On Mar 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the >> release >>>> of >>>>> AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and >>>>> guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users, >>>>> including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest >>>>> benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code >>>>> project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at >>>>> Apache. >>>>> >>>>> What do you do? Where do you start? >>>>> >>>>> Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think >> it >>>>> is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate >>>>> easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common >>>> questions >>>>> and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance. >>>>> >>>>> I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a >> "Summary >>>>> of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review" document on the wiki. I think this >>>> will >>>>> help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due >>>>> diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the >>>>> unusual things that came up in this project, such as the "mere >>>> aggregation" >>>>> inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages. >>>>> >>>>> Here it is: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities >>>>> >>>>> Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of >>>>> course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other >> topics, >>>>> add those as well. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You have probably missed this >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ >>>> >>>> We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate >>>> these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion. >>>> >>>> >>> I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the release >>> package, what is included, what different directories do, etc. It is >> good >>> for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking at >>> the files. >> >> I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on >> [email protected] >> >> > Yes, that is part of what informed the choice of material to present. But > it is worth looking beyond that. The old saying is "every new class of > testers finds a new class of bugs". The same could be said of reviewers. > Marvin found one class of issues. Other IPMC members will have their own > particular interests and areas of concern.
Wearing my IPMC hat, you've heard what my interests are. Make the following readily available with a predictable impact on my time and a vote for a release will be eased.. > > >> Here is what I would want to see. >> >> (1) BUILD instructions. An accurate and complete description of the build >> of the binaries from source including how much time it takes on various >> platforms. This would help an IPMC plan how much time they will need to >> check the release. This is about the mechanics. Also, how to run the RAT >> report. >> >> (2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies, SGA, >> RAT excludes and why, etc. >> >> (3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the >> standard location. Additions for the Binary packages should end up in the >> appropriate place in those packages after the build. I expect that these >> may differ slightly depending on the target platform? >> >>> >>> The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did, >> what >>> we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the logic >>> of what we did. Your page is more about the end results. >>> >>> But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree. >> >> Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other >> Wiki page is about To Dos. For the release, I think that there are >> different aspects of the project's contents that need to be explained in >> the each of four contexts. >> >> > For now I've cross-linked the two pages. Sure, one step at a time. Lots of good progress this month. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > > >> (1) BUILD - how does one assemble the source into a usable binary? >> (2) README - what are the project's components? >> (3) LICENSE - what are the legal obligations? >> (4) NOTICE - what are the copyrights? >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Juergen >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> -Rob >>>> >>>> >> >>
