Am 08.03.19 um 17:01 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus:
Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
++1
On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
<matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote:
As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
(public) beta.
But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
"official" we can base our discussions on.
So here is my proposal:
We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
developer snapshot.
This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged
before
we create the tag.
March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated
English
dictionary.
The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
hashes and PGP signatures.
It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
Opinions?
Would we limit the distribution as follows?
We would not distribute to SourceForge.
We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list
of links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what
we have available now. ;-)
Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-)
The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates.
ah, OK. When have we changed from Beta to Dev Snapshot? Sorry, I think
I've missed this point of time.
Marcus
We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but
not allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure
with Infra first)
We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to
all of our openoffice.apache.org <http://openoffice.apache.org/>
mailing lists.
We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a
way to solve user issues.
(I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this
version from www.apache.org/dist/ <http://www.apache.org/dist/>.)
Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org>
wrote:
Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when
I have
time.
My own release checklist would include:
1. Library audit.
1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since
the
4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting
everything and
then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
possible.
1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older
gbuild
modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map
files back
then.
1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both
4.1.0 and
4.2.0?
2. Base:
2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new
SDBC-JDBC
bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++
one, fix any
differences.
2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users,
groups,
etc.
2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the
Base UI
forms (like MySQL already is).
3. Crashreporter
3.1 Get it working again.
3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now
obsolete
server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
4. Testing
4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module
integration
tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
regressions.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel
<matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
wrote:
IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a
(public)
beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can
export
the latest translations from Pootle.
At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF
files still
need to be updated in source.
[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
