Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 04/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800, 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6. Is that BUILD number now 9803? This is an interesting scenario. The way it has

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 04.12.2017 um 13:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski: Good to know! Thx. I do have a question about the BUILD number... Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800, 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6. Is

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Hi Jim, all > I do have a question about the BUILD number... > > Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then > release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800, > 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6. > Is that BUILD number now 9803?

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Good to know! Thx. I do have a question about the BUILD number... Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800, 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6. Is that BUILD number now 9803? > On Dec 3, 2017,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs wrote: How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions. Agreed... Right now we have: RSCVERSION=420

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I agree with the flow in the second paragraph. As an additional note, betas are not releases, and will be described as being experimental. We can make up any process we like for deciding to make one available to beta testers. When we think we have a production-ready beta, and build a release

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs wrote: > > How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We > need to track build versions. Agreed... Right now we have: RSCVERSION=420 RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800) BUILD=9800 LAST_MINOR=m1

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions. If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow: The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about. When

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 12/02/2017 04:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic! Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 03.12.2017 um 01:09 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 >> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK >> with everyone. > > Fine

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 01.12.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski: I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. thanks for

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote: >> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for >>> Release Candidate plus a number. So the first

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote: Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1 If this does not break something of course. I think this

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1 If this does not break something of course. I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 12/1/2017 4:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 > > > Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1 If this does not break something of course. All the best Peter On 03.12.2017 10:14, Marcus wrote: Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 03.12.2017 um 10:14 schrieb Marcus: > Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus >> > wrote: >>> >>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Despite of the name it could be the icon of the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski: On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus > wrote: Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know where this icon set is visible...

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 1 Dec, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce > 4.2.0-B1. I think we are still a ways from being ready for a Beta release. For instance, we need to do another sweep of the bundled software to see what needs to be updated. For instance, I

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Jim Jagielski wrote: I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK with everyone. Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote: I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic! Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way. This is my list (only Windows): https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/aoo-build-pack-beta.lst > >> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way. > On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list > according to: >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list according to: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst Don't know if there is a better way... Maybe you can see more in:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming: build --all -P -- -P Like this? build openofficebeta --all -P -- -P Or this? build --all openofficebeta -P -- -P Or here? build --all -P -- -P openofficebeta None seem to work :( = Building module solenv =

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel >> wrote: >> >> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus: >>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel > wrote: > > Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus: >> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't >>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 14:44 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus: Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know where this icon set is visible... ;-) Apart from that: +1 for a public beta. But we

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus: > Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't >> know where this icon set is visible... ;-) >> >> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta. >> >> But we should build "real" beta builds,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know where this icon set is visible... ;-) Apart from that: +1 for a public beta. But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate naming/graphics:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know where this icon set is visible... ;-) Apart from that: +1 for a public beta. But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate naming/graphics:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK with everyone. > On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution > to some 4.1.4 regressions. > > I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the > timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Hi Jim - Works and fixes both 4.1.4 bugs on both 10.7.5 and 10.12.6. Seems to require Java 6 for Base to work on 10.7.5. Regards, Dave > On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ But these are dmg's not installers. > On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Hi Jim, Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS? I would be interested if the new icon does show up: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no chance

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

+1 Am 1. Dezember 2017 14:42:44 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce >4.2.0-B1. > >Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and >start keeping track there? > >> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22, > Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he would > recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year,

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22, Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he would recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year, rather than early December I am not sure we should wait that long before

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce 4.2.0-B1. Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and start keeping track there? > On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution to some 4.1.4 regressions. I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is something to be said for a single announcement so

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic! Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds... I can provide builds for

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Hello I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead. Regards Mechtilde Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available > (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ ) for some langs > On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus wrote: > > Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher: In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and

Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

On 30.11.2017 21:26, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and

[PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2

Hi - In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the