I think we need to carefully analyze both why an old infra OOo 3.4 makes sense and why it doesn't.
I'm not sure the following statement is true, or not. I think it is more a challenge. One huge advantage to doing a release on the existing OOo infrastructure is that the process could be watched and documented by AOOo as it occurs. This may actually give AOOo a quicker route to an Apache OOo 4.0 release and graduation. If this course were followed we would need to make sure that Oracle's grant can be made to cover the resulting codebase as completely as possible. This may mean changing the license on the existing OOo infrastructure. IP clearance and mercurial to svn transformation proceed. Everything here at AOOo proceeds with the addition that we completely monitor the release process. Opposing consideration: We don't really become an Apache project until we get an Apache release and everyone is committed to the Apache Way. How much does the following consideration influence our decision? There is a huge consumer market that is waiting for an OOo 3.4. Regards, Dave On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > Is there a big deal with discussing a further OOo release on the OOo > lists? And note I say lists plural. Remember, a release at OOo > requires coordination among several different groups, dev, qa, doc, > translation, etc. They have their own lists, dozens of them, that are > all involved in preparing a release. We have none of them here, and I > don't think it is a very good idea to put all that traffic onto > ooo-dev, in addition to the current discussions. The easiest way to > make a release on OOo infrastructure is to actually make a release on > OOo infrastructure. > > -Rob > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't see the point of moving such discussion elsewhere. >> Look, we did exactly this with subversion and it was NO BIG DEAL. >> This list will be expected to determine whether or not such >> a goal is worthwhile (and will be supported by the PPMC) so >> why not let the discussions happen wherever, including here? >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:32:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >>> >>> IMHO, if we're discussing a non-Apache release then let's discuss it >>> on a non Apache dev list. You've listed some plausible reasons why >>> volunteers might want to work on an OOo release on the legacy >>> infrastructure. OK. Great. The discussion lists at OOo are part of >>> that infrastructure. >>> >>> Also, we need to consider the OpenOffice.org trademark. If a >>> non-Apache project wishes to name their release "OpenOffice.org" then >>> they will need to make a formal request to Apache for this and get it >>> approved. Perhaps a mere formality in this case, but a necessary one. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> An Apache release while in incubation is a goal, perhaps even >>>> a blocker for graduation for ooo, but it shouldn't come at a cost >>>> of abandoning existing user needs for a lengthy period of time. >>>> The ASF is a pragmatic bunch, and realizes that this project >>>> is coming in with over a decade of prior history attached. >>>> >>>> That history will now merge with ASF objectives, but it doesn't >>>> have to be immediately all-or-nothing. If the user community expects >>>> a forthcoming release in a timely fashion, and that cannot be >>>> accomplished as a full ASF release, then other avenues (like >>>> collaboration with OO regarding distribution) can and should >>>> be explored. >>>> >>>> (IMO). >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 8:17:58 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Oh right, I said to myself knowingly, especially since any release >>>>>> under >>> the >>>>> old infrastructure is essentially an LGPL release. And it would be an >>>>> opportunity for cooperation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Uh, wait, I then said to myself, how do we get that back under Apache >>>>> OpenOffice.org unless we manage to have it covered under the Oracle >>>>> grant. >>> Hmm. >>>>>> >>>>> > And what do we do about the work that Armand Le Grand has been busily >>>>> continuing in the old infrastructure. He can recontribute that, of >> course, >>>>> but, uh ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Um, say again, this might work out how? >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see it. What are the hallmarks of an Apache release? >>>>> >>>>> 1) Apache 2.0 license >>>>> >>>>> 2) IP check list >>>>> >>>>> 3) Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to Committers >>>>> who have signed the ICLA >>>>> >>>>> 4) Work done transparently on the Apache lists. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, if you follow the general.incubator.a.o list you'll see the >>>>> Incubation PMC close to shutting down another Podling because they are >>>>> not doing their work at Apache, but are doing it elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, getting to a first Apache release will require work. But we only >>>>> get there by doing the work. I don't see how releasing something >>>>> outside of Apache gets us any closer to an Apache release. >>>>> >>>>> -Rob >>>>> >>>>>> - Dennis >>>>>> >>>>>> PS: LibreOffice is currently at releases 3.3.3 (presumed stable) and >>> 3.4.0 >>>>> (early adopter) with a 3.4.1 release candidate or two currently under >>>>> test. >>> I >>>>> think there are 3.5 and 4.0 mumbles too, but my eyes have glazed over >>>>> and >>> I've >>>>> given up tracking the pace of builds there. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 06:19 >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> > Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >>>>> > >>>>>> The other thing I probably should mention here is that this >>>>>> presents a golden opportunity to collaborate with LO should the >>>>>> "old" ooo infrastructure be considered unable to handle >>>>>> another ooo release. >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>>> >> From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >>>>> >> To: [email protected] >>>>> >> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:11:09 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure >>>>>>> >>>>> >> Point of reference: the subversion project used non-ASF >>> infrastructure >>>>>>> to conduct releases that would've been blocked by ASF policy on >>> licensing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> had they used our mirror system. It is certainly possible to do >> the >>>>>>> same sort of thing with ooo for an interim solution, until the >>> codebase >>>>>>> has been "cleaned up" to meet with ASF policy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> [ ... ] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
