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] Start process for AOO 4.1.5-RC1

On 12/04/2017 12:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Are you accepting blockers? > > I am, yes :) >> We don't have a 4.1.5 blocker flag in Bugzilla, but I guess we can do >> without it if this is the only extra fix we will include - dictionary >> updates are routine. Of course, if the dictionary

Re: FOSDEM 2018: Open Document Editors DevRoom

Note: we have received reports that the FOSDEM site is unreachable for many users today. We've thus decided to extend the deadline for an extra 48 hours. This means we will accept submissions that come until Wednesday night, European time. The website problem is confirmed but intermittent, so

Re: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

Who has write access to that? > On Dec 4, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > > Why don't we post that on our www.openoffice.org blog? > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >>

Re: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

Why don't we post that on our www.openoffice.org blog? On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > http://jimjag.com/imo/index.php?/archives/272-The-Path-to- > Apache-OpenOffice-4.2.0.html

Re: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

http://jimjag.com/imo/index.php?/archives/272-The-Path-to-Apache-OpenOffice-4.2.0.html > On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Sounds like a good topic for a blog post...

Re: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

Sounds like a good topic for a blog post... Our current discussions regarding 4.2.0 and Linux. > On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Peter kovacs wrote: > > Are there users who want CentOS5 builds? > > Am 4. Dezember 2017 13:23:39 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >>

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: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

Are there users who want CentOS5 builds? Am 4. Dezember 2017 13:23:39 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski : >Thx. Yeah, I got that. I also understand that GIO is, by far, the >recommended option. > >So our options are: > > 1. We stick w/ CentOS5 as our ref build system for 4.2.0 but

Re: 4.2.0: Baseline CentOS6 as reference build platform

Thx. Yeah, I got that. I also understand that GIO is, by far, the recommended option. So our options are: 1. We stick w/ CentOS5 as our ref build system for 4.2.0 but force Gnome VFS. 2. We move to CentOS6, accept the default of GIO but understand that this moves CentOS5 as a

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] Start process for AOO 4.1.5-RC1

> On Dec 3, 2017, at 3:57 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I propose that we, "officially", start the ball >> rolling in the process of releasing AOO 4.1.5. > > Are you accepting blockers? I am, yes :) > My only blocker would be the English