Am 31.10.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Dave Fisher:
The implication is that build id, milestone, binaries and svn version must be
in sync across all of OpenOffice.
which is the case already. ;-)
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?
sure, we can split up things. But this would createa nightmare for the
support/forums guys when every platform (language aloso ;-) ) will/can
have different metadata.
So, the problem is not the download script. I'm sure that this can be
enhanced. But do we really want to go this step? I'm not so sure.
Marcus
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
