Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Hi Dennis, Dennis E. Hamilton schrieb: -Original Message- From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:04 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2 On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi Jürgen, Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) the src package is fine. @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_b y_step#Windows_7 not to use Windows tools for unpacking. good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would drop the zip src release in the future. [orcmid] Regina, can you explain what Windows tool you mean? Do you mean not using the default way that Windows will open/extract a .zip file? Yes. I remember that for Windows own unpack tool problems have been reported at OOo-times. Do you mean that a Zip utility like WinZip or 7Zip should not be used? Yes. I had used 7Zip and had got these strange access problems. I assume the change you mean is where you use the Cygwin bash session and use tar to unpack the tar.bz2 source. Is that correct? Yes. I have now unpacked it inside Cygwin, using "tar xvzf apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz" (Or has the change not been pushed yet?) I have put my comment into section "Source release" right after the command example on the Wiki page https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7. I don't know, whether unpacking the zip-source inside Cygwin would work. As both Jürgen and me could build it with the "tar.gz" source, I agree with Jürgen, that next time we should not provide a zip-source at all. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
> -Original Message- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:04 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2 > > On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote: > > Hi Jürgen, > > > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: > >> > >> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. > Besides > >> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever > had) > >> the src package is fine. > >> > >> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but > maybe > >> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. > > > > I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and > unzipped > > it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to > > > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_b > y_step#Windows_7 > > not to use Windows tools for unpacking. > > good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is > strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to > use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would > drop the zip src release in the future. [orcmid] Regina, can you explain what Windows tool you mean? Do you mean not using the default way that Windows will open/extract a .zip file? Do you mean that a Zip utility like WinZip or 7Zip should not be used? I assume the change you mean is where you use the Cygwin bash session and use tar to unpack the tar.bz2 source. Is that correct? (Or has the change not been pushed yet?) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> >> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides >> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) >> the src package is fine. >> >> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe >> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. > > I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped > it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7 > not to use Windows tools for unpacking. good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would drop the zip src release in the future. Juergen > > Kind regards > Regina > > - > 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: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Hi Jürgen, Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) the src package is fine. @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7 not to use Windows tools for unpacking. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 15:05, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote: >> Hi Jürgen, >> >> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >>> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: [x] 0 Abstain It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a bug in the source. >>> >>> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I >>> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac >>> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest >>> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always >>> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were >>> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) >>> >>> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to >>> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I >>> used to build the binaries. >> >> If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on >> Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no >> one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not >> releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful >> build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. >> > > Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build, > everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for > example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were. > > Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and > cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the > tar.gz because it was smaller. > > I will let you know when the build is finished. checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) the src package is fine. @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. ... I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. ... So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation VOTE has concluded, even though of course more feedback is always welcome in case someone could not give feedback during these 3.5 days. The OpenOffice community and PMC voted in favor of releasing 4.1.2-RC3 (r1709696) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2, with 10 "+1 Approve" votes (7 from the PMC), 2 "0 Abstain" votes (2 from the PMC) and no "-1 Disapprove" votes. Tally follows. imacat +1 jsc +1 kschenk +1 marcus +1 mechtilde +1 mikeadvo+1 pescetti+1 damjan 0 regina 0 Rory O'Farrell +1 Jose R R +1 Olaf Felka +1 The release is still a few days away due to the needed preparations. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: >>> [x] 0 Abstain >>> >>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the >>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a >>> bug in the source. >> >> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I >> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac >> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest >> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always >> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were >> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) >> >> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to >> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I >> used to build the binaries. > > If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on > Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no > one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not > releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful > build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. > Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build, everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were. Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the tar.gz because it was smaller. I will let you know when the build is finished. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Niltze, all! On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> >> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: >>> >>> [x] 0 Abstain >>> >>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the >>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a >>> bug in the source. >> >> >> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I >> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac >> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest >> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always >> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were >> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) >> >> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to >> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I >> used to build the binaries. > > > If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on Windows, > because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no one found the > time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not releasing > binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful build of a src > tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. > > Kind regards > Regina > > > Earlier, under limited time, I was unsuccessful in building ApacheOO from source in this GNU/Linux Debian Unstable environment. I tried several Java versions, including Zulu from Azul Systems. On the other hand, simply because I was not able to build it in my environment, it does not imply that ApacheOO 4.1.2-RC3 is not ready to become OpenOffice 4.1.2. I installed it into Debian Unstable and it performs beautifully. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSPi_4XVEAEvCHg.png:large Thank you to whoever built the binary! [X] +1 Approve RC3 to become ApacheOO 4.1.2 -- Jose R R http://metztli.it - Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS - from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Hi Jürgen, Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: [x] 0 Abstain It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a bug in the source. Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I used to build the binaries. If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ X ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation Regards, Andrea. - 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: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 23/10/15 13:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is > now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. > > Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ > and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making > this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their > assistance and guidance. > > I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 > hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are > surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very > long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final > approval phase. > > So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: > [ ] +1 Approve > [ ] 0 Abstain > [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation > +1 approve, I use it already on my Mac and I have't found anything critical so far. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: > [x] 0 Abstain > > It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the > delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a > bug in the source. Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I used to build the binaries. Juergen > > Kind regards > Regina > > Andrea Pescetti schrieb: >> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is >> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. >> >> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ >> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making >> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their >> assistance and guidance. >> >> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 >> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are >> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very >> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final >> approval phase. >> >> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: >> [ ] +1 Approve >> [ ] 0 Abstain >> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation >> >> Regards, >>Andrea. >> >> - >> 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: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
+1 Approve Andrea Pescetti 於 2015年10月26日 08:06 寫道: > On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: >> [ ] +1 Approve >> [ ] 0 Abstain >> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation > > +1 Approve > > Verified signatures, checksums, licenses, built from scratch on Linux, > tested Italian localization, tested bugfixes and ordinary usage. No > blockers found. > > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://www.wofoss.org/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
[x] 0 Abstain It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a bug in the source. Kind regards Regina Andrea Pescetti schrieb: We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their assistance and guidance. I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final approval phase. So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation Regards, Andrea. - 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: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 23.10.2015 13:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: > [ ] +1 Approve > [ ] 0 Abstain > [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation > +1 Approve de-deb 32 bit Regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 10/25/2015 04:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> Ok, I am changing my vote to: >> [0] Abstain > > Thanks for your understanding. > >> I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in >> previous >> releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ... >> since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may >> not >> apply? > > If this had been caught early in the process, we would still have > fixed in RC3 since it is trivial to do so. At this point, I opened > an issue > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605 > so that we ensure that this doesn't happen again. > >> Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it >> doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu >> either, as >> they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since >> most people >> don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from >> source, and of >> those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can >> document the >> workaround, I guess it's ok. > > Thanks, issue and workaround noted in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes > > > Regards, > Andrea. Just a short FYI. I got curious about this especially in light of the fact that the Linux-32 SNAPSHOT has been non-functioning for about a month and I hadn't noticed that. I downloaded the tarball and built on my CentOS 6.7 32 bit setup and all is well. I should have done this to begin with I guess. :/ The output from the last good Linux-32 SNAPSHOT build (Sept. 21) can be found at: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-snapshot -- MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 23/10/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation +1 Approve Verified signatures, checksums, licenses, built from scratch on Linux, tested Italian localization, tested bugfixes and ordinary usage. No blockers found. Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Damjan Jovanovic wrote: Ok, I am changing my vote to: [0] Abstain Thanks for your understanding. I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous releases, it shouldn't stop this release. ... since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not apply? If this had been caught early in the process, we would still have fixed in RC3 since it is trivial to do so. At this point, I opened an issue https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605 so that we ensure that this doesn't happen again. Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the workaround, I guess it's ok. Thanks, issue and workaround noted in https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2+Release+Notes Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 10/23/2015 04:50 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it > is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. > > Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ > and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making > this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their > assistance and guidance. > > I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 > hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are > surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the > very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the > final approval phase. > > So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: > [ ] +1 Approve > [ ] 0 Abstain > [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation > > Regards, > Andrea. +1 Approve Tested on CentOS 6.7 32-bit Linux. Re-verified fixed issues and my own docs. -- MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
I don't see the "...Env.Set.sh" file as code file and therefore the rules don't apply here. But to be super-sure just delete the generated file(s) from the source tar balls and rebuild only these new. And +1 for extending the release notes with the other issues that affect the binaries. Marcus Am 10/25/2015 01:12 PM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: Ok, I am changing my vote to: [0] Abstain See below for details. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Damjan Jovanovic wrote: [-1] Disapprove That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0, since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was). The deal breakers: 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause unapproved license errors in the RAT report. This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our tagged snapshot at https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit, since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file). I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous releases, it shouldn't stop this release. Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not apply? 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and physical hardware (details later). We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline", the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below). Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the workaround, I guess it's ok. None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally and explaining why some tests weren't done. Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release. Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are: - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link provided by Dennis https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a more readable version of it. - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work. Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
+1 Tested on Windows 8.1 64-Bit Marcus Am 10/23/2015 01:50 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their assistance and guidance. I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final approval phase. So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Ok, I am changing my vote to: [0] Abstain See below for details. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > >> [-1] Disapprove >> > > That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0, > since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do > not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what > we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was). > > The deal breakers: >> 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set >> and >> main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're >> not >> in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause >> unapproved license errors in the RAT report. >> > > This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated > file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will > get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our > tagged snapshot at > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while > it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic > (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this > affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files > are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the > binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit, > since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file). > > I suppose since the file is generated, unused, and was present in previous releases, it shouldn't stop this release. Apache release policy may require those files to be removed or copyright notices added because "Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license) and "Every ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This requirement is of utmost importance and an audit should be performed before any full release is created. In particular, every artifact distributed must contain only appropriately licensed code" (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). But since the file is a generated file and not a source file, that may not apply? > 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and >> physical hardware (details later). >> > > We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline", > the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still > maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on > virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of > other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent > versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the > platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below). > > Ok, good that we use CentOS 5 for binaries. My concern is that if it doesn't build on 32-bit Xubuntu, it won't build on 32-bit Ubuntu either, as they are very similar. But I'll check that at some stage. Since most people don't run Linux, and most Linux users won't be building from source, and of those building not all will be on 32-bit (X)ubuntu, and we can document the workaround, I guess it's ok. None of the below should stop the release; I was just commenting generally and explaining why some tests weren't done. > Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code >> quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release. >> > > Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are: > - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat > - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link > provided by Dennis > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B > will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a > more readable version of it. > - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required > to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not > important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for > trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work. > > Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported >> from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break >> > > This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer > to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we have on > trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and also in > this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1. > > >> Xub
[DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
Damjan Jovanovic wrote: [-1] Disapprove That's bad! Let's see if we can manage to explain it and at least get a 0, since I don't see anything really blocking in your reports (I mean, we do not require that the release has no issues at all, and we agree that what we are releasing is better than 4.1.1 was). The deal breakers: 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause unapproved license errors in the RAT report. This is true but it is cosmetic, meaning that this is simply a generated file that was archived by mistake. If you configure the sources, you will get this or the corresponding file for other platforms. It is not in our tagged snapshot at https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/ and while it would be possible to simply remove it, I still see it as simply cosmetic (but I'm available to discuss whether we should remove those files; this affects only the sources, it is a merely cosmetic change since those files are unused or overwritten during the build, and it has zero effect on the binaries so we needn't new binaries; and it does not even require a commit, since it is a problem with assembling the .tar.gz file). 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and physical hardware (details later). We officially support Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In terms of "baseline", the reference for Linux is, for historical reasons, CentOS 5 (a still maintained, but quite old, version; this means that our binaries can run on virtually all distributions); build works there. There are hundreds of other distributions: with the new bugfixes, OpenOffice will build on recent versions of Fedora and Ubuntu (64-bit). Xubuntu 32-bit might be one of the platforms where it is fine to describe how to fix the build (more below). Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release. Yes, sorry for not providing them. Here we are: - RAT reports: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-rat - Changelog: we traditionally have not had a CHANGELOG file. This link provided by Dennis https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=170870&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&v1=4.1.2_release_blocker%2B will show you what changed. I'll update our Release Notes, a subpage of https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.2 , with a more readable version of it. - Test results and code quality metrics are not something we are required to provide (and we actually never did). Does this mean they are not important? No, they are! We may want to make them part of the process for trunk, where we now have a better situation thanks to your work. Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break This is known. An important thing to keep in mind is that 4.1.2 is closer to 4.1.1 than to trunk: we can't backport all the nice things we have on trunk. In many situations, 4.1.2 is an improvement to 4.1.1, and also in this respect 4.1.2 is no worse than 4.1.1. Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used. The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware) in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago This seems the typical situation where we would add a comment in the "known issues" section of the Release Notes saying what to expect, and how to fix it. A similar situation is the Java 8 compatibility when building the SDK. In both cases we provide something that people can build on a variety of easily available systems; and we refer to the Release Notes for less common cases. All these fail on trunk as well, and trunk has 15 additional fvt test failures and several errors not present in 4.1.2 :-(. OK, then I recommend that focus in on trunk for tests. We can't backport everything and we have to live with the fact that 4.1.2 will be exactly like 4.1.1 in some respect. For sure, it is no worse than 4.1.1. Otherwise thank you everyone for this RC, and hopefully the next one will be released. I hope we will not need a next one! I'm available, as said, to discuss recreating the source archive and removing the two "temporary" files that were archived and that are not in SVN. I'll open a thread for this as soon as I have thoroughly checked it. The rest of your comments can probably be addressed in Release Notes or (in the case of tests) on trunk since those improvements are out of
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
[-1] Disapprove The deal breakers: 1. The source tarball (tar.bz2 at least) contains main/MacOSXX64Env.Set and main/MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. I don't believe they belong in there (they're not in trunk), and if they do, they're missing ASLv2 licenses and cause unapproved license errors in the RAT report. 2. The source fails to build on 32 bit Xubuntu 14.04 both on VMs and physical hardware (details later). Otherwise: Please can we see links to RAT reports, changelog, test results, code quality metrics, and other useful info in the emails proposing a release. Neither Google Test nor the unit test changes themselves were backported from trunk to 4.1.2, and many old cppunit tests would fail and break the build if --with-system-cppunit were to be used, so unit tests can't be tested. I did run the bvt and fvt tests. Since it's badly documented, you first "source LinuxX86Env.Set.sh" (or your equivalent) and then run the tests in the test/ subdirectory with: ant -Dtest.args="-tp bvt" ant -Dtest.args="-tp fvt" with -Dopenoffice.home=/path/to/AOO added if you do what I did, which is ran the more up-to-date tests from trunk against 4.1.2. The bvt tests take about 10 minutes, the fvt tests 1 hour. Xubuntu 14.04, 32 bit The binary package installs. Java 7 is automatically detected and used. The source reproducibly fails to build (on both VMs and physical hardware) in main/svl with this error I reported on the dev list months ago, which can be worked around by copying and pasting the command that fails and running it manually with "-lc" appended (as the missing __stack_chk_fail symbol is present in libc, but the linker doesn't search there for some reason): --snip-- [ build LNK ] Library/passwordcontainer.uno.so R=/home/user/aoo-4.1.2 && S=$R/main && O=$S/solver/412/unxlngi6 && W=$O/workdir && mkdir -p $W/LinkTarget/Library/ && g++ -shared -Wl,-z,noexecstack '-Wl,-rpath,$ORIGIN:$ORIGIN/../ure-link/lib' '-Wl,-rpath-link,$O/lib' -Wl,-rpath-link,/lib:/usr/lib -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,defs -L$S/solenv/unxlngi6/lib -L$O/lib -L$S/solenv/unxlngi6/lib -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/lib -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386 -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386/client -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-i386/jre/lib/i386/native_threads -L/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu -Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-new -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-typeinfo -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions $W/CxxObject/svl/source/passwordcontainer/passwordcontainer.o $W/CxxObject/svl/source/passwordcontainer/syscreds.o -luno_cppu -luno_cppuhelpergcc3 -luno_sal -lstdc++ -lucbhelper4gcc3 -lutl -Wl,--start-group -Wl,--end-group -o $W/LinkTarget/Library/ passwordcontainer.uno.so /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc_nonshared.a(stack_chk_fail_local.oS): In function `__stack_chk_fail_local': (.text+0x10): undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [/home/user/aoo-4.1.2/main/solver/412/unxlngi6/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/ passwordcontainer.uno.so] Error 1 dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all' 1 module(s): svl need(s) to be rebuilt --snip-- The test results: 5 bvt tests out of 51 total get errors in 4.1.2: bvt.gui.ContinuePoint initializationError Test class should have exactly one public constructor bvt.gui.ContinuePoint initializationError No runnable methods bvt.gui.FileExport testSaveAs String index out of range: -1 bvt.gui.TestType initializationError Test class should have exactly one public zero-argument constructor bvt.gui.TestType initializationError No runnable methods All of these also fail on trunk. The bvt.gui.ContinuePoint and bvt.gui.TestType classes are not tests, so they shouldn't be getting tested in the first place. The bvt.gu.FileExport class contains mistakes like using hardcoded slashes and backslashes instead of java.io.File.separatorChar, fails because it constructs a path badly, and is looking for a samples directory that doesn't exist. Trunk has 4 additional failures not present in 4.1.2. 12 fvt tests out of 858 total fail in 4.1.2: fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowDateNotBetween expected:<[12/31/07]> but was:<[]> fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowTimeBetween expected:<[09:00:00 PM]> but was:<[21:00:00]> fvt.gui.sc.validity.ValidityDialogSetting testAllowTimeGreaterThan expected:<07:30:00[ AM]> but was:<07:30:00[]> fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableBorderLineStyle expected:<0.50 ["]> but was:<0.50 [cm]> fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableRowHeight expected:<0.50 ["]> but was:<0.50 [cm]> fvt.gui.sw.table.TableGeneral testTableColumnWidth expected:<2.00 ["]> but was:<2.00 [cm]> fvt.uno.sc.chart.ChartLegend testLegendPosition[0] Incorrect chart legend position X got in .ods file. expected:<14009.0> but was:<14007.0> fvt.uno.sc.chart.ChartLegend testLegendPosition[2] Incorrect chart legend position X got in .ods file. expected:<9470.0> but was:<9468.0> fvt.uno.sw.puretext.CharacterLocale testCharact
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
[+1] +1 Approve Installed OK on Xubuntu 15.10. -- Rory O'Farrell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 [+1] Approve De-Debs 64 bit tested Am 23.10.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it > is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. > > Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ and the > reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this > available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their > assistance and guidance. > > I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum > 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions > are surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that > the very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening > the final approval phase. > > So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice > 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with > explanation > > Regards, Andrea. > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > - -- Mechtilde Stehmann ## Apache OpenOffice.org ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client ## PGP encryption welcome ## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWKy1aAAoJEPKHe7oUGq1/J5UQAKpUWpXv1jmMdBU9cW0FZ701 mC/Ui75X2YcgBM1ef1XDwjLY2hhu9oOHf2F9zqRUwSUv8ryIsZOR+BhaqfqlvlgN Q9ANDYpBRAILRd1EJULffj2Xp+bfCOp1jdyYROFRQaW7y1lQY1kwsVLqDkl+YiKI W9CldnBBmRZ+E3i4cdFM1IecrZ4lBvKVuO98VzwcBsolqb3Bes+W7MtPhMHNxdOb Q23pCv5BQdZyPW1rG2Rmfe6H83KoW3j9xOdgdywlv2sJlariCLTSBH9Q1jrcvRDP suK74ua7xsY+/ySXDFSUNYU8zBo3ZKJ+dZkafuj3Bl+9nCDqsbkQ0PMUBfPQs0id EhAJh+KVsLOYSGx0+bFPfh6eNI8XZC4VxMF7CT881n2j4I1W2mOvsM0QVXllaUN3 fMrlYAu8vouicPWXy6/3pqt+UeL5UrL7saYNaSVcsL6GpMYpkh0mNI33KBxhUVT4 x3AjPyLTx0TgEud/b7GQRt5iBlOq0OvxYRl29ViRqgAAP+Xb27+8WtpbAIH/GVzD XcnmJH8v2tUyzxgLZIKzbLpd3OP0VXKw0mMA3nhfeaXkF5TqofUtpIOwXyOhnVti E1CVnJcX85OqTtJf6rXabWlQuny3qalKxflf6Ut2/V/0FFBFL0sLSFSueXTjjiA7 sRY4RP0F4EjfNNhjhmOS =7Azq -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their assistance and guidance. I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final approval phase. So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: [ ] +1 Approve [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org