Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
) for some langs

On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a
lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about
releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for
the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.

I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for
4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on
the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.

And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with
further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final
release build.

For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like
to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get
spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.

But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png

Regards, Matthias


Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>
> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ 
> 
>
> But these are dmg's not installers.
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>
>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>
>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
>> chance to test it.
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds 
>>> available
>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>>> ) for some langs
>>>
>>>
 On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:

 Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not 
> having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think 
> about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an 
> advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the 
> community as QA volunteers.
 I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase 
 for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

 We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas 
 on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.

 And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 
 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the 
 final release build.

 For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would 
 like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. 
 Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.

 Marcus


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 


Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
with everyone.

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna  
> wrote:
> 
> On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
>> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>> 
>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
>> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
>> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
>> the relationship.
>> 
>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>>> fantastic!
>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>> 
>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>> 
 On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:
 
 Hello
 
 I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
 
 Regards
 
 Mechtilde
 
 Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
> available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
> ) for some langs
> 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>> 
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>> 
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>> 
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>> 
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>> towards the final release build.
>> 
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>> wants to handle.
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
 
 -- 
 Mechtilde Stehmann
 ## Apache OpenOffice.org
 ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
 ## Debian Developer
 ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
 ## PGP encryption welcome
 ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
> +1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
> soon as possible.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Keith N. McKenna

On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
> 
> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
> the relationship.
> 
> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>> fantastic!
>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>
>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mechtilde
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
 available
 (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
 ) for some langs


> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>
> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>
> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>
> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>
> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
> towards the final release build.
>
> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
> wants to handle.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>


>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>> ## Debian Developer
>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
+1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
soon as possible.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Dave Fisher

Hi Jim -

Works and fixes both 4.1.4 bugs on both 10.7.5 and 10.12.6.

Seems to require Java 6 for Base to work on 10.7.5.

Regards,
Dave

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
> 
>http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ 
> 
> 
> But these are dmg's not installers.
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>> 
>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>> 
>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
>> chance to test it.
>> 
>> Regards, Matthias
>> 
>> 
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds 
>>> available
>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>>> ) for some langs
>>> 
>>> 
 On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
 
 Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not 
> having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think 
> about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an 
> advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the 
> community as QA volunteers.
 I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase 
 for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
 
 We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas 
 on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
 
 And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 
 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the 
 final release build.
 
 For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would 
 like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. 
 Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
 
 Marcus
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at

http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ 


But these are dmg's not installers.

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
> 
> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
> 
> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
> chance to test it.
> 
> Regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>> ) for some langs
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
 In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not 
 having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think 
 about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an 
 advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the 
 community as QA volunteers.
>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 
>>> 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>> 
>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas 
>>> on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>> 
>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 
>>> with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the 
>>> final release build.
>>> 
>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would 
>>> like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. 
>>> Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>> 
>>> Marcus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
> 
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?

I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns

I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
chance to test it.

Regards, Matthias


Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
> ) for some langs
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>>
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not 
>>> having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think 
>>> about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an 
>>> advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community 
>>> as QA volunteers.
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 
>> 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on 
>> the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 
>> with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the 
>> final release build.
>>
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would 
>> like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. 
>> Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Peter kovacs

+1

Am 1. Dezember 2017 14:42:44 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce
>4.2.0-B1.
>
>Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
>start keeping track there?
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
>> 
>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk
>solution to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>> 
>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what
>the timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There
>is something to be said for a single announcement so that we can
>explain the relationship.
>> 
>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>fantastic!
>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
 On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:
 
 Hello
 
 I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
 
 Regards
 
 Mechtilde
 
 Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
>builds available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>) for some langs
> 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>> 
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together
>but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this
>would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more
>of the community as QA volunteers.
>> 
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>> 
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
>advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make
>it visible.
>> 
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
>of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>towards the final release build.
>> 
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
>I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants
>to handle.
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>>
>-
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
 
 -- 
 Mechtilde Stehmann
 ## Apache OpenOffice.org
 ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
 ## Debian Developer
 ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
 ## PGP encryption welcome
 ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
 
>>>
>-
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2


> On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22, 
> Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he would 
> recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year, rather than 
> early December
> 
> I am not sure we should wait that long before 4.1.5-GA.

I agree w/ that.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Patricia Shanahan

Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22, 
Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he 
would recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year, 
rather than early December


I am not sure we should wait that long before 4.1.5-GA.

On a personal note, I will be busy and/or traveling from early January 
until mid-March. My AOO activity will be limited.


On 12/1/2017 5:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce 4.2.0-B1.

Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
start keeping track there?


On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution to some 
4.1.4 regressions.

I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the timing 
should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is something to be 
said for a single announcement so that we can explain the relationship.

On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.

On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello

I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
) for some langs



On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a 
lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about 
releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for 
the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.


I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 
4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on 
the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.

And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with 
further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final 
release build.

For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like 
to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get 
spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org






--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce 4.2.0-B1.

Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
start keeping track there?

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:
> 
> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution to 
> some 4.1.4 regressions.
> 
> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the 
> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is 
> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain the 
> relationship.
> 
> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is 
>> fantastic!
>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Mechtilde
>>> 
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds 
 available
 (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
 ) for some langs
 
 
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:
> 
> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not 
>> having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team 
>> think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would 
>> be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the 
>> community as QA volunteers.
> 
> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase 
> for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
> 
> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas 
> on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
> 
> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 
> with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the 
> final release build.
> 
> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would 
> like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. 
> Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
 
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>> ## Debian Developer
>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

2017-12-01 Thread Patricia Shanahan

Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution 
to some 4.1.4 regressions.


I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the 
timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is 
something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain 
the relationship.


On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...

I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.


On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello

I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
) for some langs



On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus  wrote:

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a 
lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about 
releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for 
the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.


I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 
4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.

We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on 
the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.

And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with 
further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final 
release build.

For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like 
to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get 
spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org






--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2