Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

On 15/12/2014 Pedro Giffuni wrote: Il giorno 14/dic/2014, alle ore 17:20, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto: On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/writerperfect/ at revision 1645375. ... I think it would be good to have a stronger check for 4.1.2

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

On 13/12/2014 jan i wrote: 8.1 and above, it complains when you start the exe after installation. To people who were waiting for developments in this discussion: a new one ("Digital signing release for windows") has been started, so please follow it and I'll post my replies there too. See als

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 17/12/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 16/12/14 16:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide builds from your own machines) for 4.1.2? ... this is something that is possible and I would like to move this to later when we come closer to a release date. O

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 16/12/14 16:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build >> machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with >> the proper baseline. > > And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., prov

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with the proper baseline. And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide builds from your own machines) for 4.1.2? This is

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 14/12/14 10:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >>> Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for > >>> project resources, but maybe

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 14/12/14 10:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote: >> On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for >>> project resources, but maybe it is easier for a developer to share an >>> existing virtual mac

Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

Hello; > Il giorno 14/dic/2014, alle ore 17:20, Andrea Pescetti > ha scritto: > > On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Looking at >> aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCollector.cxx, the first >> one I chose to examine, I see three Copyright notices and an LGPL >> license notic

RE: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

ndrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 14:20 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni Subject: Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.) On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Looking at > aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCo

Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Looking at aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCollector.cxx, the first one I chose to examine, I see three Copyright notices and an LGPL license notice in the comments at the top of the file. The same file, and the others, appear at

RE: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

apache.org Subject: RE: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.) OK, here is why I was looking for this. Thanks for the links, Kay. The RAT scan linked to in the [VOTE] message for 4.1.1 lists only seven files for aoo401/main/writerperfect. Looking in the apache-openoffice-4.1.1-r1517669-

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote: On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for project resources, but maybe it is easier for a developer to share an existing virtual machine (and possibly get it running at Apache) than to pre

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 08/12/2014 jan i wrote: > >> So may I politely ask, what have changed, that we now believe this will >> all >> go away, and we can have it all solved in a short time ? >> > > Not much has changed indeed. I pushed to have buildbots runnin

RE: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

-Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 15:20 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.) On 12/13/2014 01:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Looking around for some other matt

Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

sd4ley > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:45 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter. > > On 08/12/2014 jan i wrote: >> So may

Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)

Looking around for some other matters, I notice there is no 4.1.1 branch in the SVN. Is this intentional? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:45 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Budapest and

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 08/12/2014 jan i wrote: So may I politely ask, what have changed, that we now believe this will all go away, and we can have it all solved in a short time ? Not much has changed indeed. I pushed to have buildbots running before the release, but indeed if buildbots are problematic and the sa

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

installation. rgds jan i > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 15:56 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org ; Dennis Hamilton > Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) > &

RE: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

, December 9, 2014 15:56 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] > I don't understand why full rebuilds are required. The only crucial file > that ne

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

> > > -Original Message- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 08:29 > To: dev; Dennis Hamilton > Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) > > On 9 December 2014 at 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >

RE: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

is also desirable, especially since we are starting from zero using the signing process. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 08:29 To: dev; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) On 9 December 2014

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

ning is a nice way to show our community and users that > AOO is still a major factor in this part of the world. > I'm not arguing against a release or against signing. I'm just pointing out that the scammers are two steps ahead of us, and even with signing most of the problems st

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

don't be offended). To me digital signing is a nice way to show our community and users that AOO is still a major factor in this part of the world. > Regards, > > -Rob > > > > > > > > I'm all for starting with the least that could possibly work, even >

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

s. > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter. > > Marcus wrote: >> Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

any time pressure and can provide signed > binaries from the beginning, so teething and preserving the knowledge may > be easier. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 00:17 > To: dev@openoffice.apa

RE: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

so teething and preserving the knowledge may be easier. -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 00:17 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote: > > On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 > >> Marcus > wrote: > >> > >>> Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why > >> we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where > >> we as project (PM

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why >> we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where >> we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough >> contr

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

Jürgen Schmidt wrote: We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough control. I do have a certificate and access key to the si

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote: > On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 >> Marcus wrote: >> >>> Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenk wrote: > And, I didn't review the

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

But it is as it is and not under my control. Juergen > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Budapest and thereaft

Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

-- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter. Marcus wrote: > Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: >> We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense: >>

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Am 12/08/2014 08:30 PM, schrieb jan i: On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan i wrote: On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 Marcus wrote: Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenk wrote: An

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Am 12/09/2014 12:07 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Marcus wrote: Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense: - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December - 4.1.2 in January IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:30 AM, jan i wrote: > On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan i wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 > >> Marcus wrote: > >> > >> > Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: > >> > >

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Marcus wrote: Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense: - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December - 4.1.2 in January IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources, when doing 2 releases i

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Hi Jan, jan i schrieb: [..] Sorry for being very direct (its my danish style), but we need to get things moving instead of just dreaming...so who will take care of which of the above points ? I have been silent, because I'm not able to do any of that points. Kind regards Regina -

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan i wrote: > > > > > On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 >> Marcus wrote: >> >> > Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: >> > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 >> > > Kay Schenk wrote: >> > > >> >

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 > Marcus wrote: > > > Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 > > > Kay Schenk wrote: > > > > > >> And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully.

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Am 12/08/2014 07:50 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 Marcus wrote: Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenk wrote: And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a decision that we

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 Marcus wrote: > Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 > > Kay Schenk wrote: > > > >> And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a > >> decision that we do not want to provide Linux-3

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenk wrote: And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a decision that we do not want to provide Linux-32 binaries, we need a 32-bit Cent OS 5 buildbot. I'' create a new tick

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote: On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least I cannot see any mentions on this ML. Indeed, and th

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenk wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote: > > > >> On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: > >>> > Maybe its just me, but it se

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote: > >> On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: >>> Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least I cannot see any m

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote: On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least I cannot see any mentions on this ML. Indeed, and thanks for raising it! The two main discussions we h

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i > > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > There was quite a number of AOO meetings in Budapest, with different > > constellasions of people. > > > > Of course no decisions were made, that needs to happen in here, but > > exp

Re: Budapest and thereafter.

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote: > Hi > > There was quite a number of AOO meetings in Budapest, with different > constellasions of people. > > Of course no decisions were made, that needs to happen in here, but > expectations were set. Just to mention one, bring out a release fast, wi

Budapest and thereafter.

Hi There was quite a number of AOO meetings in Budapest, with different constellasions of people. Of course no decisions were made, that needs to happen in here, but expectations were set. Just to mention one, bring out a release fast, with a few bug fixes and digital signing. Some of us was also