On 23/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:
WARNING: This is quite long!
And the discussion was even longer, but I'll start with answering this one.
And I'll first note that:
1) Work is not starting now. We have years of code already committed and
not shown in previous releases.
2) Like for every release, we make plans but at a certain point we have
to cut the release and this "wishlist" is thus a tentative guideline.
*PRIORITIES*
1. Update the localization.
We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1
release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization
updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur,
Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI
translations and Help translations.
Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall
correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages to be
expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think
any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course
improve with time). So in short 4.2.0 means that we can add strings to
the code, which means we can make them available to translators, which
in turn means we can (we have to) update all translations.
We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know
anything about this process.
I'm slowly working on this but I still have something to find/learn.
I've sent the l10n list a mail sending that I'm planning to test a first
import in early September - just to test the process.
2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.
Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an
example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP
since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java
1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7,
otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly
test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide
ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.
3. Issues for inclusion
We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not
include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period.
The version number is not a detail. We call it 4.2.0 since UI changes
are allowed. On the other hand, we don't have to include all patches;
actually, seeing all the code that already went in, I would be more on
the conservative side here.
Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would
surely be worth investigating.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068
These are automatically found defects, good for easy fixes but probably
not really important.
I'd rather suggest that we give some attention to the 4.1.2 regressions,
especially this one (the only one so far):
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622
*BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION*
1. Move to different buildbots?
Not needed. A "nice to have" if they standardize it, but buildbots (I
mean, the Linux version they use) are not so relevant for a release.
2. Configuration Issues
Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is
not the version recommended in our Building Guide.
The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be checked.
*PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* ...
It has
been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries
with this release.
The ASF buildbots and releases cover two different fields. I've been
misunderstood from time to time, but just to make it clear: I would
never want that we use the buildbots for releasing (at least for Linux),
since you want a recent Linux on buildbots and on old Linux on the
release VM (where this VM is hosted can be deferred to a separate thread).
Andrea has volunteered to set up a production environment for us. SEE:
http://markmail.org/message/b4dbjdeu4llczqwt
I see that discussion has been misunderstood. I'll reply there. It
suffices to say, here, that I'm not suggesting to use buildbots for the
release builds. Which basically means I agree with your point of view in
this respect.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org
