Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Ok, I am changing my vote to:
[0] Abstain

See below for details.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
>> [-1] Disapprove
>>
>
> That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0,
> since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do
> not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what
> we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was).
>
> The deal breakers:
>> 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set
>> and
>> main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're
>> not
>> in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
>> unapproved license errors in the RAT report.
>>
>
> This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated
> file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will
> get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our
> tagged snapshot at
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while
> it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic
> (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this
> affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files
> are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the
> binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit,
> since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file).
>
>
I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
releases, it shouldn't stop this release.

Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright
notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF
License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every
ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of
utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release
is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only
appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But
since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
apply?


> 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and
>> physical hardware (details later).
>>
>
> We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline",
> the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still
> maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on
> virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of
> other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent
> versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the
> platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below).
>
>
Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
workaround, I guess it's ok.

None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally
and explaining why some tests weren't done.


> Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code
>> quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.
>>
>
> Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are:
> - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat
> - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link
> provided by Dennis
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED_status=ACCEPTED_status=REOPENED_status=RESOLVED_status=VERIFIED_status=CLOSED=flagtypes.name_id=170870=substring_format=advanced=---=FIXED=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B
> will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a
> more readable version of it.
> - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required
> to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not
> important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for
> trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work.
>
> Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported
>> from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break
>>
>
> This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer
> to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we have on
> trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and also in
> this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1.
>
> 
>> Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

[Andrea Pescetti]

Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

Ok, I am changing my vote to:
[0] Abstain


Thanks for your understanding.


I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ...
since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
apply?


If this had been caught early in the process, we would still have fixed 
in RC3 since it is trivial to do so. At this point, I opened an issue

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605
so that we ensure that this doesn't happen again.


Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
workaround, I guess it's ok.


Thanks, issue and workaround noted in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2

[Marcus]

I don't see the "...Env.Set.sh" file as code file and therefore the 
rules don't apply here. But to be super-sure just delete the generated 
file(s) from the source tar balls and rebuild only these new.


And +1 for extending the release notes with the other issues that affect 
the binaries.


Marcus



Am 10/25/2015 01:12 PM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:

Ok, I am changing my vote to:
[0] Abstain

See below for details.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:


Damjan Jovanovic wrote:


[-1] Disapprove



That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0,
since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do
not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what
we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was).

The deal breakers:

1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set
and
main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're
not
in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause
unapproved license errors in the RAT report.



This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated
file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will
get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our
tagged snapshot at
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while
it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic
(but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this
affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files
are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the
binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit,
since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file).



I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous
releases, it shouldn't stop this release.

Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright
notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF
License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every
ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of
utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release
is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only
appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But
since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not
apply?



2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and

physical hardware (details later).



We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline",
the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still
maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on
virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of
other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent
versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the
platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below).



Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it
doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as
they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people
don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of
those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the
workaround, I guess it's ok.

None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally
and explaining why some tests weren't done.



Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code

quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release.



Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are:
- RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat
- Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link
provided by Dennis
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED_status=ACCEPTED_status=REOPENED_status=RESOLVED_status=VERIFIED_status=CLOSED=flagtypes.name_id=170870=substring_format=advanced=---=FIXED=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B
will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a
more readable version of it.
- Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required
to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not
important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for
trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work.

Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported

from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break



This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer
to 4.1.1 than to trunk: