PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME FOR ALL APACHE.ORG EMAILS! -----Original Message----- From: Kay sch...@apache.org [mailto:ksch...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:14 PM To: AOO Dev Apache Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org; l10n@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics
Hello all-- I think it would be valuable to discuss some general issues/ideas with the upcoming 4.2 release. My plan is to keep this general discussion "in play" until Sat, Sept 3, then do a summary with what was agreed to. WARNING: This is quite long! *PRIORITIES* 1. Update the localization. We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1 release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur, Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI translations and Help translations. We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know anything about this process. This is a very high priority and it would be good to port translations over to our main repository as soon as possible for testing. 2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7 I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7 for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today. Java 1.5 went out of support by Oracle in November, 2009. We use OpenJDK but I'm sure updates for Java 1.5 through that channel are also no longer available. Even Java 1.7 has reached end of life by Oracle for public support as of April, 2015. To avoid undue issues for some of our current users on older platforms, I am "OK" with java 1.7. I am fairly confident ALL users can obtain this for whatever platform they are using. 3. Issues for inclusion We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period. The ones I've identified are: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&f1=product&f2=component&f3=attachments.ispatch&f4=attachments.description&o1=notsubstring&o2=notsubstring&o4=substring&order=Importance&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=ui&v2=ui&v4=patch&version=4.0.0&version=4.0.0-dev&version=4.0.1&version=4.0.1-dev&version=4.1.0&version=4.1.0-beta&version=4.1.0-dev&version=4.1.1&version=4.1.2&version=4.1.2-dev&version=4.2.0-dev Due to the fact that I actually have trouble identifying patches in BZ, this query may not be inclusive, so please feel free to do your own investigation. Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would surely be worth investigating. https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068 You might also see commits involving code that are related to other issues that are not on the above query. *BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION* 1. Move to different buildbots? I will be forwarding a communication I had this morning from infrastructure concerning our current issues with our buildbots and a possible solution. You will see that the Linux32 and Linux64 buildbots are not even the same version of Ubuntu. We could move to Ubuntu 14 for both these Linux buildbots where we would also have more control over what's installed on them. We need a volunteer to lead this effort. 2. Configuration Issues Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is not the version recommended in our Building Guide. *PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* For all our past distributions, we've had our own production environment if you will. This means the end user binaries were produced on AOO developer equipment, and these developers took responsibility for signing the binaries and getting them uploaded to SourceForge. It has been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries with this release. My feeling is that unless we can "move" to a new buildbot environment that is more consistent with our two Linux distributions, we can'd to this. The issues with using an AOO production environment vs ASF is this: * it is much easier to script signing of binaries and move them to SourceForge on AOO supplied production equipment. * if we use ASF buildbot output, the binaries need to be downloaded to some other location by developers for signing, computing checksums, etc. There is no direct shell access to the buildbot machine that I am aware of for transfer purposes. Andrea has volunteered to set up a production environment for us. SEE: http://markmail.org/message/b4dbjdeu4llczqwt We need PMC members to volunteer with this effort if we decide to continue with the AOO production environment. --- the end for now -- This is probably enough for now. More coming over the next few days. -- ---------------------------------------- Kay Schenk Apache OpenOffice "Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org --- Този имейл е проверен за вируси от Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org
