On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[BCC to the PMC]
>From the Chair,
If this is considered an Apache release and identified as provided by the
Apache OpenOffice project, then the Apache release requirements must be
satisfied.
I know of no records on the AOO project obtaining an exception for this case
from the Foundation. If there are any, please make known where that
information is preserved.
There is no difficulty with the formalities other than requiring patience and
ensuring that certain requirements on release packaging are satisfied. The
recent difficulty is not having enough PMC members who were able to satisfy the
binding vote requirement. So long as there are, as there seem to be now, this
can go forward the same as the previous release that Carl escorted through the
process.
One step that would be useful to take is having some identification of the UNO
Tools version releases that progresses separately from the Apache OpenOffice
main product release cadence. It would be very useful and practical to have a
naming of files and versioning in the source-code release [candidates] that is
distinct from the AOO version progression in some manner, since only some of
these will be bundled in the AOO releases of full OpenOffice. I imagine with
practice, the delivery of the UNO Tools and facilitation of their use by others
will become straightforward.
There was already discussion of ASF release policies on a related thread. Here
is the relevant policy and practice material.
<http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html>, along with
<http://apache.org/dev/release.html>.
Note that any committer (with a registered PGP signature) can pull
together a release, although it is the PMC that is responsible for
assuring its acceptability and approval. Acceptability is also in
specific, narrow terms. See the rules for voting on releases and
what those who vote approval are required to have done. Read from
<http://apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release> down to
just before the Release Distribution topic.
The Apache OpenOffice project does not have autonomy on this matter. A key
responsibility of the PMC is assuring that the release process and its
integrity are achieved and sustained. It happens that the ability of a PMC to
accomplish releases in this manner is an indicator of the project's viability.
If the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee words and
procedurally-approves a narrow, specific request for an exception with regard
to the UNO Tools of Apache OpenOffice, it can be taken to Apache legal and
elsewhere where review and approval at the Foundation level is required.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 04:31
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Releasing the Apache OpenOffice API plugin for NetBeans
Am 03/20/2016 11:29 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 20/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for
availability
at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official
project
releases requiring a vote? ...
@all:
Is there anything that would speak against that Carl is going on with
this procedure from the past?
I suggest that we continue as in the past. The NetBeans plugin is not
related, code-wise, to the OpenOffice "main" releases at all, and we
can
just let Carl maintain it with lazy consensus as usual, with no need
for
a formal release.
that's good. It's also my impression that we don't need any more formal
way.
@Rory:
Sorry, it seems I should have point out my opinion more visible. ;-)
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
I do prefer this is from the project and if it needs a vote that's okay
I can put together instructions.
I just didn't want take people away from other tasks unless that's the
way we want it done.
A few issues I'm not sure how to handle as an official ASF release in
this case.
1. You can host the .NBM artifact somewhere besides NetBeans.org but the
plugin page I referenced would become nothing more than an advertisement
and not count downloads, comments, votes, etc. For those features and
for the NetBeans IDE updater mechanism to work it must be hosted at
NetBeans.org.
Maybe hosted at ASF and Netbeans would count?
2. The artifact is binary only with no source.
3. The artifact must be Java keytool signed and not PGP. At least the
one hosted at Netbeans.org.
4. The artifact is built with the NetBeans IDE which PMC members would
need to install.
Maybe we can come up with an acceptable procedure where the source is
zipped and PGP signed and becomes the release hosted at ASF and a
NetBeans.org compatible artifact is created from it to satisfy both
requirements.
Thanks,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
