Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Peter Kovacs]

[x] 0 Abstain

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Marcus wrote:
> Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
> >I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
> >4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
> >
> >- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
> >4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
> >- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
> >more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
> >disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

trunk does not even compile on MacOSX, gbuild integration is broken, so
until this gets fixed, it's IMHO better to keep the AOO41* branches
buildable.


> >I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
> >or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
> >included in future releases and we could benefit from the
> >momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
> >not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
> >vacations during December as well.
> 
> I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
> to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
> in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
> more attention.

Most of the library updates do not even have a bug report where the
change can be tracked by QA. Updating a library should not be outside of
the normal QA process, it means not only checking the source builds in
all platforms, there should be a bug report where the developer that did
the change identifies what functionality should be tested by QA
volunteers.

> Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a 4.2.0
> dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for deeper
> tests before release this.

AFAIK there is no formal QA for the library updates. Quality should be
a priority.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

patched epm and AOO 4.2.x

[Jim Jagielski]

It looks like, from all I can tell, that except for some formatting
issues (namely, using '_' in filenames instead of '-' in some
cases), all of reasons and issues for using a patched epm
are resolved in epm 4.3... With 4.3, packages are relocatable
and RPM's no longer require --nodep.

Considering that the package/installer in solenv knows about
both patched and unpatched epms, I'd like us to consider baselining
epm 4.3 (unpatched) for 4.2.x and later... It would be nice to
be able to leverage untainted epm.

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Note that we could also update the AOO patch to make epm get rid of the
>> PackageMaker, the patch already fixes the path:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/epm/epm-3.7.patch?revision=1413471=markup#l381
>> We could change that system call.
> 
> The issue is that PackageMaker is old, old. It is no longer
> even obtainable unless you are lucky enough to have an
> old copy of the Xcode dev tools. So for people who wish to
> build AOO under OSX, the dependency on PackageMaker is a
> NoGo.
> 
> When Apple deprecated PackageMaker, they replaced it with
> a command-line suite (pkg*). Unfortunately, all versions of
> epm older than 4.3 have no concept of it and instead rely
> on PackageMaker.
> 
> So it would be nice to be able to standardize on 4.3 for ALL
> platforms, but that means applying the 3.7-patch to 4.3... that
> is what I'm working on now at https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Patricia Shanahan]

+1

On 9/15/2016 8:35 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
for Apache OpenOffice.

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.

Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

 [  ] +1 Approve
 [  ]  0 Abstain
 [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
carry the resolution.

Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this thread.

To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply rather 
than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.

The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Kazunari Hirano]

 +1 Approve

Thanks,
khirano


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> [BCC to PMC]
>
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
> for Apache OpenOffice.
>
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the
> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
>
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the
> resolution.
>
>  [  ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to
> carry the resolution.
>
> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this
> thread.
>
> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply
> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
>
> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
khir...@apache.org
Apache OpenOffice
http://openoffice.apache.org

4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127117] Update OpenSSL in the stable branch to version 0.9.8zh

[bugzilla]

Pedro Giffuni  has asked  for 4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127117: Update OpenSSL in the stable branch to version 0.9.8zh
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127117

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

4.1.4_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127117] Update OpenSSL in the stable branch to version 0.9.8zh

[bugzilla]

Pedro Giffuni  has asked  for 4.1.4_release_blocker:
Issue 127117: Update OpenSSL in the stable branch to version 0.9.8zh
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127117

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Consolidating all the build guides

[John D'Orazio]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Marcus  wrote:

> Am 09/08/2016 12:31 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>> Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> As I have now some experience on building OpenOffice, I've also seen
>>> that there are alot of wikipages that describe to some degree of detail
>>> how to build.
>>>
>>
>> The most important fix would be to annotate all outdated ones properly.
>> Search engines apparently love our outdated content and we've seen
>> examples on this list recently too.
>>
>> I would like to consolidate them into a one or maybe very few:
>>> 1. Search for everything that's available.
>>> 2. Cluster the pages that are duplicates or similar.
>>> 3. Combine the content with moving, merging, rearranging, deleting.
>>> 4. Finally, we have one or a few references everyone can save as
>>> browser bookmarks.
>>>
>>
>> The only browser bookmark should be
>> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
>> and the rest should be easily reachable from there.
>>
>
I'm noticing that even in this page that is considered an official guide to
building, the epm module is downloaded from msweet.org and not from the
sourceforge oooextras mirror. Does it make any difference? Was it really
patched, or can it be downloaded just the same from the msweet.org url?


>
> that's a good point that I will following in any case. Just a single link
> to bookmark.
>
> It's really hidden in a good way as I havn't found it again. Where are
>>> the configure options for the official releases we have done so far?
>>>
>>
>> I've apparently hidden it very well! I had to send the link a dozen
>> times to this list. Here it is again:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/
>>
>> (it's best to use it as a link in the build-related wiki pages).
>>
>
> OK
>
> FYI:
> At the moment it seems more traffic in the different build guide incl.
> updating than in the past. In order not to interferre them and not to upset
> new devs, I will wait a bit longer with my updates when the current ones
> have settle down.
>
> More time for me to think about structure, content and links.
>
> Marcus
>
>

> John R. D'Orazio

4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127116] Update python to version 2.7.8

[bugzilla]

Pedro Giffuni  has asked  for 4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127116: Update python to version 2.7.8
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127116

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

4.1.4_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127116] Update python to version 2.7.8

[bugzilla]

Pedro Giffuni  has asked  for 4.1.4_release_blocker:
Issue 127116: Update python to version 2.7.8
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127116

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Consolidating all the build guides

[Marcus]

Am 09/08/2016 12:31 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus wrote:

As I have now some experience on building OpenOffice, I've also seen
that there are alot of wikipages that describe to some degree of detail
how to build.


The most important fix would be to annotate all outdated ones properly.
Search engines apparently love our outdated content and we've seen
examples on this list recently too.


I would like to consolidate them into a one or maybe very few:
1. Search for everything that's available.
2. Cluster the pages that are duplicates or similar.
3. Combine the content with moving, merging, rearranging, deleting.
4. Finally, we have one or a few references everyone can save as
browser bookmarks.


The only browser bookmark should be
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO
and the rest should be easily reachable from there.


that's a good point that I will following in any case. Just a single 
link to bookmark.



It's really hidden in a good way as I havn't found it again. Where are
the configure options for the official releases we have done so far?


I've apparently hidden it very well! I had to send the link a dozen
times to this list. Here it is again:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/

(it's best to use it as a link in the build-related wiki pages).


OK

FYI:
At the moment it seems more traffic in the different build guide incl. 
updating than in the past. In order not to interferre them and not to 
upset new devs, I will wait a bit longer with my updates when the 
current ones have settle down.


More time for me to think about structure, content and links.

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Andrea Pescetti]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?


Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically improved build 
system, unit tests at build time, updates of a lot of libraries, support 
for new languages, new translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 
4.2.0 it should be named 5.0.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 15.09.2016 um 17:35 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
> for Apache OpenOffice.  
> 

[X] +1 Approve
[ ]  0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation


Kind regards and good luck
Michael






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Carl Marcum]

 [X] +1 Approve
 [ ]  0 Abstain
 [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

Best regards,
Carl


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Andrea Pescetti]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

 RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
 Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
 for Apache OpenOffice.


+1 Approve

(let me thank both Dennis for the dedication he demonstrated during his 
one-year term, and Marcus for volunteering)


Andrea

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Marcus]

Am 09/15/2016 09:30 PM, schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?


as I don't know what your intention of this short sentence is, I feel 
that also short answer like "Yes, of course" is maybe not helping. ;-)


The only alternative would be 5.0. Sure, we have many code changes 
already done in trunk. However, these are far too less when it comes to 
visibility - that is to say, significant improvements that the user can 
see and use. Therefore 4.2.0 is the best number to express the current 
content of trunk.




BTW (for all, not only Jim):
The following is the release schema that we are using for OpenOffice.

1. Major releases would be a X.y.z (like 4.0.0)

The X implies we have done major changes like a new program module, new 
installers, micro modules instead of the big monolithic block, 
changed/new API etc. These releases are coming from a new branch of trunk.


2. Minor releases would be a x.Y.z (like 4.1.0)

The Y means we have improved or new features of Calc, changed shape 
object in Impress, new translations which would include new strings, 
etc. These releases are coming either from a new branch of the one used 
for the major release.


3. Micro releases would be a x.y.Z (like 4.1.2)

Z is taken for bugfixes only and should not contain bigger things that 
would be better put into a minor release. These releases are coming from 
a new branch of the one used for the minor release.


Marcus




On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:

I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.

Phil

On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus"  wrote:


Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:


I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
included in future releases and we could benefit from the
momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
vacations during December as well.



I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
more attention.

Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
deeper tests before release this.

So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
can be published, too. *)

However, my 2ct.



*) Just a note for everyone:
Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
is automatically published.

It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Marcus]

Am 09/15/2016 09:59 PM, schrieb Jorg Schmidt:

From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:05 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

The strategy behind 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 is this:.

(1) Quick releases of important bug fixes especially related
to security.
(2) quickly building release manager skills. We became overly
dependent on people who are no longer with us.


+1


(3) establishing a regular cadence.


but not to short release cycles, for example, the release policy of LibreOffice 
is
an absolutely bad example.

imho is a release cycle of 12 months is a reasonable compromise, at most 
necessary
security updates should justify shorter cycles.

Why 12 months?
not a professional user of OO (for example, companies or city authorities) is
usually more often than every 12 to 18 months to update, because each update
requires administrative effort. Shortly cycles will be only be used when safety
issues require mandatory.


normally I agree that we should releases too often. However, at the 
moment we need to become familiar again with the release process.


For this it's not useable to try a release and wait many months to learn 
the next things.


Therefore, for the remaining weeks/months of this year we should learn 
as much as possible and do releases more often than in the past. In the 
next year we can come back to the "old" release schedule.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/15/2016 12:59 PM, Jorg Schmidt wrote:

From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:05 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

The strategy behind 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 is this:.

(1) Quick releases of important bug fixes especially related
to security.
(2) quickly building release manager skills. We became overly
dependent on people who are no longer with us.


+1


(3) establishing a regular cadence.


but not to short release cycles, for example, the release policy of LibreOffice 
is
an absolutely bad example.

imho is a release cycle of 12 months is a reasonable compromise, at most 
necessary
security updates should justify shorter cycles.

Why 12 months?
not a professional user of OO (for example, companies or city authorities) is
usually more often than every 12 to 18 months to update, because each update
requires administrative effort. Shortly cycles will be only be used when safety
issues require mandatory.


Agreed. We currently have some backlogs in both fixing and training.

In the long term I would like to see a point release sitting ready for
an urgent bug, but not going out if we get to a regular, planned release
before we need it.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jorg Schmidt]

> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:05 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?
> 
> The strategy behind 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 is this:.
> 
> (1) Quick releases of important bug fixes especially related 
> to security.
> (2) quickly building release manager skills. We became overly 
> dependent on people who are no longer with us.

+1

> (3) establishing a regular cadence.

but not to short release cycles, for example, the release policy of LibreOffice 
is
an absolutely bad example.

imho is a release cycle of 12 months is a reasonable compromise, at most 
necessary
security updates should justify shorter cycles.

Why 12 months?
not a professional user of OO (for example, companies or city authorities) is
usually more often than every 12 to 18 months to update, because each update
requires administrative effort. Shortly cycles will be only be used when safety
issues require mandatory.



Greetings,
Jorg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Patricia Shanahan]

I believe we should always have a point release, based on the last fully 
stable and released version, ready for code check-in: Release manager 
identified, branch created, release-blocker flags created.


That shortens the latency from identifying an urgent fix to having the 
fix in our users' hands.


The point releases should involve relatively little change, all related 
to things we need to do urgently.


The last 4.1.x that we get to that ready state will never ship - 4.2.0 
will overtake it.





On 9/15/2016 12:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:

I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.

Phil

On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus"  wrote:


Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:


I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
included in future releases and we could benefit from the
momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
vacations during December as well.



I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
more attention.

Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
deeper tests before release this.

So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
can be published, too. *)

However, my 2ct.



*) Just a note for everyone:
Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
is automatically published.

It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 

> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
> for Apache OpenOffice.  
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance 
> with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors 
> and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  The Vice President for 
> Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
> Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of 
> the resolution.
> 
>  [  ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

[ x ] +1 Approve


Jörg Schmidt


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jim Jagielski]

Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
> early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus"  wrote:
> 
>> Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>> 
>>> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
>>> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
>>> 
>>> - I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
>>> 4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
>>> - the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
>>> more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
>>> disappointing to not see the code out sooner.
>>> 
>>> I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
>>> or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
>>> included in future releases and we could benefit from the
>>> momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
>>> not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
>>> vacations during December as well.
>>> 
>> 
>> I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
>> to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
>> in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
>> more attention.
>> 
>> Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
>> 4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
>> deeper tests before release this.
>> 
>> So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
>> beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
>> And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
>> can be published, too. *)
>> 
>> However, my 2ct.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *) Just a note for everyone:
>> Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
>> is automatically published.
>> 
>> It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
>> this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
>> not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
>> is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[O.Felka]

Am 15.09.2016 um 17:35 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
for Apache OpenOffice.

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.


Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

[ X] +1 Approve
[  ]  0 Abstain
[  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

Groetjes,
Olaf


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Phillip Rhodes]

I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.

Phil

On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus"  wrote:

> Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>
>> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
>> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
>>
>> - I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
>> 4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
>> - the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
>> more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
>> disappointing to not see the code out sooner.
>>
>> I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
>> or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
>> included in future releases and we could benefit from the
>> momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
>> not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
>> vacations during December as well.
>>
>
> I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
> to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
> in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
> more attention.
>
> Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
> 4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
> deeper tests before release this.
>
> So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
> beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
> And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
> can be published, too. *)
>
> However, my 2ct.
>
>
>
> *) Just a note for everyone:
> Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
> is automatically published.
>
> It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
> this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
> not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
> is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)
>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[O.Felka]

Am 15.09.2016 um 17:35 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
for Apache OpenOffice.

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.


Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

[ X] +1 Approve
[  ]  0 Abstain
[  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Dave Fisher]

The strategy behind 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 is this:.

(1) Quick releases of important bug fixes especially related to security.
(2) quickly building release manager skills. We became overly dependent on 
people who are no longer with us.
(3) establishing a regular cadence.

If you both want to work towards 4.2.0 quickly then please do so. If you are 
quick enough then you can beat 4.1.4.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>> Hi Patricia;
>> 
>> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
>> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
> 
> +1. We absolutely should.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Marcus]

Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:

I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
included in future releases and we could benefit from the
momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
vacations during December as well.


I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have 
changed to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we 
have changed in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes 
that deserves much more attention.


Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a 
4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts 
for deeper tests before release this.


So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the 
beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice 
outlook. And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this 
roadmap that can be published, too. *)


However, my 2ct.



*) Just a note for everyone:
Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it 
is automatically published.


It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on 
this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think 
I'm not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen 
"something is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to 
mention this. ;-)


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Patricia Shanahan]

+1

On 9/15/2016 12:04 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

The strategy behind 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 is this:.

(1) Quick releases of important bug fixes especially related to security.
(2) quickly building release manager skills. We became overly dependent on 
people who are no longer with us.
(3) establishing a regular cadence.

If you both want to work towards 4.2.0 quickly then please do so. If you are 
quick enough then you can beat 4.1.4.


Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
Hi Patricia;

I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...


+1. We absolutely should.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Dave Fisher]

+1 approve.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> 
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
>RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
>Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
>for Apache OpenOffice.  
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and 
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the 
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the 
> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.
> 
> [  ] +1 Approve
> [  ]  0 Abstain
> [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
> carry the resolution.
> 
> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this 
> thread.
> 
> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply 
> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
> 
> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Dave Barton]

On 15.09.2016 17:35, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
> for Apache OpenOffice.  
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and 
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the 
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the 
> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.
> 
>  [ x ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

Dave


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Regina Henschel]

Dennis E. Hamilton schrieb:

[BCC to PMC]

 RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
 Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
 for Apache OpenOffice.

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.

Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

  [X ] +1 Approve
  [  ]  0 Abstain
  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation


Regina Henschel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Damjan Jovanovic]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi Patricia;
>
> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

+1. We absolutely should.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Note that we could also update the AOO patch to make epm get rid of the
> PackageMaker, the patch already fixes the path:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/epm/epm-3.7.patch?revision=1413471=markup#l381
> We could change that system call.

The issue is that PackageMaker is old, old. It is no longer
even obtainable unless you are lucky enough to have an
old copy of the Xcode dev tools. So for people who wish to
build AOO under OSX, the dependency on PackageMaker is a
NoGo.

When Apple deprecated PackageMaker, they replaced it with
a command-line suite (pkg*). Unfortunately, all versions of
epm older than 4.3 have no concept of it and instead rely
on PackageMaker.

So it would be nice to be able to standardize on 4.3 for ALL
platforms, but that means applying the 3.7-patch to 4.3... that
is what I'm working on now at https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

Here's what I have so far:

https://github.com/jimjag/epm/tree/aoo
> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>>> 
>>> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
>>> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
>>> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
>>> 
>> 
>> It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
>> some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
>> hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.
>> 
>> epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
>> major boon for the Mac.
>> 
>> Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
>> patches into his distro?? 
> 
> In the meantime, I'll look at patching 4.3 w/ the 3.7 patch to
> create a cleanly applying one.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:35:49AM -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President for
> Apache OpenOffice.  
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of
> the Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair
> of the OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the
> resolution.
> 
  [x] +1 Approve
  [ ]  0 Abstain
  [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dmake

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi Jim,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
> some minor things)... 

last time I tried on Linux some years ago with the latest upstream, it had 
several bugs; looking at the release notes, it seems they fixed several Linux 
bugs.
https://www.msweet.org/projects.php?Z2

> The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
> hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.
> 
> epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
> major boon for the Mac.

The build system seems to do some weird things, checking if epm is
patched by AOO:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/epmfile.pm?revision=1591062=markup#l849
I guess unpatched epm breaks somewhere.

Note that we could also update the AOO patch to make epm get rid of the
PackageMaker, the patch already fixes the path:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/epm/epm-3.7.patch?revision=1413471=markup#l381
We could change that system call.

> Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
> patches into his distro?? 

It seems that Sun developers didn't care about upstreamming their fixes,
I tried now to look at the 4.3 bug fixes, and it required an account...
https://www.msweet.org/login.php?PAGE=bugs.php%3FU497%2BP0%2BS-2%2BI0%2BE0%2BZ-1%2BQ


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Roberto Galoppini]

> [X] +1 Approve
> [  ]  0 Abstain
> [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>
>
Roberto

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Phillip Rhodes]

>
>
>  [X] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>


Phil

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Keith N. McKenna]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
> for Apache OpenOffice.  
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and 
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the 
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the 
> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.
> 
>  [  ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
> carry the resolution.
> 
> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this 
> thread.
> 
> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply 
> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
> 
> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
> 
[ X ] +1 Approve
[  ]  0 Abstain
[  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

Keith N. McKenna




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management Committee

[Roberto Galoppini]

Thank you!

2016-09-15 16:36 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti :

> On 14/09/2016 Marcus wrote:
>
>> I will volunteer to take over the role as next Chair.
>>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Andrea
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Patricia;

I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
4.2.0 instead? I mean ...

- I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
  4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
- the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
  more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
  disappointing to not see the code out sooner.

I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
included in future releases and we could benefit from the
momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
vacations during December as well.

Pedro.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
for Apache OpenOffice.  

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.

Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

 [  ] +1 Approve
 [  ]  0 Abstain
 [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
carry the resolution.

Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this thread.

To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply rather 
than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.

The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Pedro Giffuni]

In response to truckman;
>

On 14 Sep, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

Should this go in 4.1.3 or in 4.1.4?

4.1.3 will not be able to move on to building and testing unless we cut
off additions at some point. I think that point has already passed, but
I'm open to arguments.


Have all of the necessary download site changes made it from trunk to
4.1.3?  The released source tarball for 4.1.3 won't include anything in
ext_sources that comes from svn, so we need to verify that bootstrap
succeeds with an empty ext_sources directory.



The content of ext_sources should be irrelevant.  We temporarily used 
that directory when the project was in incubation but the idea was to

deprecate it much sooner. The dependencies were always meant to be
downloaded as part as the build process.



It would also be nice to merge r1758093 from trunk to update
configure.ac to suggest the proper download URL for the dmake source.
The old URL no longer works.


Yes, that certainly should be done.

Pedro.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[CONCLUSION] [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management Committee

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The [NOMINATION REQUEST] period has ended.

There is only one nomination for the Next Chair.  There has been adequate 
discussion on the Project Management Committee already.  I will be initiating a 
[VOTE] on the project's recommendation of Marcus Lange to the ASF Board at 
once.  That message will describe the procedure.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management
> Committee
> 
> I could write much and more but to keep a long story short:
> 
> I will volunteer to take over the role as next Chair.
> 
> Planned is a time frame of 1 year. But of course also a bit longer if it
> fits better for any (time) contraints.
> 
> I don't want to write here what should be done better or faster or ...
> as it doesn't make sense because - I'm pretty sure - it will always work
> out differently. Furthermore, this is not the thread to talk about this.
> 
> Just one addition:
> For ASF the Chair role is not to say what to do or where to go. The
> tasks are in more formal way and well described here [1] and here [2].
> So, you shouldn't expect anything else. Of course I'll do the same in
> the project (or more if my spare time permits) but than as an usual
> committer.
> 
> And at the end:
> If there are any other candidates please speak up now. Then we can start
> a discussion.
> 
> Thanks for your attention.
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 08/30/2016 10:30 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > [BCC to PMC]
> >
> > I am now ready to begin the Chair nomination process.  Because of
> delays, the next change of Chair has moved to October 19.
> >
> > REQUEST FOR NOMINATIONS
> >
> > This message starts the nomination process for the next Chair for the
> Apache OpenOffice PMC.  The term of the next Chair will start on 2016-
> 10-19 and my resignation will be effective on that date.
> >
> > Members of the PMC can nominate themselves, expressing their
> willingness to serve.
> >
> > You can also place the names of others in nomination.  Those
> individuals must accept the nomination to be considered as eligible.
> >
> > The identification of Nominees will end on Tuesday, 2016-09-13.  The
> nature of subsequent discussion will depend on the number of Nominees.
> >
> >
> > TIMELINE
> >
> > Here's the new timeline that has the replacement be ratified by the
> October 19, 2016 meeting of the ASF Board:
> >
> > 2016-10-19 ASF Board Meeting - Board rules on the resolution to
> install the new Chair.
> >
> > 2016-10-12 (latest) Resolution from AOO PMC to accept the new Chair is
> added to the Agenda for the 2016-10-19 Board Meeting (latest possible
> date)
> >
> > 2016-10-05 (latst) [RESULT][VOTE] on election of next Chair is
> reported.
> >
> > 2016-09-28 (latest) [VOTE] on election of next Chair begins.  This
> could be by lazy consensus if there is already a single acceptable
> candidate.
> >
> > 2016-09-14 [NOMINEE DISCUSSION] process begins formally and any
> discussion on and among candidates willing to serve takes place.
> >
> > 2016-08-30 [NOMINATIONS] Individuals are recommended or offer
> > themselves, indicate their availability to serve for at least one
> > single-year term, and also have their own questions answered.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 20:44
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Process: Elect Next Chair of AOO Project
> Management
> >> Committee
> >>
> >> [BCC to PMC]
> >>
> >> [From the Chair]
> >> It is time for the selection of the next chair for the Apache
> OpenOffice
> >> Project Management Committee.
> >>
> >> INCUMBENT CHAIR
> >>
> >> I officially began my term on the third Wednesday of September, 2015.
> My
> >> commitment was to serve for one full year and then be replaced. I
> will
> >> complete that one-year term and step down on the third Wednesday of
> >> September, 2016.  My successor will then be established by the Apache
> >> Software Foundation Board.
> >>
> >> Although I will continue as a member of the Project Management
> Committee
> >> and as a contributor to the Apache OpenOffice project, I am not
> >> available to continue as Chair beyond the 2016-09-21 ASF Board
> Meeting.
> >> I am available to assist the incoming Chair in any manner required
> for
> >> successfully transferring duties of the Chair.
> >>
> >> CHAIR ELECTION
> >>
> >> Based on previous practice, nomination, discussion, and election
> periods
> >> are held.  Here is my proposed time-line, from endgame backwards:
> >>
> >> 2016-09-21 ASF Board Meeting - Board rules on the resolution to
> install
> >> the new Chair.
> >>
> >> 2016-09-14 Resolution from AOO PMC to accept the new Chair is added
> 

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>> 
>> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
>> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
>> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
>> 
> 
> It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
> some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
> hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.
> 
> epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
> major boon for the Mac.
> 
> Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
> patches into his distro?? 

In the meantime, I'll look at patching 4.3 w/ the 3.7 patch to
create a cleanly applying one.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management Committee

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 14/09/2016 Marcus wrote:

I will volunteer to take over the role as next Chair.


Thank you!

Andrea

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Reporting broken download link

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:12:56 +
Gauri Mewada  wrote:

> Installed but can not run.it says incomplete file or damaged media.however 
> full download has been done.pl help
> 
> tks
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Check the file integrity using the methods outlined in
http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums.html

If it doesn't pass, then there is a problem with the downloaded file and you 
should redownload  and recheck.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reporting broken download link

[Gauri Mewada]

Installed but can not run.it says incomplete file or damaged media.however full 
download has been done.pl help

tks

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Re: dmake

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
> 

It looks like most of the epm patch is not related to OSX (except for
some minor things)... The reliance on PackageMaker is a major
hurdle and one which will only get worse as things go on.

epm 4.3 may not be feasible for non-OSX but so far it's been a
major boon for the Mac.

Has anyone been in contact w/ Michael Sweet to get our required
patches into his distro?? 
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[John D'Orazio]

It's good to know about the sourceforge copy of epm too, I'll update some
of the wiki links that are pointing to third party links.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> epm is required and not under our control.
>>
>
> We have a copy under our control at
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/oooextras.mirror/files/epm-3.7.tar.gz
> and I would recommend that one over an external site.
>
> In fact, epm 4.3 is out  and work much better for AOO
>>
>
> That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already
> explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to
> replace it, but probably it's feasible.
>
> Or is this the typical warm and inviting behavior that all
>> "new" AOO contributors are subjected to?
>>
>
> It wasn't meant to be rude. I hope you agree that starting a new project
> under your name at Github for a non-issue (we don't have actual issues with
> dmake right now; or I never heard about them) is not top priority, even
> though it might have advantages in the long term.
>
> We digress, but if I can make an example of a priority issue on Mac OS X I
> would pick https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622 (proper QA
> for a 4.1.3 release blocker). Of course, like all volunteers, you choose
> how to allocate your time and this will be appreciated in all cases. Thank
> you for helping out!
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
John R. D'Orazio

Re: dmake

[Andrea Pescetti]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

epm is required and not under our control.


We have a copy under our control at
https://sourceforge.net/projects/oooextras.mirror/files/epm-3.7.tar.gz
and I would recommend that one over an external site.


In fact, epm 4.3 is out  and work much better for AOO


That would be challenging but useful then. For epm, as Ariel already 
explained to you, we use a patched version so it's not a trivial task to 
replace it, but probably it's feasible.



Or is this the typical warm and inviting behavior that all
"new" AOO contributors are subjected to?


It wasn't meant to be rude. I hope you agree that starting a new project 
under your name at Github for a non-issue (we don't have actual issues 
with dmake right now; or I never heard about them) is not top priority, 
even though it might have advantages in the long term.


We digress, but if I can make an example of a priority issue on Mac OS X 
I would pick https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622 (proper QA 
for a 4.1.3 release blocker). Of course, like all volunteers, you choose 
how to allocate your time and this will be appreciated in all cases. 
Thank you for helping out!


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

New Dev Volunteer

[Naeem Ansari]

Hi,

My self Naeem Ansari from India.
I'm completed Bachelor Degree in Computer (BE.Comp)  since 2011.
I have 4+ year of experience in various languages like java, php, c++, c#,
html5,  mssql, mysql, bootstrap, ajax, angularjs.
I have developed various web base application and standalone application.

please consider my application, i'm eager to development with you.

Regards,

Naeem Ansari
+91 9766531226

Re: building on Windows 10 breaks at guistdio.exe

[John D'Orazio]

Patricia you are correct, after a few more attempts the desktop module did
build successfully. Now I'm up to the postprocess module, with this error:

Entering /cygdrive/d/source/aoo-trunk/main/postprocess/packcomponents

dmake:  Error: -- `/cygdrive/d/source/aoo-trunk/main/solver/420/
wntmsci12.pro/xml/chartcontroller.component' not found, and can't be made

1 module(s):
postprocess
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/cygdrive/d/source/aoo-trunk/main/postprocess/packcomponents

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by
running:

build --all:postprocess


Any ideas on this "chartcontroller.component"?


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:58 PM, John D'Orazio <
john.dora...@cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:

> If it can be of any use to understand better the problem, I'm using this
> configuration:
>
> SDK_PATH="D:\Microsoft_SDKs\Windows\v7.0"
>
> ./configure --with-frame-home="$SDK_PATH" --with-psdk-home="$SDK_PATH"
> --with-midl-path="$SDK_PATH/bin" --with-directx-home="D:\
> Microsoft_DirectX_SDK_June_2010" 
> --with-ant-home="/cygdrive/d/apache-ant/apache-ant-1.9.7"
> --with-jdk-home="C:\Program Files (x86)\Java\jdk1.8.0_73"
> --with-csc-path="C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5"
> --with-dmake-url="http://sourceforge.net/projects/
> oooextras.mirror/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2" --with-epm-url="http://www.
> msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz" --disable-pch
> --disable-atl --disable-activex --without-junit
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:39 PM, John D'Orazio  cappellaniauniroma3.org> wrote:
>
>> So I've taken courage thanks also to the work done by Patricia Shanahan
>> on building OpenOffice in Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. I'm using Windows 10,
>> and I've sorted through the first few obstacles and my build has now been
>> running for 5-6 hours without any trouble. Until now that is. It just broke
>> while building "guistdio.exe" in the desktop module. I'm not really seeing
>> much information that can help me though, can any pick out what the trouble
>> might be? Here is the last part of the build output:
>>
>> Compiling: desktop/test/deployment/active/active_native.cxx
>> Making:test_deployment_active.lib
>> Making:module definition file active_native.uno.def
>> Making:itest_deployment_active_t1.lib
>> lib -machine:IX86 @D:/cygwin/tmp/mktDdH6P
>> Microsoft (R) Library Manager Version 9.00.30729.01
>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
>>
>> -out:../../../wntmsci12.pro/lib/itest_deployment_active_t1.lib
>> -def:../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/active_native.uno.def
>>Creating library ../../../wntmsci12.pro/lib/ite
>> st_deployment_active_t1.lib and object ../../../wntmsci12.pro/lib/ite
>> st_deployment_active_t1.exp
>> Making:active_native.uno.dll
>> Microsoft (R) Windows (R) Resource Compiler Version 6.1.7600.16385
>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
>>
>> Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 9.00.30729.01
>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
>>
>> /MAP /OPT:NOREF -safeseh -nxcompat -dynamicbase -NODEFAULTLIB -RELEASE
>> -DEBUG -INCREMENTAL:NO /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE /DLL -out:../../../
>> wntmsci12.pro/bin/active_native.uno.dll -map:../../../wntmsci12.pro/mi
>> sc/active_native.uno.map ../../../wntmsci12.pro/lib/ite
>> st_deployment_active_t1.exp ../../../wntmsci12.pro/slo/active_native.obj
>> ../../../wntmsci12.pro/slo/active_native.uno_version.obj icppuhelper.lib
>> icppu.lib isal.lib msvcrt.lib msvcprt.lib uwinapi.lib kernel32.lib
>> user32.lib oldnames.lib ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/active_native.uno.res
>> linking ../../../wntmsci12.pro/bin/active_native.uno.dll.manifest ...
>> Making:all_test_deployment_active.dpslo
>> mkdir.exe -p ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/
>> /bin/rm -f ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_ja
>> va.jar
>> /bin/rm -f -r ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/te
>> st_deployment_active/active_java.jar-zip
>> mkdir.exe ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_ja
>> va.jar-zip
>> mkdir.exe -p ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_ja
>> va.jar-zip/META-INF \
>> ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_ja
>> va.jar-zip/com/sun/star/comp/test/deployment/active_java
>> cp MANIFEST.MF ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/te
>> st_deployment_active/active_java.jar-zip/META-INF/
>> cp ../../../wntmsci12.pro/class/com/sun/star/comp/test/deployme
>> nt/active_java/Dispatch.class ../../../wntmsci12.pro/class/c
>> om/sun/star/comp/test/deployment/active_java/Provider.class ../../../
>> wntmsci12.pro/class/com/sun/star/comp/test/deployme
>> nt/active_java/Services.class \
>> ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_ja
>> va.jar-zip/com/sun/star/comp/test/deployment/active_java/
>> cd ../../../wntmsci12.pro/misc/test_deployment_active/active_java.jar-zip
>> && zip ../active_java.jar