Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-10 Thread Patricia Shanahan
On 10/10/2017 11:49 AM, Marcus wrote: Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Jim Jagielski wrote: I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the way straight to 4.5.0... Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a bigger step in number might be

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-10 Thread Marcus
Am 10.10.2017 um 01:15 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Jim Jagielski wrote: I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the way straight to 4.5.0... Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if we drop some

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-09 Thread Peter kovacs
4.2.0 the idea is we could reference it to Douglas Adams answer 42. Which is kinda funny. However I would like to postpone the discussion towards 20ties since I have .ore time then. Very unselfish of me I know. ;) All the best Peter Am 10. Oktober 2017 01:00:36 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-09 Thread Dave Fisher
Hi - It is worth letting the idea “percolate” while 4.1.4 release proceeds to completion. I like Jm’s thought. Announcing plans while announcing a release and then executing on it would be the the best AOO marketing possible. We proceed with whoever helps methodically. My 2cts. Regards,

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the >> way straight to 4.5.0... >> Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a >> bigger step in number might be

Re: 4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-09 Thread Andrea Pescetti
Jim Jagielski wrote: I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the way straight to 4.5.0... Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if we drop some older supported platforms. We should focus on 4.1.4

4.5.0? (Was: Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS)

2017-10-09 Thread Jim Jagielski
I was wondering... what do people think about going from 4.1.x all the way straight to 4.5.0... Since this next "major" release is pretty major, maybe a bigger step in number might be justified. Especially if we drop some older supported platforms.

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-17 Thread Marcus
Am 17.08.2017 um 14:06 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk. Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-17 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Aug 17, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: >> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk. > > Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does > building with the 10.9 SDK

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-17 Thread Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)
On 17.08.2017 12:51, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: >> The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk. > > Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does > building with the 10.9 > SDK imply that users using Mac OS X <

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-17 Thread Andrea Pescetti
On 16/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk. Is this a build requirement or will it affect end users too? I mean, does building with the 10.9 SDK imply that users using Mac OS X < 10.9 won't be able to run the program? A note:

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
The build warnings and errors using any SDK older than 10.9 on trunk. > On Aug 16, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: >> This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO >> required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. > >

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-16 Thread Andrea Pescetti
On 15/08/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. Required based on what? On the current trunk code, on some architectural limitations, on build environment? We are still receiving the occasional mails of

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
This was based on my understanding that starting w/ 4.2.0, AOO required 10.9/Mavericks or greater. If not correct, could someone let me know :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-15 Thread Peter kovacs
Oh cool! Am 15. August 2017 15:45:05 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead >of 10.7, which helps a lot. > >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: >> >> Boost has name collision with c++11.

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
I am looking at, for 4.2.0, having our target set to 10.9, instead of 10.7, which helps a lot. > On Aug 15, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > > Boost has name collision with c++11. > Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think. > > Am 15. August 2017

Re: AOO 4.2.0 and macOS

2017-08-15 Thread Peter kovacs
Boost has name collision with c++11. Switch the standard of. Then you have better chances I think. Am 15. August 2017 14:22:50 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >Just starting replaying w/ building 4.2.0 on macOS and ran into >this: > >error: no type named 'unique_ptr' in