Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 11.10.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi Sent from my iPhone On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi - Sent from my iPhone On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 10.10.2017 um

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Hi Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus wrote: > >> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher: >> Hi - >> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote: >>> >>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

On 10 Oct, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400 > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? > > > Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the > 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5? > Or call it

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher: Hi - Sent from my iPhone On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote: Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Now the question is, is it OK for

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Hi - Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote: > > Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> >>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month?

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 10.10.2017 um 21:19 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want >> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama > > Yes, let's avoid drama, really. > > But I'll still send this "modest proposal",

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this > "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in > 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > To us a release is/was simply the distributed source package, not a tag in > SVN. But this is a side discussion. > Agreed. But it is a serious discussion since such policy is NOT part of the standard release

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

2017-10-10 21:19 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti : > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want >> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama >> > > Yes, let's avoid drama, really. > > But I'll still send

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Jim Jagielski wrote: I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama Yes, let's avoid drama, really. But I'll still send this "modest proposal", based on experience: 1) We just go ahead and release 4.1.4 as

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia: On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400 Jim Jagielski wrote: Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Am 10.10.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Peter kovacs: I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve together. I also want that Jim continous as RM. @Jim: Please remember that it's allowed to ask for help when you see much work and less time on your side. ;-) Marcus

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve together. I can take over at 4.1.5, if needed, but not before. I am sorry. Because currently I am not up to date about the release and have time restraints until 20th. For 4.1.5 we need to communicate, explain the

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

I hope you will stay on. I am not sure I would have made the same decision as you about the release number, but in my opinion part of the RM role is bike-shedding prevention by making decisions. I hope that the need to test the patch ASAP does not get lost in the discussion of what to call

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Hi all -- It's true that changing from 4.1.4 to 4.1.5 requires a bit of work, but really not all that much. It would be better to have Jim continue as RM regardless IMO and others can pitch in. Once the branch is copied to 4.1.5, others can pitch in to do version updates. Non-committers can

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which is very, very tiring). As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Rest assured that I am on standby for the Windows builds! Whatever version it will be... Am 10.10.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present > to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After > being away

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400 > Jim Jagielski > wrote: > >> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? > > > Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Either way we would have to update the metadata: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127168 It would be quite risky to introduce a fourth digit without testing at this stage... Matthias Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia: > On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400 > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? > > > Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the > 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5? > Or

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > > That's sad news. :( > > I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional > 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.) > However I would not do any building only the organisational part of >

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400 Jim Jagielski wrote: > Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5? Or call it 4.1.4.1 Rory > > > On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM,

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Have we ever released a X.Y.Za? > On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200 > Peter kovacs > wrote: > >> That's sad news. :( >> >> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200 Peter kovacs wrote: > That's sad news. :( > > I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional > 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.) > However I would not do any building only the organisational part of >

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

That's sad news. :( I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.) However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement. If that's fine for all. One

Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog. Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and Linux 32/64 bit builds.