Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed

[William Gathoye (LibreOffice)]

On 29/01/2021 19:58, William Gathoye (LibreOffice) wrote:
Ensuring there is no gap and the N-1 release doesn't EOL before N+2 is 
released


Please read N+1 instead of N+2 obviously :P


--
William Gathoye
Hypertive volunteer for LibreOffice
Proud member of The Document Foundation
CM of LaMouette - French based association promoting ODF and LibreOffice
Consultant Technical Marketer at Collabora
DevOps Engineer at Arawa
Core Committer at Mattermost
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed

[William Gathoye (LibreOffice)]

On 28/01/2021 09:46, Michael Weghorn wrote:




Unless anybody else suggests a different way to handle this, it IMHO 
certainly makes sense if you attend the ESC meeting today.

(I've added that item to the agenda for now.)


To @all

I consider this problem solved iff the agreement reached during the last 
ESC and written the minutes is met:



On 28/01/2021 16:37, Miklos Vajna wrote:


[...]
+ could nominally adjust the date of 6.4 EOL → but still no more versions 
(Cloph)
  + would this mean the website vs update check will be in sync? (William)
  + yes, ignoring the 1w delay (Cloph)
  + agree to not update everybody instantly (Thorsten)
[...]


Ensuring there is no gap and the N-1 release doesn't EOL before N+2 is 
released, this will fix the issue: the situation where the version of 
-still equals the version of -fresh at some periods of the year will not 
happen anymore.


So in this use case, the end of date of 6.4 [1] should have been 
extended to Feb 7 2021 [2] instead of Nov 30 2020.


Like written and confirmed by Cloph, we can accept <=1 week of delay 
between announcement and the TDF update service **iff** we stick to it 
and we are consistent in the delay where the TDF update service and 
announcement are out of sync.


[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/6.4#End_of_Life
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/7.1

--
William Gathoye
Hypertive volunteer for LibreOffice
Proud member of The Document Foundation
CM of LaMouette - French based association promoting ODF and LibreOffice
Consultant Technical Marketer at Collabora
DevOps Engineer at Arawa
Core Committer at Mattermost
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed

[William Gathoye (LibreOffice)]

On 28/01/2021 11:27, Florian Effenberger wrote:

I think it is intentional that we always do have two parallel versions 
available for download, but it's something that might change as we are 
looking into the rolling release system, which makes this 
differentiation obsolete.


Yes, exactly like I wrote at the end: the situation will likely change 
with the new marketing plan being enforced:

Also, following our new marketing strategic plan, what has been decided? Do we 
still need to use a -still version?






[...]  What's the rationale for two days, why that urgency?


Following the notes I took from the beginning of this story it was 
answered to me that 2 days was a good consensus: way enough time for the 
last repos to sync and enlarging that window means end users are likely 
to ask "I saw the announcement, but when using the update check it says 
no update available". Have seen a bunch of requests and mails like this, 
so as munch as the TDF update service and announcements are as much as 
possible in sync, the risk of getting a guazzilions tweets, remarks, 
personal emails, is likely to decrease.




Also, thinking of the release days on Wednesdays or Thursdays, it might be smart to not put forward such updates during the weekends, when reaction times in case of issues are slower than during the week. 


The industry comes with a standard to release on Tuesdays. Choosing that 
day would have avoided this use case to happen and would have allowed 
shorter differences between the TDF update service and announcements on 
social media/blog/download page on the website.



--
William Gathoye
Hypertive volunteer for LibreOffice
Proud member of The Document Foundation
CM of LaMouette - French based association promoting ODF and LibreOffice
Consultant Technical Marketer at Collabora
DevOps Engineer at Arawa
Core Committer at Mattermost
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Starmath syntax hightlight

[Heiko Tietze]

Respective ticket is https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138129

On 29.01.21 12:46, Dante Doménech wrote:

The starmath syntax highlight first revision is now available here:
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/109639/21 



I write asking for a deep review since it's a patch that may change the user 
experience.

I'd like the UX team to take a look and evaluate the code legibility.
Note that bright colors have been avoided.
Maybe some documentation should be added.
Get sure the preferences page keeps up to the accessibility and quality 
standards.
Can get a stability test with some twisted starmath code I haven't thought of.
I can't think of any automated test, but it may be possible.

___
LibreOffice mailing list
libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice



--
Dr. Heiko Tietze, UX-Designer and UX-Mentor
Tel: +49 30 5557992-63 | Mail: heiko.tie...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed

[Michael Weghorn]

On 28/01/2021 22.03, Jan-Marek Glogowski wrote:

LO is regression plagued product.


Yup. But honestly with the available resources, I don't see this 
changing in any time-frame, I can imagine. One IMHO main problem is, 
that we mainly have regression unit tests. So every change is almost 
guaranteed to break stuff. At least for me it feels like this. 
Everything is a lot of guesswork for me, even in areas, where people 
claim I'm the actual expert.


[...]

You may ask: do we have unit tests at least for some of the essential 
low level stuff I touched? Barely any and nothing I would consider 
remotely sufficient.


[...] >
So I can very much relate to your impression. But unless you have some 
large new resources available for the project, we'll have to bear with it.


Sadly true.

I fully agree with Timur that our current release model (with fresh and 
still) mitigates the negative impacts, though, and currently don't see 
how that would reasonably work if we switch to a rolling release model 
without addressing the issues you outlined, or another way to 
effectively avoid more severe regressions landing in our rolling release 
version.


I'm not against a rolling release model in general, but would love to 
see such aspects addressed in a more detailed proposal.

___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/