Hi Marcus, The implication is that build id, milestone, binaries and svn version must be in sync across all of OpenOffice.
Jim should leave the values the same as the prior release. So 75,000 plus users of Mac may be in limbo not knowing about the update until 4.2 comes out. We will need to announce the situation when we are ready. We won’t do 4.1.5, but then should try to get 4.2 done pretty soon. We can look into the download pages to see about changes for 4.2 allowing different builds for different platforms? This seems the most pragmatic approach given current constraints. Do we all agree? Regards, Dave > On Oct 31, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Marcus <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > > Am 31.10.2017 um 19:09 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> Actually, it looks like buildid (9788) is likely >> should also be bumped, looking at the way downloads >> are done... Do linux and Windows would be m5(9788) >> and mac would be m5(9789) or m6(9789) >> I am *guessing* that the m# is SVN related >> and the buildid number is courtesy build # related?? >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > the new builds would be downloadable as long as they have the same version > number (4.1.4) inside the filenames. > > It's just that the new build ID or milestone number cannot be displayed on > the download webpage as it has to be the same for every platform. > > But I think that this shouldn't be a problem. When the Mac users download the > files, they get the new files and should be happy. > > Marcus > > > >>> It would be easy to bump the build number 414m6 just for macOS. >>> Of course, the date is also changed, even if we keep the same >>> build number. >>> >>> I am up for whatever makes sense. The issue is that it's >>> not a code "problem" at all. >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I do not know if this is the right choice, but we should include doing >>>>> both in our thinking. Rebuild 4.1.4 for Mac only, test, and upload as >>>>> soon as possible. Meanwhile, create, test, and vote on 4.1.5, to pick up >>>>> the upgrade service. >>>> >>>> I agree this what we need to think about. With the new 4.1.4 route we >>>> should make sure that we can tell the difference between the bad original >>>> and the repaired build. Is the date sufficient or would build number be >>>> better? I really don’t like the idea of people being confused about what >>>> they need to do to fix issues. Right now the message is to downgrade to >>>> 4.1.3. >>>> >>>> I would like to know what Andrea and Matthias think since they have been >>>> working with the upgrade system. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/31/2017 9:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>>>>> There have been over 1,000,000 downloads of 4.1.4. How many were of the >>>>>> bad Mac version? >>>>>> If we replace then how would those people know to upgrade? >>>>>> This issue makes me think we need to have this be a new version so that >>>>>> we can setup the upgrade service correctly. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question: Assuming we have "correction" builds available, >>>>>>> what do we do? Simply replace the online version with >>>>>>> these? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
