Am 11.10.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Dave Fisher:
Hi
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Oct 10, 2017, at
Hi
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus wrote:
>
>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi -
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pe
On 10 Oct, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
> 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
> Or call it 4.1.4.1
Figuring out ho
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "know
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this
>>> "known issue" and commit to fi
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known
issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month?
Technically, the Release Ma
Am 10.10.2017 um 21:19 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
>
> Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
>
> But I'll still send this "modest proposal", base
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this
> "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in
> 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim
> to b
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> To us a release is/was simply the distributed source package, not a tag in
> SVN. But this is a side discussion.
>
Agreed. But it is a serious discussion since such policy is NOT part
of the standard release expectations. Their must be
2017-10-10 21:19 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti :
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
>>
>
> Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
>
> But I'll still send this "modest proposal", b
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
But I'll still send this "modest proposal", based on experience:
1) We just go ahead and release 4.1.4 as
Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia:
On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
O
Am 10.10.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Peter kovacs:
I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve
together.
I also want that Jim continous as RM.
@Jim:
Please remember that it's allowed to ask for help when you see much work
and less time on your side. ;-)
Marcus
I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve
together.
I can take over at 4.1.5, if needed, but not before. I am sorry. Because
currently I am not up to date about the release and have time restraints until
20th.
For 4.1.5 we need to communicate, explain the sit
I hope you will stay on. I am not sure I would have made the same
decision as you about the release number, but in my opinion part of the
RM role is bike-shedding prevention by making decisions.
I hope that the need to test the patch ASAP does not get lost in the
discussion of what to call it.
Hi all --
It's true that changing from 4.1.4 to 4.1.5 requires a bit of work, but
really not all that much. It would be better to have Jim continue as RM
regardless IMO and others can pitch in. Once the branch is copied to
4.1.5, others can pitch in to do version updates. Non-committers can
I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which
is very, very tiring).
As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would
be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT s
Rest assured that I am on standby for the Windows builds!
Whatever version it will be...
Am 10.10.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
> to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
> being away at
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
> 4.1.4 work away and start again
Either way we would have to update the metadata:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127168
It would be quite risky to introduce a fourth digit without testing at
this stage...
Matthias
Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia:
> On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oc
On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
> 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
> Or call it 4.1.4.1
>
> Rory
+1
FC
-
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
>
> That's sad news. :(
>
> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional
> 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of
> collecting bugs and track
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4
work away and start again with 4.1.5?
Or call it 4.1.4.1
Rory
>
> > On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200
> Peter kovacs mailto:pe...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>> That's sad news. :(
>>
>> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional
>> 4.1.5 if we
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200
Peter kovacs wrote:
> That's sad news. :(
>
> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional
> 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of
> collecting bugs and track
That's sad news. :(
I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional
4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting
bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
If that's fine for all.
One siden
To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
Linux 32/64 bit builds.
27 matches
Mail list logo