jan i wrote:
It seems (as usual) that the discussion has died out, and nobody does
anything (my apologies in advance I am wrong, I would very much like to be
wrong).
You are wrong (so it's good news!), but not so much. I started looking
at it only 2 days ago and I didn't get far enough yet. I'm stuck in
activating access due to a procedural issue being addressed by Infra; so
I don't have the key, but only a preliminary password; and I haven't
shared credentials with anyone else at the moment. Anyway, I concur this
is a priority.
My suggestion is simple, lets rerun AOO 4.1 for windows, sign it digitally,
and then release it as a patch version.
As 4.1.1? As 4.1.2? From what machines? This is where the discussion is
(not where it stopped). And it is a very concrete issue, not some
theoretical stupidity.
I'll state what I deem unacceptable (we can discuss it if you have
different opinions, maybe your views on item C are different?):
A) It is unacceptable that the next OpenOffice release is not signed
B) It is unacceptable to call something 4.1.2 and release it on Windows only
C) It is unacceptable to call something 4.1.2 if it is 100% identical to
4.1.1 on Linux and Mac
D) It is unacceptable that the build is not the same quality as 4.1.1
(in terms of compatibility with Windows versions and so on); this risk
is quite remote on Windows from what I see.
So I already wrote the two options, that can even coexist:
1) Put online new 4.1.1 Windows binaries
2) Create a 4.1.2 with minor updates and bugfixes, cherry-picking some
trunk updates. If we choose that 4.1.2 will be a quick release, we may
leave all translation updates out of it (Pootle is aligned to trunk at
the moment).
I would favor option 2, provided we agree quickly (say, in one week) on
what we get in it. You'll be happy to know that I have already
shortlisted a few bugs that I see relevant for 4.1.2 (list available on
request or in separate discussion).
I am happy to help, especially with the signing, but to help I need access
to the certificate given to the PMC, and somebody who can make a release
windows build.
I can take care of the certificate part, which as I wrote move forward
in the last couple of days. For sure, I can't help you with Windows
builds. So you are saying you will need someone else, like Juergen?
Steps are simple:
1) make a full build, pick all DLL, JAR and EXE from the object tree
2) Sign them, or let me help with that
3) Overwrite the object tree with the signed artifacts
4) run build but on postprocess (generate new setup package)
5) Sign the installer or let me help with that
6) Upload and start vote
7) Upload to dist and be happy.
What is stopping us from doing something that simple ?
This is OK for option 1 (the 4.1.1 replacement). Not quite for option 2,
meaning that in that case you need the builds in all platforms. But
Juergen wrote recently that he still volunteers to provide them, so
indeed this is quite feasible.
And please lets not cloud this simple step, by missing buildbots etc.
In option 1, you only need a Windows machine. In option 2, you need all
release build machines. Assuming we have them, I see no other obstacles;
we will eventually need buildbots, but these are no longer a
prerequisite as I recently wrote. So let's indeed clarify if we want to
go for 1 or 2 (or for something else) and then just do it.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
