Peter Kovacs wrote:
Am Samstag, den 28.10.2017, 00:40 +0200 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
this thread was actually to address the problem with actually
changing release numbers in code, nothing else.
It does not adress the problem with release models. It works only
around them. Is there a bug report
Am Freitag, den 27.10.2017, 23:36 +0200 schrieb Marcus:
>
> sorry, but yes.
>
> At the moment I've not the time and mood to read and understand such
> long mails. So, please don't expect an answer from me.
I see. I am sorry. I will keep then my Ideas to me. Do them if I have
time, suggest if I h
Am Samstag, den 28.10.2017, 00:40 +0200 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
> > I hope I did not scare anyone with this lengthy explanation now.
>
> No, but it is just off-topic. This is partially my fault since
> "Managing
> branches" in the subject could be read as a proposal for a b
Peter Kovacs wrote:
I hope I did not scare anyone with this lengthy explanation now.
No, but it is just off-topic. This is partially my fault since "Managing
branches" in the subject could be read as a proposal for a branching
model. But this is totally not the topic here.
The issue here is
Hi -
I’ll bite on a discussion. Overall I think that we are mixing two different
purposes.
(1) Keeping track of what is or may be released. This is what the current
scheme does well when we are on a branch and not so well when we are on trunk.
(2) Managing the lifecycle of a particular release.
Am 27.10.2017 um 23:28 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
Disclaimer:
I do not claime that one solution is the ultimate solution over the
other.
But I would like to explain my approach as long as it takes until
everybody says he understood what I am suggesting. Nothing more nothing
less. No religeous war is
Disclaimer:
I do not claime that one solution is the ultimate solution over the
other.
But I would like to explain my approach as long as it takes until
everybody says he understood what I am suggesting. Nothing more nothing
less. No religeous war is intended or whished from my side.
end disclaime
Am 26.10.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Peter kovacs:
Am 25. Oktober 2017 21:25:42 MESZ schrieb Marcus :
Sure, it's not yet written in stop. But when we need to build it it has to be.
Furthermore, when releasing from "test" or "release" or similar, what
to
do with these branches? I hope you do not sugg
+1. Having a branch ready to roll is cheap insurance.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
On 26 Oct, Peter kovacs wrote:
>
>
> Am 25. Oktober 2017 21:25:42 MESZ schrieb Marcus :
>>Am 25.10.2017 um 20:50 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> Why do you want to branch all the time with names that can change? I
>>think it is an expensive way of getting flexibility. I suggest a more
>>abstract branch
Just to be clear.
I follow by all passionate argumentation, my vote goes to whatever Jim and
Matthias decide. They do releases, and they earned the most kudos on that.
I am in whatever makes them happy!
I like meritocracy! Even if that leaves me rather at the edge in a lot of
topics.
All the bes
Am 25. Oktober 2017 21:25:42 MESZ schrieb Marcus :
>Am 25.10.2017 um 20:50 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>> Why do you want to branch all the time with names that can change? I
>think it is an expensive way of getting flexibility. I suggest a more
>abstract branches.
>>
>> Why not have 4 permanent branc
Hi Andrea, all
On 24/10/2017 21:25, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
This will ensure that we can shift the focus to trunk while still
keeping a branch that remains ready for a quick release if needed. If
we are never in this situation, the next release will be from the
current trunk and AOO415 will ne
Am 24.10.2017 um 22:25 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the current
collective state of mind on the next release. I'll float them here for
refinement or lazy consensus, and then we may want to reuse this text in
wiki or blog posts to avoid repe
Am 25.10.2017 um 20:50 schrieb Peter kovacs:
Why do you want to branch all the time with names that can change? I think it
is an expensive way of getting flexibility. I suggest a more abstract branches.
Why not have 4 permanent branches that are dev/trunc , test, hotfix and Release?
Dev/trunc
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/24/2017 2:34 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the current
>>> collective state of mind on the next release. I'll floa
Why do you want to branch all the time with names that can change? I think it
is an expensive way of getting flexibility. I suggest a more abstract branches.
Why not have 4 permanent branches that are dev/trunc , test, hotfix and Release?
Dev/trunc would contain latest development.
Test would co
Am 25.10.2017 um 19:44 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 25.10.2017 um 01:00 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>
>> On 10/24/2017 2:34 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the
current collective state of mind
We all wish for more frequent, more major releases. 4.1.x is just a
number...
No one will report you to the International Software Police if the next
release will be 4.1.5 and have ten times more bug fixes and a dozen new
features :)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:
>
>
>
Am 25.10.2017 um 01:00 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
On 10/24/2017 2:34 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the
current collective state of mind on the next release. I'll float them
here for refinement o
+1
so we can also show to be ready to fix important bugs in time.
this is also a statement to the community
Regards
Mechtilde
Am 25.10.2017 um 01:00 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>
>
> On 10/24/2017 2:34 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> I'm starting
On 10/24/2017 2:34 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the current
collective state of mind on the next release. I'll float them here for
refinement or lazy consensus, and then we may want to reuse th
Kay Schenk wrote:
Would it be more clear to just remove the AOO415 branch and only
re-instate it if needed (hopefully not).
No, it wouldn't. See https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127552 -
there is a series of changes that need to be done for the release number
bump. It's better to hav
On 10/24/2017 01:25 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the current
collective state of mind on the next release. I'll float them here for
refinement or lazy consensus, and then we may want to reuse this text in
wiki or blog posts to avoid repe
I'm starting a short series of occasional posts to capture the current
collective state of mind on the next release. I'll float them here for
refinement or lazy consensus, and then we may want to reuse this text in
wiki or blog posts to avoid repeating the same concepts over and over.
Let's st
25 matches
Mail list logo