On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 08:47 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > > > I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a > > > bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms > > > are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and > > > then follow with this bullet item: > > > > > > "Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, > > > with plans to release these outside of Apache." > > > > > > > Howdy Rob, > > > > > Is this accurate and worth saying? > > > > Yes IIRC and yes IMO. > > > > > > > > > Would it make sense to also > > > include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for > > > more information? > > > > I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for > > each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more > > appropriate for a title). > > > > Hi Drew-- > > We have a page -- actually a former "project" at -- > > http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ > > that needs a LOT of cleanup. > > Any volunteers to take the lead on cleaning this up and just highlighting > what we're dealing with now? FreeBSD, OS/2, and Solaris?
Hi Kay, Yes, I'll work on that page today and ping the list when it is in stagging. //drew > > > > > Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent > > for future announcements. > > > > > > > > Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close > > > ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support > > > these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the > > > release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the > > > project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. > > > > I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to > > include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to > > be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. > > > > Just my .02 > > > > //drew > > > > > > Does this seem fair and appropriate? > > > > > > If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and > > > OS/2, for more information. > > > > > > The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
