RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
> -Original Message- > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 03:56 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > Repository > > On 02/04/2016 03:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] > > 1. You could put together a release, using a tagged/branched piece > of the AOO SVN sufficient to what you want to do. So there's a > persistent source-tree location and r-number that nails it down. > > > > 2. Then you could take that much through the release process, being > the release manager yourself. It might be awkward the first time, > making it beneficial that this is a pretty simple addition. After that > effort, and presumably without more than 2 release candidates, the issue > will be having a binding +1 majority of at least three to accomplish the > release. > > > > 3. Being able to obtain a release vote that includes binding voters > successfully building from the released source is a little worrisome. > My suggestion is to go through (2) regardless, but I am not doing the > work [;<). If all technical objections are satisfied, and it is simply > a lack of votes, my personal recommendation would be to do a downstream > release relying on the release bundle, but having it be dependent on AOO > code, as identified, but not being an AOO release. The problem is then > how that is that to be identified so there is no confusion with an AOO > release. > > > > That's a lot of armchair quarter-backing. > > > > What are your further thoughts on this, Carl? Bueller? > > > > - Dennis > > Hi Dennis, > > I understand how the recently released Java UNO jar to Maven needed to > coincide with a AOO release due to the source being in AOO source. > > For devtools like this bootstrap connector and the netbeans-integration > plugin, their source is under the devtools dir which is beside AOO trunk > and therefore not branched and tagged with AOO I don't believe. > > For the netbeans plugin submitted to NetBeans.org, past releases by my > were discussed on dev@ and then by lazy-concensus proposal. with it's > own trunk, branches, and tags directory structure. > > Could this not be similar? > [orcmid] Made me look! Well, being in the AOO SVN but under devtools/ and separate from the AOO trunk/, branches/ and tags/ source trees is perfect. I do think we need to treat releases as releases though, since we're talking about publishing in public, if I understand it, and that is different than work-in-progress and experimentation. I think the Apache Release process should be applied. I see you've been busy there. Is what you are doing aligned with that prospect? I think releasing will also get more attention to this work. If release fails for non-technical but procedural reasons, that is not on you and there are always alternatives in that case. - Dennis > Thanks, > Carl > [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
I forgot to be explicit. By releasing, I mean in accordance with <http://apache.org/dev/release.html> and <http://apache.org/dev/release-publishing>. This can't be done single-handed, although all the preparation of release candidates could be (in simple cases). It's really up to Carl to pursue this, which I recommend, or go off-project (which would remain an alternative anyhow). - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 11:46 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > Repository > > > -Original Message- > > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 03:56 > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to > Maven > > Repository > > > > On 02/04/2016 03:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > [ ... ] > > > 1. You could put together a release, using a tagged/branched piece > > of the AOO SVN sufficient to what you want to do. So there's a > > persistent source-tree location and r-number that nails it down. > > > > > > 2. Then you could take that much through the release process, > being > > the release manager yourself. It might be awkward the first time, > > making it beneficial that this is a pretty simple addition. After > that > > effort, and presumably without more than 2 release candidates, the > issue > > will be having a binding +1 majority of at least three to accomplish > the > > release. > > > > > > 3. Being able to obtain a release vote that includes binding > voters > > successfully building from the released source is a little worrisome. > > My suggestion is to go through (2) regardless, but I am not doing the > > work [;<). If all technical objections are satisfied, and it is > simply > > a lack of votes, my personal recommendation would be to do a > downstream > > release relying on the release bundle, but having it be dependent on > AOO > > code, as identified, but not being an AOO release. The problem is > then > > how that is that to be identified so there is no confusion with an AOO > > release. > > > > > > That's a lot of armchair quarter-backing. > > > > > > What are your further thoughts on this, Carl? Bueller? > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > I understand how the recently released Java UNO jar to Maven needed to > > coincide with a AOO release due to the source being in AOO source. > > > > For devtools like this bootstrap connector and the netbeans- > integration > > plugin, their source is under the devtools dir which is beside AOO > trunk > > and therefore not branched and tagged with AOO I don't believe. > > > > For the netbeans plugin submitted to NetBeans.org, past releases by my > > were discussed on dev@ and then by lazy-concensus proposal. with it's > > own trunk, branches, and tags directory structure. > > > > Could this not be similar? > > > [orcmid] > > Made me look! > > Well, being in the AOO SVN but under devtools/ and separate from the AOO > trunk/, branches/ and tags/ source trees is perfect. > > I do think we need to treat releases as releases though, since we're > talking about publishing in public, if I understand it, and that is > different than work-in-progress and experimentation. > > I think the Apache Release process should be applied. > > I see you've been busy there. Is what you are doing aligned with that > prospect? > > I think releasing will also get more attention to this work. > > If release fails for non-technical but procedural reasons, that is not > on you and there are always alternatives in that case. > > - Dennis > > > Thanks, > > Carl > > > [ ... ] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
On 02/08/2016 03:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I forgot to be explicit. By releasing, I mean in accordance with <http://apache.org/dev/release.html> and <http://apache.org/dev/release-publishing>. This can't be done single-handed, although all the preparation of release candidates could be (in simple cases). It's really up to Carl to pursue this, which I recommend, or go off-project (which would remain an alternative anyhow). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 11:46 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository -Original Message- From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 03:56 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository On 02/04/2016 03:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] 1. You could put together a release, using a tagged/branched piece of the AOO SVN sufficient to what you want to do. So there's a persistent source-tree location and r-number that nails it down. 2. Then you could take that much through the release process, being the release manager yourself. It might be awkward the first time, making it beneficial that this is a pretty simple addition. After that effort, and presumably without more than 2 release candidates, the issue will be having a binding +1 majority of at least three to accomplish the release. 3. Being able to obtain a release vote that includes binding voters successfully building from the released source is a little worrisome. My suggestion is to go through (2) regardless, but I am not doing the work [;<). If all technical objections are satisfied, and it is simply a lack of votes, my personal recommendation would be to do a downstream release relying on the release bundle, but having it be dependent on AOO code, as identified, but not being an AOO release. The problem is then how that is that to be identified so there is no confusion with an AOO release. That's a lot of armchair quarter-backing. What are your further thoughts on this, Carl? Bueller? - Dennis Hi Dennis, I understand how the recently released Java UNO jar to Maven needed to coincide with a AOO release due to the source being in AOO source. For devtools like this bootstrap connector and the netbeans- integration plugin, their source is under the devtools dir which is beside AOO trunk and therefore not branched and tagged with AOO I don't believe. For the netbeans plugin submitted to NetBeans.org, past releases by my were discussed on dev@ and then by lazy-concensus proposal. with it's own trunk, branches, and tags directory structure. Could this not be similar? [orcmid] Made me look! Well, being in the AOO SVN but under devtools/ and separate from the AOO trunk/, branches/ and tags/ source trees is perfect. I do think we need to treat releases as releases though, since we're talking about publishing in public, if I understand it, and that is different than work-in-progress and experimentation. I think the Apache Release process should be applied. I see you've been busy there. Is what you are doing aligned with that prospect? I think releasing will also get more attention to this work. If release fails for non-technical but procedural reasons, that is not on you and there are always alternatives in that case. - Dennis Thanks, Carl [ ... ] I should be able to stage the Maven bundle to Nexus this evening an and call for a vote. Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
Summary: 1. I think the use of the openoffice "class path" and packaging that is already accepted for use be continued, rather than disturb the Java and maven identifiers that people are already using and expect. 2. Creating a distribution is complicated by the absence of a new Apache OpenOffice release that would include the code and other materials that go with this. This would tend to require a special release for just this. So, for (2), there is more to consider. Notes below. - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 13:39 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > Repository > > > -Original Message- > > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:09 > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to > Maven > > Repository > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > comments below.. > > > > On 01/30/2016 12:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > [ ... ] > > > I am copying the PMC on this and requesting that all discussion be > > here, and not there, so all committers and interested parties can > > contribute to the discussion. We would also need to know that at > least > > 3 PMC members are prepared to carry out what is required for casting a > > binding release vote. > > > > > > While we wrestle with this, I request that you suspend the Groovy > UNO > > Extension discussion for now and we continue this for the simple case > of > > the Java Bootstrap Connector. I am assuming that this is the simpler > > case to work through a release process if we determine that we need to > > do so. > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > [cmarcum] > > > > No problem. > > I suspended the Groovy UNO extension proposal. > > > > My hope was to do this through the project but I understand the > > procedures and how this could cause more work for others than > necessary > > since it's only a small developer tool and not a primary project > > artifact. > > > > I am more than willing to submit this individually if it makes more > > sense. > > > > In a larger sense this conversation could also apply to the future > > builds of the AOO-Netbeans plugin that is made available through > > NetBeans.org. > > > > Best regards, > > Carl > [orcmid] > > Thanks Carl. Let's wait a few days for others to chime in. > > I would like to see this as a project release rather than a personal one > based on AOO code, especially since I think everything needed is in the > AOO code base. > > The bigger issue is the kind of review that is required, and the extra > effort in preparing a release candidate, etc. > > I also think that you are creating a good model and process for spin- > outs of useful components from the AOO code base. So this is worth > digging into for that reason alone. > > - Dennis [orcmid] Carl, First, we do make distributions that are based on an AOO source release and that use the source in selective ways. The making of language packs is an example of one special distribution. The one you made for Java uno tools is another. Secondly, there are downstream distributions that are also made. In notable cases, we are aware of them because they contribute patches to our source base and then make their distribution from our source release. I think FreeBSD is such a case, and the Solaris and OS2 distributions are as well. I suspect that there may still be downstream build variants in France. I don't know how or whether those use non-released source and how they tie to AOO release versions, or not. So we are left with the situation of there being no simple mechanism, such as regular maintenance releases that have your additions incorporated so the Maven distributions can be tied to the released AOO version. Here's the conundrum: 1. You could put together a release, using a tagged/branched piece of the AOO SVN sufficient to what you want to do. So there's a persistent source-tree location and r-number that nails it down. 2. Then you could take that much through the release process, being the release manager yourself. It might be awkward the first time, making it beneficial that this is a pretty simple addition. After that effort, and presumably without more than 2 release candidates, the issue will be having a binding +1 majority of at least three to accomplish the release. 3. Being able to obtain a release vote that includes binding voters successfully building from the
Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
I think the artifacts should be org.apache.openoffice. Artifacts using org.openoffice are not likely to be within policy, but if issued would also be understood to be from this project. A proper release is required including the source for these jars. Vote is 3 +1 from PMC and a majority. Convention is that -1 is taken seriously if it has true technical merit. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Jan 30, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:09 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven >> Repository >> >> Hi Dennis, >> >> comments below.. >> >> On 01/30/2016 12:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > [ ... ] >>> I am copying the PMC on this and requesting that all discussion be >> here, and not there, so all committers and interested parties can >> contribute to the discussion. We would also need to know that at least >> 3 PMC members are prepared to carry out what is required for casting a >> binding release vote. >>> >>> While we wrestle with this, I request that you suspend the Groovy UNO >> Extension discussion for now and we continue this for the simple case of >> the Java Bootstrap Connector. I am assuming that this is the simpler >> case to work through a release process if we determine that we need to >> do so. >>> >>> - Dennis >> >> [cmarcum] >> >> No problem. >> I suspended the Groovy UNO extension proposal. >> >> My hope was to do this through the project but I understand the >> procedures and how this could cause more work for others than necessary >> since it's only a small developer tool and not a primary project >> artifact. >> >> I am more than willing to submit this individually if it makes more >> sense. >> >> In a larger sense this conversation could also apply to the future >> builds of the AOO-Netbeans plugin that is made available through >> NetBeans.org. >> >> Best regards, >> Carl > [orcmid] > > Thanks Carl. Let's wait a few days for others to chime in. > > I would like to see this as a project release rather than a personal one > based on AOO code, especially since I think everything needed is in the AOO > code base. > > The bigger issue is the kind of review that is required, and the extra effort > in preparing a release candidate, etc. > > I also think that you are creating a good model and process for spin-outs of > useful components from the AOO code base. So this is worth digging into for > that reason alone. > > - Dennis > > >> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 06:42 >>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>>> Subject: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven >>>> Repository >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I would like to create Maven bundles of the source, classes, and >> javadoc >>>> of the recently added BootstrapConnector [1] and stage them on the >>>> Apache Nexus Maven Repository using groupId "org.openoffice" so this >>>> would be from the project. >>>> >>>> If the project consensus is that a VOTE is necessary I will call for >> one >>>> after staging and prior to publishing, or if not, I will do another >>>> PROPOSAL for release. >>>> >>>> This jar allows bootstrapping the office by passing a string >>>> representing the path to the office executable to the bootstrap >> method. >>>> >>>> This code has been available for download from the Forum since 2008 >> [2]. >>>> >>>> I have obtained permission from the author to use the code by our >>>> project and under the AL 2.0 license and documented it with the AOO >> PMC. >>>> >>>> If there are no objections to the above proposal by midnight GMT >>>> Wednesday February 3rd, then I will invoke Lazy Consensus and >> proceed >>>> to implement the above proposal. >>>> >>>> Another option to this is that I publish them as an individual with a >>>> different groupId if this is preferred. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://svn.apach
RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
> -Original Message- > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:09 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > Repository > > Hi Dennis, > > comments below.. > > On 01/30/2016 12:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] > > I am copying the PMC on this and requesting that all discussion be > here, and not there, so all committers and interested parties can > contribute to the discussion. We would also need to know that at least > 3 PMC members are prepared to carry out what is required for casting a > binding release vote. > > > > While we wrestle with this, I request that you suspend the Groovy UNO > Extension discussion for now and we continue this for the simple case of > the Java Bootstrap Connector. I am assuming that this is the simpler > case to work through a release process if we determine that we need to > do so. > > > > - Dennis > > [cmarcum] > > No problem. > I suspended the Groovy UNO extension proposal. > > My hope was to do this through the project but I understand the > procedures and how this could cause more work for others than necessary > since it's only a small developer tool and not a primary project > artifact. > > I am more than willing to submit this individually if it makes more > sense. > > In a larger sense this conversation could also apply to the future > builds of the AOO-Netbeans plugin that is made available through > NetBeans.org. > > Best regards, > Carl [orcmid] Thanks Carl. Let's wait a few days for others to chime in. I would like to see this as a project release rather than a personal one based on AOO code, especially since I think everything needed is in the AOO code base. The bigger issue is the kind of review that is required, and the extra effort in preparing a release candidate, etc. I also think that you are creating a good model and process for spin-outs of useful components from the AOO code base. So this is worth digging into for that reason alone. - Dennis > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 06:42 > >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > >> Subject: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > >> Repository > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I would like to create Maven bundles of the source, classes, and > javadoc > >> of the recently added BootstrapConnector [1] and stage them on the > >> Apache Nexus Maven Repository using groupId "org.openoffice" so this > >> would be from the project. > >> > >> If the project consensus is that a VOTE is necessary I will call for > one > >> after staging and prior to publishing, or if not, I will do another > >> PROPOSAL for release. > >> > >> This jar allows bootstrapping the office by passing a string > >> representing the path to the office executable to the bootstrap > method. > >> > >> This code has been available for download from the Forum since 2008 > [2]. > >> > >> I have obtained permission from the author to use the code by our > >> project and under the AL 2.0 license and documented it with the AOO > PMC. > >> > >> If there are no objections to the above proposal by midnight GMT > >> Wednesday February 3rd, then I will invoke Lazy Consensus and > proceed > >> to implement the above proposal. > >> > >> Another option to this is that I publish them as an individual with a > >> different groupId if this is preferred. > >> > >> [1] > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/bootstrap- > >> connector/trunk/ > >> > >> [2] https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2520 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Carl > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
Hi Dennis, comments below.. On 01/30/2016 12:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [BCC AOO PMC] Carl, I notice that you are running two concurrent proposals. Personally, I am conflicted about this. I think this is admirable and worthy work. However, it is going to Maven as effectively a distribution from the project, and that implies an associated release. At the same time, we really want this to be a low-friction process. The lurking question is, what is the minimum that needs to be done to satisfy the ASF-important ceremonial requirements. See <http://apache.org/dev/release.html>. I'm told there are projects where the PMCs use lazy consensus. AOO has never been one of them and the existing policies and practices do introduce a level of formality for what are AOO releases. If we were to conduct a release vote, it would be necessary to have a majority of binding +1 votes by a margin of 3. That means basically that there is enough information for folks to independently review the source and confirm that the specified build process works. That also means, by the way, that there is a source-only release packaging with no included jars, etc., that there are external digests and digital signatures by the release manager (i.e., you), and there staging somewhere as a release candidate. I am copying the PMC on this and requesting that all discussion be here, and not there, so all committers and interested parties can contribute to the discussion. We would also need to know that at least 3 PMC members are prepared to carry out what is required for casting a binding release vote. While we wrestle with this, I request that you suspend the Groovy UNO Extension discussion for now and we continue this for the simple case of the Java Bootstrap Connector. I am assuming that this is the simpler case to work through a release process if we determine that we need to do so. - Dennis [cmarcum] No problem. I suspended the Groovy UNO extension proposal. My hope was to do this through the project but I understand the procedures and how this could cause more work for others than necessary since it's only a small developer tool and not a primary project artifact. I am more than willing to submit this individually if it makes more sense. In a larger sense this conversation could also apply to the future builds of the AOO-Netbeans plugin that is made available through NetBeans.org. Best regards, Carl -Original Message- From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 06:42 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository Hi All, I would like to create Maven bundles of the source, classes, and javadoc of the recently added BootstrapConnector [1] and stage them on the Apache Nexus Maven Repository using groupId "org.openoffice" so this would be from the project. If the project consensus is that a VOTE is necessary I will call for one after staging and prior to publishing, or if not, I will do another PROPOSAL for release. This jar allows bootstrapping the office by passing a string representing the path to the office executable to the bootstrap method. This code has been available for download from the Forum since 2008 [2]. I have obtained permission from the author to use the code by our project and under the AL 2.0 license and documented it with the AOO PMC. If there are no objections to the above proposal by midnight GMT Wednesday February 3rd, then I will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above proposal. Another option to this is that I publish them as an individual with a different groupId if this is preferred. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/bootstrap- connector/trunk/ [2] https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2520 Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
[BCC AOO PMC] Carl, I notice that you are running two concurrent proposals. Personally, I am conflicted about this. I think this is admirable and worthy work. However, it is going to Maven as effectively a distribution from the project, and that implies an associated release. At the same time, we really want this to be a low-friction process. The lurking question is, what is the minimum that needs to be done to satisfy the ASF-important ceremonial requirements. See <http://apache.org/dev/release.html>. I'm told there are projects where the PMCs use lazy consensus. AOO has never been one of them and the existing policies and practices do introduce a level of formality for what are AOO releases. If we were to conduct a release vote, it would be necessary to have a majority of binding +1 votes by a margin of 3. That means basically that there is enough information for folks to independently review the source and confirm that the specified build process works. That also means, by the way, that there is a source-only release packaging with no included jars, etc., that there are external digests and digital signatures by the release manager (i.e., you), and there staging somewhere as a release candidate. I am copying the PMC on this and requesting that all discussion be here, and not there, so all committers and interested parties can contribute to the discussion. We would also need to know that at least 3 PMC members are prepared to carry out what is required for casting a binding release vote. While we wrestle with this, I request that you suspend the Groovy UNO Extension discussion for now and we continue this for the simple case of the Java Bootstrap Connector. I am assuming that this is the simpler case to work through a release process if we determine that we need to do so. - Dennis > -Original Message- > From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org] > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 06:42 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven > Repository > > Hi All, > > I would like to create Maven bundles of the source, classes, and javadoc > of the recently added BootstrapConnector [1] and stage them on the > Apache Nexus Maven Repository using groupId "org.openoffice" so this > would be from the project. > > If the project consensus is that a VOTE is necessary I will call for one > after staging and prior to publishing, or if not, I will do another > PROPOSAL for release. > > This jar allows bootstrapping the office by passing a string > representing the path to the office executable to the bootstrap method. > > This code has been available for download from the Forum since 2008 [2]. > > I have obtained permission from the author to use the code by our > project and under the AL 2.0 license and documented it with the AOO PMC. > > If there are no objections to the above proposal by midnight GMT > Wednesday February 3rd, then I will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed > to implement the above proposal. > > Another option to this is that I publish them as an individual with a > different groupId if this is preferred. > > [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/bootstrap- > connector/trunk/ > > [2] https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2520 > > Thanks, > Carl > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[PROPOSAL][DEVTOOLS] Stage Java BootstrapConnector to Maven Repository
Hi All, I would like to create Maven bundles of the source, classes, and javadoc of the recently added BootstrapConnector [1] and stage them on the Apache Nexus Maven Repository using groupId "org.openoffice" so this would be from the project. If the project consensus is that a VOTE is necessary I will call for one after staging and prior to publishing, or if not, I will do another PROPOSAL for release. This jar allows bootstrapping the office by passing a string representing the path to the office executable to the bootstrap method. This code has been available for download from the Forum since 2008 [2]. I have obtained permission from the author to use the code by our project and under the AL 2.0 license and documented it with the AOO PMC. If there are no objections to the above proposal by midnight GMT Wednesday February 3rd, then I will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above proposal. Another option to this is that I publish them as an individual with a different groupId if this is preferred. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/bootstrap-connector/trunk/ [2] https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2520 Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
