Status of ASF Ubuntu Buildbots

[Gavin McDonald]

Hi All,

I’ve been working on creating replacement VMs for the deprecated Tethys (10.04 
64bit) , bb-vm2 (12.04 32bit) and bb-vm3 (12.04 32bit).
This work is now complete. 3 VMs replaced with 2 x 14.04 LTS VMs. (As an aside 
there is a 16.04 LTS buildbot available if you want to
do tests on it)

3 builds were moved from Tethys to bb_slave4_ubuntu - the linux64 nightly build 
and the two RAT builds (trunk and aoo410 testing)
All 3 builds are successful currently.

The linux32-nightly and linux32-snapshot builds have been moved from bb-vm2 and 
bb-vm3 to bb_slave5_ubuntu - initial builds are
still being performed.

I reduced the frequency of some builds - I mean why spend 9 hours building and 
uploading language packs every single day, there is 
no need - especially from the aoo410 branch thats seen like 2 commits in 9 
months!

the openoffice.conf file has been updated. Feel free to start tweaking the 
linux32 builds after the initial builds have completed in a day or so.

Any questions, I’m here on list.

Gav…


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

Re: Question about binary upload process

[Andrea Pescetti]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I suspect if I try to personally push all the artifacts, it will take a
lot longer because of the limitations of my home PCs, and cable
supplier. I'm supposed to get "up to" 150 Mbps, but I don't think I get
that all the time.


If your upload speed is in that order of magnitude, then you are more 
than OK; at ~100 Mbps (if this is your upload rate) you would be able to 
upload 750 MBytes per minute, absolutely OK for the size of our 
artifacts. The big unknown remains the ASF server speed.


That said, you needn't upload all artifacts yourself. That is one 
option. But with just a bit of organization we can split the upload 
between multiple PMC members (only PMC members can commit to that 
directory).


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Question about binary upload process

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/9/2016 3:23 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Am 09/09/2016 04:38 PM, schrieb Dave Brondsema:

On 9/8/16 6:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

2) Whoever is in the best position to do so, uploads the binaries to
the ASF.
This can be done also by multiple people, who upload to different
subdirs here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/


I'll expand a bit more: this is done through SVN commit. This page
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing has up-to-date information,
and it's likely Patricia already stumbled upon it.

If you need a more precise estimate, the upload of artifacts took about
48 hours; the upload of the same artifacts to SourceForge took about 2
hours. I hope (and kind of assume) that the ASF servers performance is
now better.


I suspect if I try to personally push all the artifacts, it will take a 
lot longer because of the limitations of my home PCs, and cable 
supplier. I'm supposed to get "up to" 150 Mbps, but I don't think I get 
that all the time.


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

Re: Code signing available for OpenOffice

[Andrea Pescetti]

Mark Thomas wrote:

The infrastructure team has regained access to the OpenOffice code
signing account. If you would like to use it to sign releases please
open an infra ticket and provide the Apache IDs of those committers that
need access.


May I ask if this is the same Symantec system that was rumored to be 
about to be abandoned in early 2016? I hadn't renewed credentials since 
it seemed clear that the ASF would abandon it.


Anyway, thanks for getting access again; just to be clear, it has not 
been discussed so far to use it very soon, but it's good to know that 
the ASF still has signing facilities available.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Question about binary upload process

[Andrea Pescetti]

Marcus wrote:

Am 09/09/2016 04:38 PM, schrieb Dave Brondsema:

On 9/8/16 6:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

2) Whoever is in the best position to do so, uploads the binaries to
the ASF.
This can be done also by multiple people, who upload to different
subdirs here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/


I'll expand a bit more: this is done through SVN commit. This page 
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing has up-to-date information, 
and it's likely Patricia already stumbled upon it.


If you need a more precise estimate, the upload of artifacts took about 
48 hours; the upload of the same artifacts to SourceForge took about 2 
hours. I hope (and kind of assume) that the ASF servers performance is 
now better.



Additionally, as the files are rsync'd up to SourceForge, they start
getting
pushed out to SourceForge's mirrors which can take some time too.  You
can click
the "i" icon for a file to see how many mirrors it is on so far.


In the 4.1.2 case I was quite surprised in positive since the files were 
immediately available for download. Then I don't recall now if I 
activated (with instructions from Marcus) the flag for "staging" it, but 
it was discussed back at the time.



Let me add that Infra provided good support for 4.1.2, especially for
RC1 when
we needed some significant configuration changes to accommodate our
RC. These
changes are now permanent.


Let me also add that that a major breakthrough there was that I was able 
to sit with Infra during ApacheCon and explore multiple solutions. 
Seeing the little interest in attending ApacheCon now, I think we can't 
rely on an ApacheCon sprint now. Though, I think no changes are needed 
at the moment.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[toki]

On 09/09/2016 18:11, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> We should be in touch with what our users, and our potential users, want.

Do you mean something other
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=votes=greaterthan=Bug%20Number_format=advanced=---=100

jonathon

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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Hagar Delest]

Le 09/09/2016 à 20:11, Jim Jagielski a écrit :

One of the great things about FOSS is the tight connection
between users and developers. After all, most developers are
users that have an itch to scratch.

If there are things that the user community wants, then
chances are good that developers will be jazzed about working
on them, or, at least, the pool of potential developers
might be increased.

But open source, and open source projects, should not be
run in a normal, corporate s/w development mode, where some
"entity" decides what features are needed, etc... We should
be in touch with what our users, and our potential users, want.

No need to go very far. There is a bug tracker with Requests For Enhancements 
and votes.

Hagar

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

Code signing available for OpenOffice

[Mark Thomas]

OpenOffice developers,

The infrastructure team has regained access to the OpenOffice code
signing account. If you would like to use it to sign releases please
open an infra ticket and provide the Apache IDs of those committers that
need access.

Note that you can test sign files as much as you like but production
signings cost the ASF real $$$.

If you have any questions, please do get in touch.

Cheers,

Mark

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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Jim Jagielski]

One of the great things about FOSS is the tight connection
between users and developers. After all, most developers are
users that have an itch to scratch.

If there are things that the user community wants, then
chances are good that developers will be jazzed about working
on them, or, at least, the pool of potential developers
might be increased.

But open source, and open source projects, should not be
run in a normal, corporate s/w development mode, where some
"entity" decides what features are needed, etc... We should
be in touch with what our users, and our potential users, want.

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Jorg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> 
>>> LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
>>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
>>> These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
>>> would implement them.
>>> Notable examples are
>>> 1. multi process instances
>>> 2. split MSOffice support in library
>>> 
>>> Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to 
>> differentiate.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why not ask our user community?
> 
> Yes, that would be a theoretically good way, but I fear that's in practice a 
> very
> complicated subject.
> 
> Let me formulate in short: open source communities work mostly meritocratic, 
> not
> democratic
> 
> 
> Jorg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Differentiate or Die

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Simos Xenitellis  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
> These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
> would implement them.
> Notable examples are
> 1. multi process instances
> 2. split MSOffice support in library
> 
> Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to differentiate.
> 

Why not ask our user community?


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

Re: Question about binary upload process

[Marcus]

Am 09/09/2016 04:38 PM, schrieb Dave Brondsema:

On 9/8/16 6:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

we have a lot of binaries to upload.
Could someone with experience or knowledge of the process tell me a bit
about how it is done, how long it takes, and what, if anything, it costs
ASF?


Sure. This changed just days before 4.1.2, but it still holds.

1) You create the binaries. These might be created by different people too. At
the end, you have a few dozen Gigabytes. Note: this must be done for every
release candidate; we had 3 for 4.1.2; I recommend choosing things/issues wisely
so that 4.1.3 can aim at having only 1 RC (i.e., getting the first one right).

2) Whoever is in the best position to do so, uploads the binaries to the ASF.
This can be done also by multiple people, who upload to different subdirs here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
For all the 4.1.2 RCs I did it alone, from a good connection, and it took an
absurd number of hours since the connection was slow on the ASF side. Speed may
be better now (honestly, I don't see how speed could be worse). A good trick was
to upload artifacts to people.apache.org and commit from there: this was much
faster, but Infra has now disallowed it by (almost) decommissioning
people.apache.org

3) Only the final one must be uploaded to SourceForge; I copy/paste from
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 section "Upload
builds to mirrors". "Volunteers: Andrea Pescetti - Copy requires just a few
hours, with the normal rsync instructions shown at
https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/File%20Management/ (project name
is openofficeorg.mirror). Set new files as "Latest Version": done by Marcus
Lange see http://s.apache.org/uaj "; you probably don't have admin permissions
for the OpenOffice project on SourceForge, but all other members can give you
admin access. Just ask.



Additionally, as the files are rsync'd up to SourceForge, they start getting
pushed out to SourceForge's mirrors which can take some time too.  You can click
the "i" icon for a file to see how many mirrors it is on so far.

I recommend creating the 4.1.3 directory via the web interface, which will let
you "stage" it, meaning it will be hidden from common visitors.  After all the
files are uploaded and at least several mirrors have them, you can "unstage" the
directory at the official release time.

If you have any issues with it, support staff via
https://sourceforge.net/support should be responsive, or reach out to me
directly and I'll be glad to help.


oh yes, the staging feature is a great help. Thanks for your offer. We 
will upload the files and come back to you when we need help.


Marcus




4) On dist, moving from dev to the actual tree is just a matter of svn mv. This
at least is very fast.

5) Costs: we use standard ASF infrastructure here, and our own time. Costs for
the ASF are just the ordinary running costs that they wpuld have even if we
don't release anything. Waste of storage space due to storing in SVN hundreds of
GBytes of non-approved RCs was not an issue last time I spoke to Infra about 
this.

Let me add that Infra provided good support for 4.1.2, especially for RC1 when
we needed some significant configuration changes to accommodate our RC. These
changes are now permanent.


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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Jörg;

...

> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]

> The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions
> about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about
> software that has zero cost.
>
> I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have
> millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader
> does but
> with 0% of the price."


No, the success of free software is not a question of price.


The success of free software is based on many things, of which price is 
only one of them. In the case of OpenOffice I sustain that the main 
factor for success is that end-users perceive it as free as in price. 
That and not the fact that we have less developers than other projects 
or that we are not being distributed in major linux distributions 
accounts for the project being successful today.




The development model of free software is something else, but it's not free. 
That is not the
goal.

read:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html


The GNU copyleftists have always struggled with economics but that is 
rather off-topic.


The notion of living on distribution costs is a dead end from a gone 
era. Distribution costs have diminished hugely with the Internet, in 
such a way that even commercial producers sell more software online than 
on CDs. Have you ever paid for using GCC, or do you know anyone that 
would prefer clang because it's cheaper to download?


Nowadays, support is likely the mayor source of revenue for independent 
developers and publicity is the mayor source of revenue for content 
producers.




Furthermore:
The development and use of OpenOffice is not free, because developers have to 
be paid by their
companies or donate their own time. Users have cost for installation, 
maintenance and staff
training.
Absolutely, just compiling the code involves electricity costs, but the 
end user doesn't have to carry the burden. Many don't even know or have 
to be aware of the costs involved.


No one has really quantified the real cost of producing OpenOffice and 
then if we charged even just $1 we would more than cover what we spend 
in development (100 million in budget.. yay!).




The work of Apache is also not free, because Apache needs donations to be able 
to work.

For example see:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html

on:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html

you can see that the sum of the sponsorship is (currently, per year):

Platinum: 700,000$
Gold: 320,000$
Silver: 260,000$
Bronze: 90,000$



Such costs existed before OpenOffice was an Apache Project, and we can't 
at all quantify how much OpenOffice's value is for the Apache Software 
Foundation.


Have there been more donations thanks to OpenOffice? And then .. if 
Microsoft or Google make a donation to the ASF does it mean either of 
them is in direct support of OpenOffice?


Part of the appeal of the ASF is making use of Foundation resources like 
buildbots and mailinglists but noways anyone can fork they own codebase 
on github, enable travis-ci and distribute the code through other means. 
Money is important everywhere but it is not an absolute truth that 
opensource necessarily obeys market rules.


Pedro.

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Phillip Rhodes
 wrote:
> Sure, I don't claim it's a perfect analogy between "their" world and the
> world of F/OSS.
> But I think the broad point generalizes well enough to apply to us:
>
> Have *some* differentiating factor that defines why a group of people would
> find your
> product more desirable than the other options.
>
> If, for us, that is "it's almost like MS Office, but free" and we're good
> with that, then that's
> cool.  But I kinda think we ought to stretch for something a little more
> specific, especially
> given that "almost like MS Office, but free" isn't a unique position.
>
> And I'm not proposing any big, elaborate "process" or suggesting we
> radically change
> directions (unless we want too!) but rather just saying we could/should
> spend some
> time thinking about what makes AOO special.
>

LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
would implement them.
Notable examples are
1. multi process instances
2. split MSOffice support in library

Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to differentiate.

Simos

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>> > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
>>
>> > The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions
>> > about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about
>> > software that has zero cost.
>> >
>> > I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have
>> > millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader
>> > does but
>> > with 0% of the price."
>>
>>
>> No, the success of free software is not a question of price.
>>
>> The development model of free software is something else, but it's not
>> free. That is not the goal.
>>
>> read:
>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
>>
>> Furthermore:
>> The development and use of OpenOffice is not free, because developers have
>> to be paid by their companies or donate their own time. Users have cost for
>> installation, maintenance and staff training.
>>
>> The work of Apache is also not free, because Apache needs donations to be
>> able to work.
>>
>> For example see:
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html
>>
>> on:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
>>
>> you can see that the sum of the sponsorship is (currently, per year):
>>
>> Platinum: 700,000$
>> Gold: 320,000$
>> Silver: 260,000$
>> Bronze: 90,000$
>>
>>
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: Differentiate or Die

[Phillip Rhodes]

Sure, I don't claim it's a perfect analogy between "their" world and the
world of F/OSS.
But I think the broad point generalizes well enough to apply to us:

Have *some* differentiating factor that defines why a group of people would
find your
product more desirable than the other options.

If, for us, that is "it's almost like MS Office, but free" and we're good
with that, then that's
cool.  But I kinda think we ought to stretch for something a little more
specific, especially
given that "almost like MS Office, but free" isn't a unique position.

And I'm not proposing any big, elaborate "process" or suggesting we
radically change
directions (unless we want too!) but rather just saying we could/should
spend some
time thinking about what makes AOO special.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

>
> > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
>
> > The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions
> > about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about
> > software that has zero cost.
> >
> > I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have
> > millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader
> > does but
> > with 0% of the price."
>
>
> No, the success of free software is not a question of price.
>
> The development model of free software is something else, but it's not
> free. That is not the goal.
>
> read:
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
>
> Furthermore:
> The development and use of OpenOffice is not free, because developers have
> to be paid by their companies or donate their own time. Users have cost for
> installation, maintenance and staff training.
>
> The work of Apache is also not free, because Apache needs donations to be
> able to work.
>
> For example see:
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html
>
> on:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
>
> you can see that the sum of the sponsorship is (currently, per year):
>
> Platinum: 700,000$
> Gold: 320,000$
> Silver: 260,000$
> Bronze: 90,000$
>
>
>
> Jörg
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Question about binary upload process

[Dave Brondsema]

On 9/8/16 6:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> we have a lot of binaries to upload.
>> Could someone with experience or knowledge of the process tell me a bit
>> about how it is done, how long it takes, and what, if anything, it costs
>> ASF?
> 
> Sure. This changed just days before 4.1.2, but it still holds.
> 
> 1) You create the binaries. These might be created by different people too. At
> the end, you have a few dozen Gigabytes. Note: this must be done for every
> release candidate; we had 3 for 4.1.2; I recommend choosing things/issues 
> wisely
> so that 4.1.3 can aim at having only 1 RC (i.e., getting the first one right).
> 
> 2) Whoever is in the best position to do so, uploads the binaries to the ASF.
> This can be done also by multiple people, who upload to different subdirs 
> here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> For all the 4.1.2 RCs I did it alone, from a good connection, and it took an
> absurd number of hours since the connection was slow on the ASF side. Speed 
> may
> be better now (honestly, I don't see how speed could be worse). A good trick 
> was
> to upload artifacts to people.apache.org and commit from there: this was much
> faster, but Infra has now disallowed it by (almost) decommissioning
> people.apache.org
> 
> 3) Only the final one must be uploaded to SourceForge; I copy/paste from
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 section "Upload
> builds to mirrors". "Volunteers: Andrea Pescetti - Copy requires just a few
> hours, with the normal rsync instructions shown at
> https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/File%20Management/ (project name
> is openofficeorg.mirror). Set new files as "Latest Version": done by Marcus
> Lange see http://s.apache.org/uaj "; you probably don't have admin permissions
> for the OpenOffice project on SourceForge, but all other members can give you
> admin access. Just ask.
> 

Additionally, as the files are rsync'd up to SourceForge, they start getting
pushed out to SourceForge's mirrors which can take some time too.  You can click
the "i" icon for a file to see how many mirrors it is on so far.

I recommend creating the 4.1.3 directory via the web interface, which will let
you "stage" it, meaning it will be hidden from common visitors.  After all the
files are uploaded and at least several mirrors have them, you can "unstage" the
directory at the official release time.

If you have any issues with it, support staff via
https://sourceforge.net/support should be responsive, or reach out to me
directly and I'll be glad to help.

> 4) On dist, moving from dev to the actual tree is just a matter of svn mv. 
> This
> at least is very fast.
> 
> 5) Costs: we use standard ASF infrastructure here, and our own time. Costs for
> the ASF are just the ordinary running costs that they wpuld have even if we
> don't release anything. Waste of storage space due to storing in SVN hundreds 
> of
> GBytes of non-approved RCs was not an issue last time I spoke to Infra about 
> this.
> 
> Let me add that Infra provided good support for 4.1.2, especially for RC1 when
> we needed some significant configuration changes to accommodate our RC. These
> changes are now permanent.
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



-- 
Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
  <><

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

Re: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

Even ignoring trolls is tiring work :)

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

Re: Release process and 4.1.3

[Andrea Pescetti]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release+Planning+Template
It is what I would want to do for a major release with user interface
changes.


Yes, that one is the template for a 4.2.0, not for a 4.1.3 release.


We also need something far, far more agile for getting simple bug fix
releases out quickly and easily. I propose using 4.1.3 as a test case
for a stripped down process.


Actually, 4.1.2 was exactly this. Your starting point should thus be 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 ; just 
copy the wiki page and edit/generalize accordingly.



No string changes means we do not need the "String freeze" or
"Translation phase" steps. No significant changes to external
interfaces, combined with a small number of relatively simple fixes,
eliminates the "Beta Release" phase.


This is the difference between a "micro" (third digit) and a "minor" 
(second digit) release. Calling it 4.1.3 implies all of this, barring 
exceptional situations.



We still need to pick the bug fixes to go in the release, construct a
release candidate, test it, write release notes etc.


This is all covered in the link I sent. There might be some steps that 
need better clarification though.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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