Re: New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[Andrea Pescetti]

Peter Kovacs wrote:

openoffice.org3.4-freedesktop-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
openoffice.org3.4-redhat-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
openoffice.org3.4-mandriva-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
openoffice.org3.4-suse-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm

These are highly experimental test versions. Even when we agreed that
the code revision is good for release.


This thread has lot of confusion, but I'll clarify some details:

1. The "openoffice.org3.4" files obviously have nothing to do with the 
4.1.6 release. If JD found them somewhere in 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.6-RC1/ this is a 
bug - but it would be strange.


2. Peter is correct in saying that you install with (actually)
$ sudo rpm -Uvh *.rpm
and this will give you a perfectly working OpenOffice but no menu 
integration.


3. The "desktop-integration" packages are NOT experimental. They are 
stable and work well, even though we could maintain them better. You 
install what works best for your case (you must pick one); in my 
experience, the "freedesktop-menus" one works well everywhere (and you 
get the new nice high-resolution icons too!).


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[Peter Kovacs]

No you are responsible for doing so.

These are highly experimental test versions. Even when we agreed that
the code revision is good for release.

May I ask what do you want to do with OpenOffice-4.1.6-RC1?


On 11.11.18 19:07, JD wrote:
> But you have a directory in the directory where the rpm's are.
> How are the rpm's in the subdirectory chosen, since only one of them
> should be selected?
>
> For example, in the directory
> OO-en-US/RPMS
> exists the directory desktop-integration/
> which in turn contains
> openoffice.org3.4-freedesktop-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
> openoffice.org3.4-redhat-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
> openoffice.org3.4-mandriva-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
> openoffice.org3.4-suse-menus-3.4-9593.noarch.rpm
>
> So, does the package install manager know which of these
> desktop integration menus to pick up for the OS at hand?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2018 09:47 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> Normally the package manager knows the right order. That why you have it.
>>
>> you load everything you want to update in one folder and then say
>> *rpm -Uvih *rpm*.
>>
>> As it is mentioned in our Howto [1], btw.
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Installation/How_do_I_install_OpenOffice.org_on_Linux%3f
>>
>> On 11.11.18 17:14, JD wrote:
>>
>>> Since there are several rpm files in each release,
>>> do you have a script that will install the rpm files
>>> in the correct order, rather than leaving it to the
>>> user to provide the filenames to dnf, or yum or whatver
>>> installation program is available?
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2018 08:04 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
 On 11/11/2018 09.02, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> Hello Infra,
>
> we have a new Release ready. Can you prepare the Servers for the new
> Update? (On our Release Sheet it mentions you have to do something.)
>
> Please inform us on the time needed, and when ready.

 There shouldn't be anything needed on our end, presuming you're
 using the standard process. We have consolidated services a while
 back, in part to not have to worry about things like AOO releases.

>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>


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


>>>
>>>
>

Re: New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[Peter Kovacs]

Normally the package manager knows the right order. That why you have it.

you load everything you want to update in one folder and then say *rpm
-Uvih *rpm*.

As it is mentioned in our Howto [1], btw.


All the best

Peter

[1]
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/Installation/How_do_I_install_OpenOffice.org_on_Linux%3f

On 11.11.18 17:14, JD wrote:

> Since there are several rpm files in each release,
> do you have a script that will install the rpm files
> in the correct order, rather than leaving it to the
> user to provide the filenames to dnf, or yum or whatver
> installation program is available?
>
> On 11/11/2018 08:04 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 11/11/2018 09.02, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>> Hello Infra,
>>>
>>> we have a new Release ready. Can you prepare the Servers for the new
>>> Update? (On our Release Sheet it mentions you have to do something.)
>>>
>>> Please inform us on the time needed, and when ready.
>>
>> There shouldn't be anything needed on our end, presuming you're using
>> the standard process. We have consolidated services a while back, in
>> part to not have to worry about things like AOO releases.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>

Re: New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[JD]

Since there are several rpm files in each release,
do you have a script that will install the rpm files
in the correct order, rather than leaving it to the
user to provide the filenames to dnf, or yum or whatver
installation program is available?

On 11/11/2018 08:04 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

On 11/11/2018 09.02, Peter Kovacs wrote:

Hello Infra,

we have a new Release ready. Can you prepare the Servers for the new
Update? (On our Release Sheet it mentions you have to do something.)

Please inform us on the time needed, and when ready.


There shouldn't be anything needed on our end, presuming you're using 
the standard process. We have consolidated services a while back, in 
part to not have to worry about things like AOO releases.





Thank you.


All the best

Peter




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

Re: New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[Daniel Gruno]

On 11/11/2018 09.02, Peter Kovacs wrote:

Hello Infra,

we have a new Release ready. Can you prepare the Servers for the new
Update? (On our Release Sheet it mentions you have to do something.)

Please inform us on the time needed, and when ready.


There shouldn't be anything needed on our end, presuming you're using 
the standard process. We have consolidated services a while back, in 
part to not have to worry about things like AOO releases.





Thank you.


All the best

Peter




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

New OpenOffice Release 4.1.6 Release Preperations

[Peter Kovacs]

Hello Infra,

we have a new Release ready. Can you prepare the Servers for the new
Update? (On our Release Sheet it mentions you have to do something.)

Please inform us on the time needed, and when ready.


Thank you.


All the best

Peter


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

Thats right :)

> On Sep 15, 2018, at 4:07 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
> 
> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
> 
> At least this is my understanding...
> 
> Regards,
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> 
>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Okay I had a look now.
 
 I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
 
 I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
 
 Are these all of them?
 
 
 - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
 note the issue number. :(
 
 
 Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
 still to add from the dev list?
>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>> 
 All the best
 
 Peter
 
 On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
> And then off we go, I Think.
> 
> 
> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
> is moving to 4.2.0.
> 
> 
> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
> :
>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>> 
>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
 they
>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>> Definitely!
>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>> 
>>> How to proceed?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>  Matthias
>>> 
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>  wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> How about this one:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>> wouldn't
>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>> and
>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>> understand
>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>> 
>> In general, release blockers should be:
>> - important bugfixes for users
>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>> newer
>> Windows release... just an example)
> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
> 
> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>> finally
> find its way into a release.
> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
> 
> Regards,
> Matthias
> 
>> Regards,
>>Andrea.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> -
> 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
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

+1

On 9/16/18 10:21 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Am 16.09.2018 um 22:08 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.

should we change milestone now too?

I did for one issue (already committed)
But the other one hasn't 4.1.6 in the list.

@Marcus:
Maybe you can help (again)?

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793



On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
release blocker?

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736

According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.


On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Awesome! thanks a lot.

+ I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.

And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
worked them through.

Thanks!
You left two requests (from me) open...
Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?

Regards,
  Matthias


On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...

That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
"relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
don't
have sufficient rights...

I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
with the correct user names. ;-)

Please check for yourself if it's working now.

Marcus




On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
forward.

Regards,
    Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have
now. I
want to
add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the
4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
that
they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community
build
for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we
need to
make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
     Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was
just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected,
so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer
JRE,
or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as
"blocker"...

Regards,
    Matthias


Regards,
   Andrea.

-

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


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 16.09.2018 um 22:08 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.
>
> should we change milestone now too?

I did for one issue (already committed)
But the other one hasn't 4.1.6 in the list.

@Marcus:
Maybe you can help (again)?

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793

>
>
> On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
>>> release blocker?
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>
>> According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
>> And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.
>>
>>> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>
> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>
> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
> worked them through.
 Thanks!
 You left two requests (from me) open...
 Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?

 Regards,
  Matthias

> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
 No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
 And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

 At least this is my understanding...
>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>> "relman"
>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>
>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
>>> don't
>>> have sufficient rights...
>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>
>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>
>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>
>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>> reports.
>>>
>>> Are these all of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
>>> have to
>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>>> wants
>>> still to add from the dev list?
>> There are more to come... ;-)
>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>> forward.
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have
 now. I
 want to
 add one patch concerning mailmerge.
 And then off we go, I Think.


 I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the
 4.1.x
 series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
 else
 is moving to 4.2.0.


 Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
 :
> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
> RM on
> whether it really is one or not ;)
>
> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>>> that
>>> they
> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community
> build
> for
> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we
> need to
> make
> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
> patches and
> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Matthias
>>
 On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
 Hi Andrea,

 Am 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.

should we change milestone now too?


On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
release blocker?

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736

According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.


On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Awesome! thanks a lot.

+ I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.

And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
worked them through.

Thanks!
You left two requests (from me) open...
Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?

Regards,
     Matthias


On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...

That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
"relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
don't
have sufficient rights...

I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
with the correct user names. ;-)

Please check for yourself if it's working now.

Marcus




On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
forward.

Regards,
   Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

  I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
want to
add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
that
they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
    Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
   Matthias


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
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


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
> release blocker?

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736

According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.

>
> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>>
>>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>>
>>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>>> worked them through.
>> Thanks!
>> You left two requests (from me) open...
>> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Matthias
>>
>>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
 Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>
>> At least this is my understanding...
> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
> "relman"
> in our Bugzilla?!
>
> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
> don't
> have sufficient rights...
 I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
 with the correct user names. ;-)

 Please check for yourself if it's working now.

 Marcus



>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
> reports.
>
> Are these all of them?
>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
> have to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
> wants
> still to add from the dev list?
 There are more to come... ;-)
 If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
 forward.

 Regards,
   Matthias

> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>  I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>> want to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>> else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> :
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
>>> RM on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
 On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
 Hi Jim,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
> that
> they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>>> for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>> make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>> patches and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
 Definitely!
 We already have some release blocker asked for.

 How to proceed?

 Regards,
    Matthias

>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
>>> releases, it
>>> wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>> zero-risk
>>> and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a release 
blocker?


On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Awesome! thanks a lot.

+ I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.

And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
worked them through.

Thanks!
You left two requests (from me) open...
Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?

Regards,
    Matthias


On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...

That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
"relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
have sufficient rights...

I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
with the correct user names. ;-)

Please check for yourself if it's working now.

Marcus




On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.

Regards,
  Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

     I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
want to
add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
   Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
  Matthias


Regards,
     Andrea.


-
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





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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>
> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>
> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
> worked them through.

Thanks!
You left two requests (from me) open...
Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
 No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
 And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

 At least this is my understanding...
>>>
>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>> "relman"
>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>
>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>>> have sufficient rights...
>>
>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>
>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>
>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>
>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>> reports.
>>>
>>> Are these all of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>> still to add from the dev list?
>> There are more to come... ;-)
>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Matthias
>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
     I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
 want to
 add one patch concerning mailmerge.
 And then off we go, I Think.


 I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
 series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
 else
 is moving to 4.2.0.


 Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
 :
> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
> whether it really is one or not ;)
>
> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>> they
> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
> for
> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
> make
> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
> patches and
> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Matthias
>>
 On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
 Hi Andrea,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
> wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
> zero-risk
> and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
> understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
> compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
> or a
> newer
> Windows release... just an example)
 This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

 It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
 would
> finally
 find its way into a release.
 There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

 Regards,

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Awesome! thanks a lot.

+ I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.

And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and 
worked them through.


On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...


That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
have sufficient rights...


I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully 
with the correct user names. ;-)


Please check for yourself if it's working now.

Marcus




On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 
reports.


Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.

Regards,
 Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
    I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I 
want to

add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to 
make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches 
and

fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
  Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it

wouldn't
make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is 
zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new 
compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, 
or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
 Matthias


Regards,
    Andrea.



-
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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Marcus]

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...


That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
have sufficient rights...


I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully 
with the correct user names. ;-)


Please check for yourself if it's working now.

Marcus




On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.

Regards,
     Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

    I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
  Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
     Matthias


Regards,
    Andrea.



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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter kovacs]

I do not have those rights. Probably because my bugzilla user is an account. I 
tried to switch to my apache address but I failed.
The account name is an leginee account at Google mail service.

Am 15. September 2018 10:34:31 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>
>> At least this is my understanding...
>
>That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>"relman"
>in our Bugzilla?!
>
>I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>have sufficient rights...
>
>Matthias
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>reports.
>
> Are these all of them?
>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have
>to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>wants
> still to add from the dev list?
 There are more to come... ;-)
 If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>forward.

 Regards,
     Matthias

> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>    I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want
>to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> :
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM
>on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
 On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
 Hi Jim,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>that
> they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches
>and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
 Definitely!
 We already have some release blocker asked for.

 How to proceed?

 Regards,
  Matthias

>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases,
>it
>>> wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>zero-risk
>>> and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>or a
>>> newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>would
>>> finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>    Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>-
>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>
> At least this is my understanding...

That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
in our Bugzilla?!

I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
have sufficient rights...

Matthias

>
> Regards,
>    Matthias
>
>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Okay I had a look now.

 I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

 I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.

 Are these all of them?


 - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
 note the issue number. :(


 Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
 still to add from the dev list?
>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>     Matthias
>>>
 All the best

 Peter

 On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>    I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
> And then off we go, I Think.
>
>
> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
> is moving to 4.2.0.
>
>
> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
> :
>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>
>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
 they
>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>> Definitely!
>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>
>>> How to proceed?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>  Matthias
>>>
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>  wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> How about this one:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>> wouldn't
>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>> and
>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>> understand
>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>
>> In general, release blockers should be:
>> - important bugfixes for users
>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>> newer
>> Windows release... just an example)
> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>
> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>> finally
> find its way into a release.
> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>
> Regards,
>     Matthias
>
>> Regards,
>>    Andrea.
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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
> -
> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.

At least this is my understanding...

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>
>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>
>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>>
>>> Are these all of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>> still to add from the dev list?
>> There are more to come... ;-)
>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Matthias
>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
    I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
 add one patch concerning mailmerge.
 And then off we go, I Think.


 I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
 series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
 is moving to 4.2.0.


 Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
 :
> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
> whether it really is one or not ;)
>
> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>> they
> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Matthias
>>
 On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
 Hi Andrea,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
> wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
> and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
> understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
> newer
> Windows release... just an example)
 This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

 It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
> finally
 find its way into a release.
 There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

 Regards,
     Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?

On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
note the issue number. :(


Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.

Regards,
    Matthias


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
:

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
     Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
    Matthias


Regards,
   Andrea.



-

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

-
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






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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>
> Are these all of them?
>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> still to add from the dev list?

There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> :
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
 On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
 Hi Jim,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
 Definitely!
 We already have some release blocker asked for.

 How to proceed?

 Regards,
     Matthias

>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>> wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>> and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>> newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>> finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>> -
>> 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
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

My idea would be to create another flag in Bugzilla for patches that do
not qualify as "blocker" but would be "nice to have"...

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
> Windows release... just an example)
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 9/10/2018 2:56 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Keith N. McKenna <
> keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>>


 On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna 
 wrote:

> 
>>
>> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>> releases.
>>
>> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6
>> --
>>
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
>> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>>
>> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone
>> can
>> always modify the query.
>>
>> HTH.
> Kay;
>
> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
> have set it as shared.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>

 Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly.
>> I'll
 fix tomorrow and notify the list.

>>>

> 
>
>
>>> HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You
>> need
>>> to be a registered BZ user to view it.
>>>
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
>>> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
>>>
>>>
>> Kay;
>>
>> The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
>> limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
>> as being there and usable and works perfectly.
>>
>> Keith
>>
> 
> Keith --
> When I look at the message I originally sent with the link, the line is not
> wrapped. Could a setting with your email client be causing the
> wrapping/truncation?
> 
> The query should only return 9 entries.
> 
> 
> 
 I meant the link in the message that you had fixed it.

Keith



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Keith N. McKenna <
keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 
> 
>  I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>  releases.
> 
>  I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6
> --
> 
>  https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
> >>> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
>  (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
> 
>  Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
> >>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>  AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone
> can
>  always modify the query.
> 
>  HTH.
> >>> Kay;
> >>>
> >>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
> >>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
> >>> have set it as shared.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Keith
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly.
> I'll
> >> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>>  >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You
> need
> > to be a registered BZ user to view it.
> >
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
> > list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
> >
> >
> Kay;
>
> The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
> limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
> as being there and usable and works perfectly.
>
> Keith
>

Keith --
When I look at the message I originally sent with the link, the line is not
wrapped. Could a setting with your email client be causing the
wrapping/truncation?

The query should only return 9 entries.



-- 
--
MzK

"Less is MORE."

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 

 I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
 releases.

 I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --

 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
>>> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
 (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)

 Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
 AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
 always modify the query.

 HTH.
>>> Kay;
>>>
>>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
>>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
>>> have set it as shared.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
>> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
>>
> 
>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
> HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You need
> to be a registered BZ user to view it.
> 
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
> 
> 
Kay;

The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
as being there and usable and works perfectly.

Keith




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna 
> wrote:
>
>> 
>> >
>> > I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>> > releases.
>> >
>> > I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
>> >
>> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
>> list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
>> > (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>> >
>> > Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>> > AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
>> > always modify the query.
>> >
>> > HTH.
>> Kay;
>>
>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
>> have set it as shared.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>
> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
>

>
>> >
>>
>>
HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You need
to be a registered BZ user to view it.

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem;
list_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run


-- 
--
MzK

"Less is MORE."

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 09/09/2018 Matthias Seidel wrote:

But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
enabled the flag at that time.


It worked now: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127712

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna 
wrote:

> 
> >
> > I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
> > releases.
> >
> > I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
> >
> >
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
> > (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
> >
> > Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
> > AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
> > always modify the query.
> >
> > HTH.
> Kay;
>
> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
> have set it as shared.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>

Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
fix tomorrow and notify the list.


> 
>
>

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Keith N. McKenna]

> 
> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
> releases.
> 
> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
> 
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
> 
> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to https://bz.apache.org/ooo
> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
> always modify the query.
> 
> HTH.
Kay;

I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
have set it as shared.

Regards
Keith



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

Hi all --

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> > Okay I had a look now.
> >
> > I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
> >
> > I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
> >
> > Are these all of them?
>
> I don't know your list, can you post the issue numbers?
> Or just the filter string?
>
> >
> >
> > - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> > note the issue number. :(
> >
> >
> > Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> > still to add from the dev list?
>
> I have a lot of them, but they do not qualify as blocker.
> But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
> enabled the flag at that time.
>
> Regards,
>Matthias
>

I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
releases.

I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem_id=236879=4.1.6_blocker_requested=run
(I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)

Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to https://bz.apache.org/ooo
AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
always modify the query.

HTH.


> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> >>   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
> >> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
> >> And then off we go, I Think.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
> >> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
> >> is moving to 4.2.0.
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
> >> :
> >>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
> >>> whether it really is one or not ;)
> >>>
> >>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
> >>>
>  On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
> >>>  wrote:
>  Hi Jim,
> 
>  Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
> >>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
> >>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
> >>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
> >>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>  Definitely!
>  We already have some release blocker asked for.
> 
>  How to proceed?
> 
>  Regards,
>  Matthias
> 
> >> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
> >>>  wrote:
> >> Hi Andrea,
> >>
> >> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> >>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>  How about this one:
>  https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>  It fixes a typo in the build process.
> >>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> >>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
> >>> wouldn't
> >>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
> >>> and
> >>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
> >>> understand
> >>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
> >>>
> >>> In general, release blockers should be:
> >>> - important bugfixes for users
> >>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> >>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
> >>> newer
> >>> Windows release... just an example)
> >> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
> >>
> >> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
> >>> finally
> >> find its way into a release.
> >> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>Matthias
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>   Andrea.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> 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
> >> -
> >> 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: 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>
> Are these all of them?

I don't know your list, can you post the issue numbers?
Or just the filter string?

>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> still to add from the dev list?

I have a lot of them, but they do not qualify as blocker.
But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
enabled the flag at that time.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>   I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> :
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
 On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
 Hi Jim,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
 Definitely!
 We already have some release blocker asked for.

 How to proceed?

 Regards,
     Matthias

>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>  wrote:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>> wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>> and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>> newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>> finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>> -
>> 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
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Okay I had a look now.

I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.

I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.

Are these all of them?


- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to note 
the issue number. :(



Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants 
still to add from the dev list?


All the best

Peter

On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

  I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to add one 
patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x series gets 
maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
whether it really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!


On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they

can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
fixes, as feasible for those users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
Matthias


On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.

This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it

wouldn't

make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk

and

(unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I

understand

if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.

In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a

newer

Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would

finally

find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
   Matthias


Regards,
  Andrea.



-

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

-
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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 07.09.2018 um 14:53 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I am going to hold off until we have some stuff in AOO416, other than 
> external lib upgrades, which are different from AOO415

I just wanted to do test builds to see if it builds again after some
patches broke the build process...
No problems at the moment.

>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether 
>>> it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>> Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/
>>
 On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Hi Jim,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can 
> use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older 
> platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as 
> good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as 
> feasible for those users.
 Definitely!
 We already have some release blocker asked for.

 How to proceed?

 Regards,
   Matthias

>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

I am going to hold off until we have some stuff in AOO416, other than external 
lib upgrades, which are different from AOO415

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it 
>> really is one or not ;)
>> 
>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
> 
> Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can 
 use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older 
 platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as 
 good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as 
 feasible for those users.
>>> Definitely!
>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>> 
>>> How to proceed?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>   Matthias
>>> 
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> How about this one:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>> 
>> In general, release blockers should be:
>> - important bugfixes for users
>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>> Windows release... just an example)
> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
> 
> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
> find its way into a release.
> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
> 
> Regards,
>  Matthias
> 
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>> 
>> -
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it 
> really is one or not ;)
>
> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!

Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/

>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can 
>>> use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older 
>>> platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good 
>>> and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible 
>>> for those users.
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>>Matthias
>>
 On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Hi Andrea,

 Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
> Windows release... just an example)
 This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

 It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
 find its way into a release.
 There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

 Regards,
   Matthias

> Regards,
>  Andrea.
>
> -
> 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
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

 I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to add one 
patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.


I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x series gets 
maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else is moving to 4.2.0.


Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>whether it really is one or not ;)
>
>BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for 
>older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>fixes, as feasible for those users.
>> 
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>> 
>> How to proceed?
>> 
>> Regards,
>>Matthias
>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
 
 Hi Andrea,
 
 Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
> 
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>newer
> Windows release... just an example)
 This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
 
 It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>finally
 find its way into a release.
 There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
 
 Regards,
   Matthias
 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
>
>-
> 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

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it 
really is one or not ;)

BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can 
>> use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older 
>> platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good 
>> and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for 
>> those users.
> 
> Definitely!
> We already have some release blocker asked for.
> 
> How to proceed?
> 
> Regards,
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>> 
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
 Matthias Seidel wrote:
> How about this one:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
> It fixes a typo in the build process.
 This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
 maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
 make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
 (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
 if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
 
 In general, release blockers should be:
 - important bugfixes for users
 - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
 - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
 Windows release... just an example)
>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>> 
>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>>> find its way into a release.
>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>   Matthias
>>> 
 Regards,
  Andrea.
 
 -
 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Jim,

Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, 
> since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older platforms 
> (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as 
> stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those 
> users.

Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.

How to proceed?

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 How about this one:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
 It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>>Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
>>> 
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
>>> 




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, 
since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for  older platforms (eg: 
CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and 
as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.

> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> How about this one:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>> 
>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>> 
>> In general, release blockers should be:
>> - important bugfixes for users
>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>> Windows release... just an example)
> 
> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
> 
> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
> find its way into a release.
> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
> 
> Regards,
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
>> 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
>> 

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
> Windows release... just an example)

This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)

It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...

Regards,
   Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel wrote:

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.


This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a maintenance 
release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't make sense to 
include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and (unfortunately) 
4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand if we try to 
backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.


In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer 
Windows release... just an example)


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 01.09.2018 um 12:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Sorry. I thought I send the answer. Yes Please.

Done!

How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736

It fixes a typo in the build process.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> Am 1. September 2018 10:07:38 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
> :
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> any opinion on this one?
>> Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that
>> purpose?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in
>> adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
 However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another
>> time and context.
 I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And
>> since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I
>> think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
>>> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit
>> to
>>> 4.1.6.
>>>
>>> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>>>
>>> My first suggestion would be:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1830998
>>>
>>> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by
>> default
>>> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>    Matthias
>>>
 Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti
>> :
> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion.
>> The 
> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for
>> bugfixes, 
> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>
> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already
>> now. 
> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
> comes.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
>> -
> 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


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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Sorry. I thought I send the answer. Yes Please.

Am 1. September 2018 10:07:38 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Hi Peter,
>
>any opinion on this one?
>Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that
>purpose?
>
>Regards,
>
>   Matthias
>
>
>Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in
>adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
>>> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another
>time and context.
>>>
>>> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And
>since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I
>think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
>> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit
>to
>> 4.1.6.
>>
>> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>>
>> My first suggestion would be:
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1830998
>>
>> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by
>default
>> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
>>> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti
>:
 On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
> This patch could be embedded in this release?
 I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion.
>The 
 patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
 shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for
>bugfixes, 
 and actually only for important bugfixes.

 But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already
>now. 
 We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
 comes.

 Regards,
   Andrea.


>-
 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
>>>
>>>
>>

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

any opinion on this one?
Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that purpose?

Regards,

   Matthias


Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding 
>> configuration changes to bugfix releases.
>> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and 
>> context.
>>
>> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we 
>> want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is 
>> more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit to
> 4.1.6.
>
> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>
> My first suggestion would be:
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1830998
>
> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by default
> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>
> Regards,
>    Matthias
>
>> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti 
>> :
>>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
 This patch could be embedded in this release?
>>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The 
>>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
>>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, 
>>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>>
>>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. 
>>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>>> comes.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>>
>>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding 
> configuration changes to bugfix releases.
> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and 
> context.
>
> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we want 
> to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is more 
> suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.

+1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit to
4.1.6.

But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.

My first suggestion would be:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1830998

This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by default
on Windows (like on all other platforms).

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti 
> :
>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The 
>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, 
>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>
>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. 
>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>> comes.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> -
>> 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
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Jim,

Am 29.08.2018 um 13:29 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Agreed. Maybe it's a topic of discussion for 4.2.0 but not really suited for 
> a patch release (ie: 4.1.6)
>
>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>
>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The patch 
>> swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus shouldn't be 
>> applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, and actually only 
>> for important bugfixes.

Our first priority now should be to make 4.1.6 buildable again.
It breaks on Windows and Linux due to patches in libxslt. See my mail
from yesterday.

That should be fixed as soon as possible.

Regards,
   Matthias

>>
>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. We 
>> may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>>
>> -
>> 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
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

Agreed. Maybe it's a topic of discussion for 4.2.0 but not really suited for a 
patch release (ie: 4.1.6)

> On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
> 
> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The patch 
> swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus shouldn't be 
> applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, and actually only 
> for important bugfixes.
> 
> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. We may 
> want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.
> 
> Regards,
>  Andrea.
> 
> -
> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding 
configuration changes to bugfix releases.
However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and 
context.

I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we want 
to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is more 
suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.


Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti :
>On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>
>I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The 
>patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
>shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, 
>and actually only for important bugfixes.
>
>But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. 
>We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>comes.
>
>Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>-
>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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
This patch could be embedded in this release?


I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The 
patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus 
shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, 
and actually only for important bugfixes.


But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. 
We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[FR web forum]

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
This patch could be embedded in this release?

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 28.08.2018 um 00:05 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.
>
> Sure, no problem.
>
>> But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)
>
> Here it is:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127639

Thanks, worked like a charm!

Only one thing:
I had to manually change PREVIOUS_VERSION in openoffice.lst to 4.1.5.

>
> And its destination if of course somewhere under devtools.

Uploaded to devtools/updateVersion.

Regards,
   Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel wrote:

Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.


Sure, no problem.


But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)


Here it is:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127639

And its destination if of course somewhere under devtools.

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 27.08.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Yes please bumb version number.
> If there is not much complication we could also update the English dictionary.

Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.

But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>
>
> Am 27. August 2018 19:18:26 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
> :
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> Thanks Matthias!
>> You're welcome!
>>
>>> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>> :
 Done!

 Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>> We should now bump up the version number.
>>
>> I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Matthias
>>
 Regards,

    Matthias


 Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>
>> svn copy
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
 "Branch
>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>
>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
> Yes, that should work.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
>> -
> 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
>>>
>>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Yes please bumb version number.
If there is not much complication we could also update the English dictionary.



Am 27. August 2018 19:18:26 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Hi Peter,
>
>Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>> Thanks Matthias!
>
>You're welcome!
>
>>
>> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>:
>>> Done!
>>>
>>> Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>
>We should now bump up the version number.
>
>I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?
>
>Regards,
>   Matthias
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
 Matthias Seidel wrote:
> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>
> svn copy
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>>> "Branch
> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>
> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
 Yes, that should work.

 Regards,
   Andrea.


>-
 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
>>
>>

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> Thanks Matthias!

You're welcome!

>
> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
> :
>> Done!
>>
>> Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?

We should now bump up the version number.

I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?

Regards,
   Matthias

>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
 I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:

 svn copy
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>> "Branch
 off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"

 is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>> Yes, that should work.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter kovacs]

Thanks Matthias!

Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Done!
>
>Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>
>Regards,
>
>   Matthias
>
>
>Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>>
>>> svn copy
>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>"Branch
>>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>>
>>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>
>> Yes, that should work.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> -
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Done!

Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?

Regards,

   Matthias


Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>
>> svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>
>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>
> Yes, that should work.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel wrote:

I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:

svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"

is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?


Yes, that should work.

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 26.08.2018 um 22:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
>>> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
>>> script locally to update constants and other settings.
>> Is there a planned date to create the branch?
>> Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
>
> The earlier the better. Now is a good moment. Without the branch we
> can't move on; if Peter has temporary SVN issues anybody can create it
> and set it up as described above.

I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:

svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"

is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?

Regards,
   Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel wrote:

Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
script locally to update constants and other settings.

Is there a planned date to create the branch?
Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?


The earlier the better. Now is a good moment. Without the branch we 
can't move on; if Peter has temporary SVN issues anybody can create it 
and set it up as described above.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter kovacs]

I would have done already. But the last time I had tried i could not check-in 
anything.
So the Idea is asap.
I wrote that I have dissifultiea to progress.

:( 

Am 25. August 2018 17:33:09 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Just for better understanding:
>>> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do
>we
>>> have to branch first and then run the script?
>>
>> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
>> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
>> script locally to update constants and other settings.
>
>Is there a planned date to create the branch?
>Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
>
>Regards,
>   Matthias
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> -
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Just for better understanding:
>> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
>> have to branch first and then run the script?
>
> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
> script locally to update constants and other settings.

Is there a planned date to create the branch?
Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?

Regards,
   Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[FR web forum]

Hi,
I submit a patch from Github:
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/27c0241d4ef1b2cd62c0327e22f48381ff0ce40f.patch
Is it possible to commit in 4.1.6?


- Mail original -
> De: "Jim Jagielski" 
> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Envoyé: Lundi 20 Août 2018 15:38:20
> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
> 
> A good place to start is:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
> 
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6+Release+Planning
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

A good place to start is:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6+Release+Planning



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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Peter kovacs  wrote:
> 
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release 
> Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
> 

Great news! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ping me. I believe that as 
I went thru the last few releases, I updated the wiki as I did so with 
additional information, etc...


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and procedures: 
> for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing the builds. I hope 
> Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just one last time" once 
> again. Once we are OK with build providers, the release is just a matter of 
> coordination.
> 

Yes, I am up for doing the 4.1.6 Linux?CentOS and macOS builds ;)


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Peter Kovacs wrote:
However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password 
right or do I need to use a passkey?


Password authentication is fine. It's unlikely that your user is banned: 
often you will be able to reset your password at id.apache.org


The KEYS file is described in detail here:
https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html

Note that it is recommended to annotate your key with something like 
"(CODE SIGNING KEY)" or "(Release signing key)". If you open

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
you'll see examples.

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel wrote:

Just for better understanding:
Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
have to branch first and then run the script?


It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the 
AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the 
script locally to update constants and other settings.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

Hmpf I think I am banned.

I wrote an email to infra.

On 8/18/18 7:53 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

I try my best.

However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my 
password right or do I need to use a passkey?



On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Matthias Seidel ha scritto:

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer 
for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer 
for it.

That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.


Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add 
your code signing key to

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS

The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can 
cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have 
scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.



And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.


Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and 
procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into 
producing the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X 
VMs for "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build 
providers, the release is just a matter of coordination.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
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



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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Andrea,

Am 18.08.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>> for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for
>> it.
>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>
> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
> code signing key to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>
> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.

As soon as we have a branch AOO416 I will also switch the buildbots over.

Just for better understanding:
Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
have to branch first and then run the script?

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
> the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for
> "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers,
> the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

I try my best.

However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password 
right or do I need to use a passkey?



On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Matthias Seidel ha scritto:

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer 
for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for 
it.

That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.


Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your 
code signing key to

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS

The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can 
cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have 
scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.



And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.


Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and 
procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing 
the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for 
"just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, 
the release is just a matter of coordination.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Andrea Pescetti]

Matthias Seidel ha scritto:

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:

I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release 
Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.

If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.


Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your 
code signing key to

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS

The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can cherry-pick 
patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have scripts to do it 
automatically, so just ask in case.



And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.


Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and 
procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing 
the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just 
one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, the 
release is just a matter of coordination.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release 
> Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.

Great!

If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.

And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs :
>> I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>>
>> do not see a chance.
>>
>>
>> On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>>> This release will fix it?
>>>
>>> - Mail original -
>>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" 
>>>> À: "OOo Apache" 
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>>
>>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>>> :
>>>>>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>>>>>> failed on this.
>>>>>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> conning Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
>>>>>> 4.1.6 I
>>>>>> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> beta phase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Back to the topic:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>>>>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
>>>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>>>>>>> sympathy
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
>>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer
>>>>>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
>>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>>> have other pro

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter kovacs]

I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release 
Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.

Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs :
>I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>
>do not see a chance.
>
>
>On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>> This release will fix it?
>>
>> - Mail original -
>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" 
>>> À: "OOo Apache" 
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>
>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>
>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>> :
>>>>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>>>>> failed on this.
>>>>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
>>>>> is
>>>>> conning Wednesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
>>>>> 4.1.6 I
>>>>> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>>>>> one
>>>>> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>>>>> the
>>>>> beta phase.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Back to the topic:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
>>>>>> described
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
>>>>>> We
>>>>> have
>>>>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
>>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>>>>>> sympathy
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer
>>>>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>>>>>> fault
>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>

AOO 4.1.6 Release Planning - release Manager

[Peter kovacs]

Thanks very much Kay.

We should select a release Manager. Are there any volunteers?

All the Best
Peter


 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: "Kay Schenk (Confluence)" 
Gesendet: 12. August 2018 23:00:02 MESZ
An: legi...@gmail.com
Betreff: [CONF] Apache OpenOffice Community > AOO 4.1.6 Release Planning

There's 1 new edit on this page     AOO 4.1.6 Release Planning   Kay Schenk 
edited this page Here's what changed: 

The purpose of the following table is to provide a schedule plan for a new 
release planning.

It is desired for a new major release (x.y like 4.1) but it could be also used 
for a minor release (x.y.z like 4.1.1).

  


 

Phases and steps in scheduleDateResponsibleCommentFeature freeze

Start

?Committer  

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Update version / milestone / build ID data in SVN 

e.g., "4.1.0" --> "4.2.0"

?Developer  

Create new branch in SVN for the new release

?Developer  

Create Release Notes (RN) in Confluence Wiki 

Use page name like "AOO+X.Y.Z+Release+Notes
Example: AOO 4.0.1 Release Notes 

?Committer  

String freeze



Start

?NL community  

Update RN with new languages

?Release Manager  

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Translation phase



Changes in strings for the application UI and Help as well as for dictionaries



Start

?NL community  

End

?NL community  

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Code freeze



Start

?Committer  

Start release blocker mode (aka show stopper mode)

?Release Manager  

Commit changes to reflect the upcoming release: 

Version number, build ID, build date+time, copyright year

?Release Manager  

Update all bundled dictionaries

?L10N list  

Update RN with latest changes

?All people  

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager Beta ReleaseDateResponsibleComment 

Build the RC

?Release Manager  

Update Wiki page to make the files available 

Development Snapshot Build 

Make sure the files have the correct access permissions

?Release Manager  

Start vote

?Release Manager  

Announce vote on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Start Beta testing phase

?QA  

Update RN with latest changes

?All people  

Start translating RN

?NL community  

Announce it on dev@ (+ qa@, l10n@)

?Release Manager  

End Beta testing phase

?QA  

Announce vote results on dev@ (+ qa@, l10n@)

?Release Manager  

Upload files to Apache Dist/SourceForge 

Make sure to set the staging bit for the Beta directory

?Release Manager  

Update download scripting  – javascript  files in /download

See [1] in the next table below for details

?Committer  

Remind the release blocker mode 

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager Release CandidateDateResponsibleComment 

Build the RC

?Release Manager  

Update Wiki page to make the files available

Development Snapshot Builds 

Make sure the files have the correct access permissions

Update devbuilds.html 

?Release Manager  

Start vote

?Release Manager  

Announce vote on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Start RC testing phase

?QA  

Update RN with latest changes

?All people  

Update translating RN

?NL community  

Announce it on dev@ (+ qa@, l10n@)

?Release Manager  

End RC testing phase

?QA  

End vote (date *and* time in UTC timezone)

?Release Manager  

Announce vote results on dev@ (+ qa@, l10n@)

?Release Manager  

General Availability

DateResponsibleComment 

Prepare



Upload files to Apache Dist/SourceForge 

Make sure to set the staging bit for the RC directory

?Release Manager  

Update download scripting 

See [2] in the next table below for details

?Committer  

Verify RN if all is correct

?All people  

Public Announcement of GA 

Announce it on announce@, dev@

?Release Manager  

Update feeds 

Supply dummy file for next release version

Use input files and scripts from: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/genUpdateFeed/ 

? 

Committer

 

  

After release job



Update data in Bugzilla:

Add/modify values for: 

"Version", "Target milestone", "Release blocker flag", "Last Confirmation on"

?BZ Admin  

Update version / milestone / build ID data in SVN: 

e.g., "4.1.0" --> "4.2.0"

?Developer  

Update "www.openoffice.org" homepage: 

Create new blog and/or news entry

Update news entry on homepage

Update headline below the logo

?Committer  

Update DOAP file: 

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/site/trunk/content/openoffice.rdf 

?Committer  

Create a "kid" build: 

This helpful and often asked for translation testing.

Announce it on dev@, qa@, l10n@

?Release Manager  

Commit update feeds 

Commit generated feeds to appropriate areas: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/updates-site/trunk/ 

?Committer  


[1] Beta Release:
Update download scripting (main download area) 

Object prope

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I 
do not see a chance.



On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:

Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
This release will fix it?

- Mail original -

De: "Jim Jagielski" 
À: "OOo Apache" 
Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release

No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.


On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs 
wrote:

Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.

Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
:

I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
failed on this.
Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
is
conning Wednesday.

I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
4.1.6 I
agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
one
maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
the
beta phase.


Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
:

Back to the topic:

If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
described
here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release

That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
We

have

to get 4.2.0 releasable!

Regards,

Matthias


Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:

Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus 

wrote:

Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we

decided

that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
was,
if they
want something they should support us. This is not showing

sympathy

for a
small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years

until

they
have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
gstreamer
Topic can
be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I

have

pointed
out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
now I
think we
have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my

fault

that I
put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck
for

me.

In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then
one

topic

received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude
that
anyone
has stopped caring at this point in time.


Let us conclude for now:
4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could
think

of

maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of
maintenance.

Some

support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to
search
someone for
this.
I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it
up.


incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.

PS:
CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another

~2.5

years.

4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta

release.

Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7.
Building
without
gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code
in
trunc CentOS
6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it
easy to
back port
patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of

CentOS6.

In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to
something
newer.
To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.

And it is only relevant on Linux, right?

IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the
CentOS
version we
also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a

much

bigger
impact for our users.

​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the

32-bit

Linux
downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be
moving

away

from
32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
impact this
will have overall though.

I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so,
a
solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net

stats

I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).

BTW:
Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And
not

the

OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.

OS%
---
Windows86,1165
Macintosh 7,8424
Unknown 4,9012
Linux 1,0621
Android 0,0762
BSD 0,0011
Solaris 0,0006

But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux
will
be for 64-bit.

Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?

Marcus




On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:

What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with
Ant
1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x
with

Java 8.

Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No
response

from

other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagiels

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

 related issue making it unsuited for
AOO... ie,
we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
may be
stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our

continued

support
for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
us... It's
these little things that make significant ripples in our
eco-system and we
seem to not really care about that anymore.

On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel


wrote:

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
wrote:

Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.

Even

if we
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we

have

some stuff to
get out to the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
security.
Containing some security fixes, plus


- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3


What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can

use

it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done

with

AOO

4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
  Matthias




-

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

-
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




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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[FR web forum]

Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
This release will fix it?

- Mail original -
> De: "Jim Jagielski" 
> À: "OOo Apache" 
> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
> 
> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
> 
> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
> > timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
> > 
> > Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
> > :
> >> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
> >> failed on this.
> >> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
> >> is
> >> conning Wednesday.
> >> 
> >> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
> >> 4.1.6 I
> >> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
> >> one
> >> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
> >> the
> >> beta phase.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
> >> :
> >>> Back to the topic:
> >>> 
> >>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
> >>> described
> >>> here:
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
> >>> 
> >>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
> >>> We
> >> have
> >>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> 
> >>>Matthias
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
> >>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus 
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
> >>> decided
> >>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
> >>>>>>> was,
> >>>>>>> if they
> >>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
> >>> sympathy
> >>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
> >>> until
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
> >>>>>>> gstreamer
> >>>>>>> Topic can
> >>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I
> >> have
> >>>>>>> pointed
> >>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
> >>>>>>> now I
> >>>>>>> think we
> >>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
> >>> fault
> >>>>>>> that I
> >>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck
> >>>>>>> for
> >>> me.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then
> >>>>>>> one
> >>> topic
> >>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> anyone
> >>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
> >>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could
> >>>>>>> think
> >> of
> >>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of
> >>>>>>> maintenance.
> >>> Some
> >>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to
> >>>>>>> search
> >>>>>>> someone for
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it
> >>>>>>> up.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>&

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

out this special topic*.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS
>>>>>> version we
>>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a
>> much
>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>>> 32-bit
>>>>> Linux
>>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving
>>> away
>>>>> from
>>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>>> impact this
>>>>> will have overall though.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
>>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net
>> stats
>>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>> 
>>>> BTW:
>>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not
>>> the
>>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>> 
>>>> OS%
>>>> ---
>>>> Windows86,1165
>>>> Macintosh 7,8424
>>>> Unknown     4,9012
>>>> Linux 1,0621
>>>> Android 0,0762
>>>> BSD 0,0011
>>>> Solaris 0,0006
>>>> 
>>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>> 
>>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>> 
>>>> Marcus
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>>> Java 8.
>>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>>> from
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>>> plus
>>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our
>> continued
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we
>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done
>> with
>>> AOO
>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>  Matthias
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> -
>>>> 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
> 
> -
> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter kovacs]

nloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving
>>away
>>>> from
>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>> impact this
>>>> will have overall though.
>>>
>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net
>stats
>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>
>>> BTW:
>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not
>>the
>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>
>>> OS    %
>>> ---
>>> Windows    86,1165
>>> Macintosh 7,8424
>>> Unknown 4,9012
>>> Linux 1,0621
>>> Android 0,0762
>>> BSD 0,0011
>>> Solaris 0,0006
>>>
>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>
>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>>Java 8.
>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>>from
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>>plus
>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our
>continued
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>>Even
>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we
>have
>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>>use
>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done
>with
>>AOO
>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>  Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>-
>>> 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

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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Marcus]

 *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
may be
stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
support
for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
us... It's
these little things that make significant ripples in our
eco-system and we
seem to not really care about that anymore.

On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel


wrote:

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
wrote:


Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.

Even

if we
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
some stuff to
get out to the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
security.
Containing some security fixes, plus


- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3


What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can

use

it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with

AOO

4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
  Matthias



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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Patricia Shanahan]

 sympathy and understanding for those who
may be
stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
support
for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
us... It's
these little things that make significant ripples in our
eco-system and we
seem to not really care about that anymore.

On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel


wrote:

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
wrote:


Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.

Even

if we
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
some stuff to
get out to the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
security.
Containing some security fixes, plus


- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3


What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can

use

it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with

AOO

4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
  Matthias



-
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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

t
>the
>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>
>> OS    %
>> ---
>> Windows    86,1165
>> Macintosh 7,8424
>> Unknown 4,9012
>> Linux 1,0621
>> Android 0,0762
>> BSD 0,0011
>> Solaris 0,0006
>>
>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>> be for 64-bit.
>>
>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>Java 8.
>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>from
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>plus
>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>Even
>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>use
>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with
>AOO
>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>  Matthias
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

nal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from
>>>>> other
>>>>> members!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>> may be
>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even
>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>  Matthias
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

Considering the # of macOS related downloads, and the fact that pretty much 
every module that is ported to the gbuild system breaks the macOS build 
(currently trying to resolve the lingucomponent issues), could I suggest that 
we hold off on the dmake->gbuild migration for awhile? 
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

; As
>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from
>>>>> other
>>>>> members!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO...
>>>>>> ie,
>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us...
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>>>>>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
>>>>>>>>> stuff to
>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>  Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
--
MzK

"Less is MORE."

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Marcus]

Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus  wrote:


Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they
want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a
small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they
have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can
be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed
out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we
have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I
put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.

In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
has stopped caring at this point in time.


Let us conclude for now:
4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for
this.
I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.



incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.

PS:
CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.

4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.

Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS
6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port
patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.



In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.

And it is only relevant on Linux, right?

IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we
also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger
impact for our users.


​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux
downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from
32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this
will have overall though.


I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0 discussion 
is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a solution could be 
indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats I get the following 
(2018-01-01 until today).


BTW:
Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the 
OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.


OS  %
---
Windows 86,1165
Macintosh7,8424
Unknown  4,9012
Linux1,0621
Android  0,0762
BSD  0,0011
Solaris  0,0006

But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will be 
for 64-bit.


Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?

Marcus




On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:



What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie,
we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support
for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's
these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we
seem to not really care about that anymore.

On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel 

wrote:

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:


Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to
get out to the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
Containing some security fixes, plus


- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3


What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
 Matthias



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: de

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus  wrote:

> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>
>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if they
>> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy for a
>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until they
>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer Topic can
>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have pointed
>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I think we
>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I
>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.
>>
>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone
>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>
>>
>> Let us conclude for now:
>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone for
>> this.
>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>
>
> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>
> PS:
> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.
>
> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without
>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc CentOS
>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to back port
>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.
>>
>
> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer.
> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>
> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>
> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version we
> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much bigger
> impact for our users.
>

​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit Linux
downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away from
32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what impact this
will have overall though.

​


>
> My 2 ct.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>
>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>
>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>> Nothing else.
>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
>>> members!
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>
>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie,
>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>
>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be
>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support
>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's
>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we
>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some 
>>>>>>> stuff to
>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
--
MzK

"Less is MORE."

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Marcus]

Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided 
that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if 
they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy 
for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years 
until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the 
gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version. 
Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the 
issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in 
4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the 
front line, but that stuck for me.


In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic 
received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone 
has stopped caring at this point in time.



Let us conclude for now:
4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of 
maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some 
support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone 
for this.

I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.


incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.

PS:
CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5 years.

4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. 
Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without 
gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc 
CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to 
back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of 
CentOS6.


In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something newer. 
To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.


And it is only relevant on Linux, right?

IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS version 
we also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much 
bigger impact for our users.


My 2 ct.

Marcus




On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:

What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus 
had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... 
ie, we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.


How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may 
be stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued 
support for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for 
us... It's these little things that make significant ripples in our 
eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.


On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel 
 wrote:


Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:

Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if 
we manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have 
some stuff to get out to the people.


Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
Containing some security fixes, plus



- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3

What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use 
it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 
4.1.x.


But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
    Matthias



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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Peter Kovacs]

I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided 
that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was, if 
they want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy 
for a small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years 
until they have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the 
gstreamer Topic can be solved after we have released a beta version. 
Damjan and I have pointed out a lot of possible ways to deal with the 
issue. Just for now I think we have other problems then gstreamer in 
4.2.0. I think it is my fault that I put that argument so much in the 
front line, but that stuck for me.


In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic 
received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that anyone 
has stopped caring at this point in time.



Let us conclude for now:
4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of 
maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some 
support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search someone 
for this.

I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.

4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release. 
Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building without 
gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in trunc 
CentOS 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to 
back port patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of 
CentOS6.


All these decisions can wait a little longer. For me that is the current 
strategy.
@Jim: I hope you see there is a lot of "in the flow" around the topic. 
And it depends also on how the project manages in the future.


On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:

What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some 
sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to 
use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ older 
machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" systems 
is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things that make 
significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care about that anymore.


On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel  wrote:

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:

Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage to 
get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out to 
the people.

Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing 
some security fixes, plus


- Java 8 Update 172
- Apache Ant 1.10.3

What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?

What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
Matthias


-
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






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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant 1.9.12. As
long as we use Java 8.

But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
Nothing else.
To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from other
members!


Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some 
> sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* 
> to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>
> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck 
> w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for 
> "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these 
> little things that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to 
> not really care about that anymore.
>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we 
>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff 
>>>> to get out to the people.
>>>>
>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.
>>
>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>
>> Regards,
>>Matthias
>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus had some 
sort of security related issue making it unsuited for AOO... ie, we *needed* to 
use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.

How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who may be stuck w/ 
older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued support for "older" 
systems is the only real thing we have going for us... It's these little things 
that make significant ripples in our eco-system and we seem to not really care 
about that anymore.

> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> 
>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everbody.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage 
>>> to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get 
>>> out to the people.
>>> 
>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
> 
> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.
> 
> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
> 
> Regards,
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
>>
>> Hi everbody.
>>
>>
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage 
>> to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out 
>> to the people.
>>
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>
>>
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?

What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use it... ;-)
My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO 4.1.x.

But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?

Regards,
   Matthias

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




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> Hi everbody.
> 
> 
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage 
> to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out 
> to the people.
> 
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. Containing 
> some security fixes, plus
> 
> 
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3

What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Kay,

Am 01.07.2018 um 23:51 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> Hi *,
>
> If 4.1.6 would contain some needed security fixes, by all means, it
> needs to be released as soon as possible.
>
> Some questions --
>
> Will Java 8  then be the minimum version to use 4.1.6?
> Because Ant is only used for building, this should not affect any
> end-user requirements, right?

Java 8 will only be used for building. The end user should be able to
use Java 7 or Java 8.
Not sure about Java 6, but that has been EOL for a long time.

(Speaking for Windows, I don't know how the other platforms will be built)

> Would 4.1.6 still be using gstreamer 0.10?

Yes.

>
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 08:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> Hi everbody.
>>
>>
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
>> stuff to get out to the people.
>>
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>
>>
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>  - some minor fixes
>>
>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
>> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
>> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>>
>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
>> 4.1.6 branch.
>>
>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Am 03.07.2018 um 19:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> As soon as we have a repo branch setup, I'll kick off Linux and macOS builds.

I'll do the Windows builds... ;-)

>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Marcus  wrote:
>>
>> Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage 
>>> to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get 
>>> out to the people.
>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>>  - some minor fixes
>>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. I 
>>> would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL capabilities to 
>>> merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 
>>> branch.
>>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
>> +1
>>
>> I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.
>>
>> 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
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Jim Jagielski]

As soon as we have a repo branch setup, I'll kick off Linux and macOS builds.

> On Jul 3, 2018, at 1:11 PM, Marcus  wrote:
> 
> Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we manage 
>> to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff to get out 
>> to the people.
>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>  - Java 8 Update 172
>>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>>  - NSIS 3.03
>>  - some minor fixes
>> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. I 
>> would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL capabilities to 
>> merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 
>> branch.
>> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
> 
> +1
> 
> I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.
> 
> 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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Marcus]

Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we 
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff 
to get out to the people.


Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
Containing some security fixes, plus



  - Java 8 Update 172
  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
  - Mozilla Build 3.2
  - NSIS 3.03
  - some minor fixes

I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release. 
I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL 
capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)


I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6 
branch.


Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)


+1

I can test builds on Linux 64-bit.

Marcus


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Peter,

Am 01.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi everbody.
>
>
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some
> stuff to get out to the people.
>
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
>
>
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
>
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to
> release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
>
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into
> 4.1.6 branch.
>
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)

Obviously a +1 from me! ;-)

But apart from preparing the code we must not forget these two issues:

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127530
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127789

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 7/1/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> Hi everbody.
> 
> 
> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we
> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some stuff
> to get out to the people.
> 
> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security.
> Containing some security fixes, plus
> 
> 
>  - Java 8 Update 172
>  - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>  - Mozilla Build 3.2
>  - NSIS 3.03
>  - some minor fixes
> 
> I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to release.
> I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL
> capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)
> 
> I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 4.1.6
> branch.
> 
> Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Peter
Sounds good especially if there are security fixes that need to be pushed.

Keith




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

[Carl Marcum]

Hi Peter,


On 07/01/2018 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

Hi everbody.


I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even if we 
manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have some 
stuff to get out to the people.


Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on security. 
Containing some security fixes, plus



 - Java 8 Update 172
 - Apache Ant 1.10.3
 - Mozilla Build 3.2
 - NSIS 3.03
 - some minor fixes

I think Matthias patch set is a nice small and good bundle, to 
release. I would only like to add a patch from Bugzilla which adds SSL 
capabilities to merge mail. (Has been a topic recently)


I suggest we create and merge all patches collected together into 
4.1.6 branch.


Is there support for bringing this out and test it? :)


All the best

Peter



I should be available to test builds in July.

I'll be unavailable a few weeks in mid-August for vacation.

Best regards,
Carl


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