Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed
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
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
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/
[Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed
Hi there, I would like the ESC take action on a pending topic that is annoying a bunch of users and that I have been constantly reporting for **3 years now**[0]: desynchronization between the website and the TDF update service. See here [1] for more background info. For complains: [2], [3], nearly all recent past infra meetings minutes, video chat with Florian Effenberger from last Friday. The update service and the versions displayed on the website need to be aligned. Sure, when a new release is cut and advertised on the website and social media, we can accept one or 2 days max. delay on the TDF update service, but if we choose a delay, we need 1) to be **consistent** and 2) **stick to it**. Right now: 6.4 is EOL'ed[4] but it is still advertised on the website while the update service is redirecting users of 6.4 to the 7.0 version. This is hurting users of LibreOffice relying on the update service, not only Chocolatey users. Resolution: 1. Remove links to 6.4, put a warning "6.4 is eOL'ed and users should download the 7.0 version" and add a link to downloadarchive.tdf for all previous versions OR simplyput 7.0 to -still with a warning explaining why the version is the same as -fresh [5]. (Yes, I know the website is undergoing an uplifting, but we cannot wait further). 2. Write and ensure a check list for the release process is **enforced** to ensure these use case are properly handled and the TDF update service is advertising the right version with 2 days max delay. I'm pretty convinced that these two issues are really easy to fix and fixing them can enhance our reliability and thus our reputation /marketing. Also, following our new marketing strategic plan, what has been decided? Do we still need to use a -still version? I'll be there at the ESC meeting to support this tomorrow if you want. ESC meetings being quick and not to bother anyone with limited time, if you need further details, we can have a dedicated video chat if you want. [0] First time reported in person to Christian Lohmeier at the 2018 FOSDEM hackfest/dinner [1] https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/2021/msg0.html [2] https://twitter.com/SuisJeFou/status/1189988140842393603 [3] comment section of: https://chocolatey.org/packages/libreoffice-still (new lenghty rant from R. Diez received today - which I understand) [4] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/6.4#End_of_Life [5] The MMVC code on the Silverstripe instance we have is not that complicated to automate the change if needed. src.: https://github.com/tdf/newdesign_wip -- 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Proposal to migrate Dev+QA mailing list to TDF infra
Hello everyone, *TL;DR*: Freedesktop mailing infra is buggy, has lot of quirks wrt. email deliverability. Freedesktop infra team cannot help. Migration to TDF infra is fixing the issue. Discussion happens on the website mailing list. # Situation * The FreeDesktop infra has deliverability issues, I noticed the issue back in the day, when I switched my personal email address to my @libreoffice.org for all LibreOffice related activities. We spent much time to debug the issue. Guilhem tried to help me, but without much results as he hasn't access to the FreeDesktop infra. FreeDesktop infra team which I contacted aren't able to help either. * At the last French community meeting in France, I did a comparison of the number of emails people registered to dev and qa are receiving. Much of us hadn't the same amount which means the service is unreliable. * This is a deliverability issue, not related to moderation area. * Some issues fixed thanks to help of Kendy at FOSDEM by explicitly whitelisting my account on the FreeDesktop Mailman instance. * The mailman instance suffers from database inconsistencies. While my account using my personal email address had been removed, the new @libreoffice.org email is leading to error 500 when I try to connect. Need to use the credential from the removed account to make it work. This proves the database has inconsistencies from their end. * New comers are often asking the question why the DEV and QA mailing are on the FreeDesktop infra and not on TDF one. We always have to answer that's for legacy reasons, etc. We need more consistency for new comers. related to rdm#3118 * New generation of developers hate mailing lists and prefer forums (cf. related project Disource <-> mailman bridge). Having to subscribe to a mailing list which doesn't work reliability is even more annoying and an even greater barrier blocker. related to rdm#2952 * Situation deadlocked for more than a year. Being the referent of some people wanting to contribute via the French community (due to me being the previous CM of the LibreOfficeFR Twitter account), I'm still receiving requests like this one on my personal email address. Promised to report the issue and do my best to provide a fix once and for all. # Solution * TDF admin team is willing to help. Only possible if they are able to debug and thus managing the mail instance is the key here, which means migration to TDF infra. * Current and future deliverability issues will likely we solved as well into the process since we have a sysadmin team that rocks and answer quickly to issues. * Nothing changes for current Dev and QA mailing admin POV. They still can be the maintainers/admins of these lists. Those who may complain that TDF could get in the way will thus have their expectations met. * Attachments are available on TDF infra. The admins of the mailing list simply choose whether to authorize them or not. * Reply-to mangling is not an issue, the admins of the mailing list are choosing which best fits them. TDF is using mlmmj-compatible options which are: 1. Don't touch Reply-To: headers: preserve the one found in the sender's message when present, don't add/replace the header. 2. Strip existing Reply-To: headers. 3. Add/replace a Reply-To: headers. # Next steps * See a timeframe with the TDF infra. Will be present at the next infra team * Provide a warning on the Dev and QA mailing lists at least 1 month in advance with reminders each week. * If nobody complains after some period, enforce the migration * Timeframe of end of July would be great. Your thoughts here? (answers on website@ please) Regards, -- William Gathoye Hypertive volunteer for LibreOffice Proud member of The Document Foundation Member of LaMouette - French based association promoting ODF and LibreOffice ___ 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Ability to have Snap/Flatpak/etc. for bug hunting season
Hello everyone, While officially not in charge of LibreOfficeFR any more on Twitter, some people are requesting why we don't have Flatpak/Snap packages for prereleases versions as well? Some contributors aren't eager to test because installing the current .deb/.rpm could interfere with their current profile. Having a simple Flatpak/Snap/AppImage packages could ease the ongoing bug hinting process. I know some images are not managed by TDF directly, but providing one for those we officially support could help IMHO. Regards, -- William Gathoye Hypertive volunteer for LibreOffice Proud member of The Document Foundation Member of LaMouette - French based association promoting ODF and LibreOffice ___ 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/
