On Nov 25, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > Allen, > > in the past the OpenOffice.org release process for micro releases looked like > this: > > * propose a tentative release data 3 months behind the release of the minor > version > * propose issues and must haves for the micro release, new features and new > strings (which would cause a new translation cycle) were not allowed > ** regressions newly introduced with the prior release get high priority for > the micorelease (must haves) > ** regular defects can be nominated for the micro release by everybody > * once all nominated and accepted issues got fixed a release candidate was > provided and there was one week given for feedback. In case not all issues > got fixed or new regressions got introduced a new release candidate cycle was > done. > * to ensure that this process comes to an end, there was a release committee > with representatives from all areas (QA, Development, native-lang > communities, marketing (PR), Linux distros, user experience) which decided on > the final "go" for the release > > for a 3.3.1 release I wouldn't change that process dramatically, so I have > just a small list of issues and security fixes in mind, plus the changes we > agree we have to do for branding. (I have one more favorite: > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=112141 reintroduce color codes > for mime type icons). > > I'm not famliar enough with the ASF release process so I have no final > proposal on how to do this for a 3.3.1 release, but I think we can use the > old process as a basis. The new setup gives the opportunity to do some things > better,
An ASF release requires that all the IP is cleared in the packages otherwise it cannot be an Apache release. There is a public vote process on the dev list that would typically be a full week. Any PPMC member voting +1 is vouching for the quality, but even more importantly they are vouching for the IP being clean and all AL compatible. There is usually a source release and a binary release and these are signed by the "Release Manager". Signatures are checked. A -1 for any IP or signature problem will abort the process and new packages will need to be created with a new vote. All of the steps you discuss above are expected to be openly discussed on the dev list. If decisions are made between individuals via teleconference or other means then the results should be reported to the list. Everyone must have the chance to comment on the plan, there may not be consensus. Coming in with a minor (micro?) release at this time presents significant issues for the PPMC (and extra work). It would help if you were specific with the bug fixes applied by TOOo in the 3.3.1 variation of the source and would submit these as patches to the project SVN under the AL. I hope others will respond with further questions and answers. The switchover of www.openoffice.org to the ASF needs my non-fulltime job focus for the next week, I'm interested in what happens here, but won't be able to pay close attention. Regards, Dave > > hth, > Martin > > On 11/25/11 5:58 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: >>> Just a quick note that a proposal has been submitted using the form at >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >>> to ooo-private... >> >> >> Hello Stefan, >> >> >> >> I would only be willing to consider your proposal if it addressed in detail >> each of the questions/issues I raised in this email: >> >> >> >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201111.mbox/%3C0 >> [email protected]%3E >> >> >> >> So I think your request to ooo-private is either premature or incomplete, >> since none of the questions/issues I raised above have been addressed and >> accepted. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Allen >> >> >> >> >
