subject:"Testing 4.1.3"

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-12 Thread Dick Groskamp


Op 11-10-2016 om 23:11 schreef Marcus:

Am 10/04/2016 10:29 PM, schrieb Marcus:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


Hi Dirk and Joerg,

we have finished the release notes. Please check if you need to 
incorporate the latest changes into your translations.


Thanks

Marcus


Done

--
DiGro
___
Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 (Dutch) and scanned with Ziggo extended security 
(F-Secure)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-11 Thread Jörg Schmidt

Hello Marcus, 

> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 

> Hi Dirk and Joerg,
> 
> we have finished the release notes. Please check if you need to 
> incorporate the latest changes into your translations.

OK, the german version ist ready.


Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-11 Thread Marcus


Am 10/04/2016 10:29 PM, schrieb Marcus:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


Hi Dirk and Joerg,

we have finished the release notes. Please check if you need to 
incorporate the latest changes into your translations.


Thanks

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-06 Thread Patricia Shanahan




On 10/6/2016 5:29 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/05/2016 12:23 AM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update
as appropriate?


I've seen now all issues as "Resolved - Fixed" - or "Verified - Fixed".


Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue,
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now


IMHO this has changed in the meantime. I've added this also to the
release notes.


denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.


I hope you don't mind that I've deleted the 4.1.4 blocker request.


No problem. I only filed the request to make sure it did not get lost.
Fixed by choice of build environment is much better.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-06 Thread Marcus

Am 10/05/2016 12:23 AM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update
as appropriate?

I've seen now all issues as "Resolved - Fixed" - or "Verified - Fixed".

Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue,
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now

IMHO this has changed in the meantime. I've added this also to the
release notes.

denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.

I hope you don't mind that I've deleted the 4.1.4 blocker request.

Marcus

On 10/4/2016 2:47 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes

ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into
an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still
points to 4.0.1.

I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved,
closed [1].

But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.

[1]
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=equals&order=Importance&query_format=advanced&v1=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B

Marcus

On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-05 Thread Patricia Shanahan


On 10/5/2016 2:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:

Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.


Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members
free to vote and specify what they have done. Nobody will go to jail for
not building from source and "only" testing the binaries that we are
going to make available for download by one million users per week.

We will not be in the situation where we should count votes and, if
needed (and it happened in the past) a release vote can be canceled by
the Release Manager if a blocker bug is found.

So it is more helpful for us to receive an honest +1 from someone who
specifies he only tested binaries than total silence from the same
person because she understood that you can be useful to the project only
if you build from source. It is clear that we will satisfy the mandatory
requirements anyway and with no need for counting votes. So the more
feedback we get, the better.


+1

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-05 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:

Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.


Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members 
free to vote and specify what they have done. Nobody will go to jail for 
not building from source and "only" testing the binaries that we are 
going to make available for download by one million users per week.


We will not be in the situation where we should count votes and, if 
needed (and it happened in the past) a release vote can be canceled by 
the Release Manager if a blocker bug is found.


So it is more helpful for us to receive an honest +1 from someone who 
specifies he only tested binaries than total silence from the same 
person because she understood that you can be useful to the project only 
if you build from source. It is clear that we will satisfy the mandatory 
requirements anyway and with no need for counting votes. So the more 
feedback we get, the better.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-05 Thread Matthias Seidel

Sorry for highjacking this thread...

I would like to promote some issues as release blocker for 4.1.4. The
issues are fixed in trunk and the code changes are minimal.

What would be the best way, as I see no possibility in my bugzilla-account?

regards

Matthias


Am 05.10.2016 um 00:23 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and
> update as appropriate?
>
> Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue,
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes
> because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now
> denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.
>
> On 10/4/2016 2:47 PM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into
>> an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still
>> points to 4.0.1.
>>
>> I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved,
>> closed [1].
>>
>> But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=equals&order=Importance&query_format=advanced&v1=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:
 OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

 What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
 already?
>>
>> -
>> 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
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Testing 4.1.3

2016-10-04 Thread Patricia Shanahan

I have done some basic testing for the following environments and 
language versions:


Windows 7 en_GB
Windows 8.1 en_GB, fr
Windows 10 en_GB
Ubuntu 16.04 en_GB

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-04 Thread Patricia Shanahan

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update 
as appropriate?


Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue, 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes 
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now 
denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.


On 10/4/2016 2:47 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes



ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into
an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still
points to 4.0.1.

I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved,
closed [1].

But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.

[1]
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=equals&order=Importance&query_format=advanced&v1=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B


Marcus




On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


-
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: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus


Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes


ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into 
an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still 
points to 4.0.1.


I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved, 
closed [1].


But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.

[1] 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name&o1=equals&order=Importance&query_format=advanced&v1=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B


Marcus




On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-04 Thread Patricia Shanahan


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes

On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?

Marcus

-
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

Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus


OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable 
already?


Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-04 Thread Andrea Pescetti


Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.


You may want to add your own signature to the .asc files, concatenating 
it as Dennis suggested. As release documentation explains, this can also 
be done at voting time, but it's good to keep files unchanged during the 
vote.


If you do so, just remember to use
$ svn propset svn:mime-type text/plain *.asc *.md5 *.sha256
(in your case, *.asc will actually be enough) before commit to address 
the binary vs text issue noted by Marcus.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-04 Thread Marcus

Am 10/04/2016 06:39 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are
waiting for more expert advice.

I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing
dependency order, so that a module gets built too soon, while things on
which it depends have not all been built.

On the comparisons between trees, "diff -r A B" does not take that long
and gives full confirmation that A and B are paths to directory trees
with the same files and identical file content.

I've done a "diff -r AOO413 and aoo-4.1.3" and there I can that the
problem is an old "friend".

It's the "fmgridif.cxx" file that stumbles over the gcc compiler bug
about optimization [1]. In my checked-out SVN files I've worked around
that with a modified makefile (thanks to Don).

Note to myself:
Look closer to the log files.

Sorry for the noise. ;-(

So finally, the source package as ZIP file is fine and I can get a 4.1.3
release out of it with the release options.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65009

Marcus

On 10/4/2016 9:11 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 04.10.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?

I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the
.bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413
still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).

For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz
decompress
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar
files for further checks.

ah, great hint.

I've uncompressed all 3 files, diff'ed the .tar.bz2 and .tar.gz files,
and finally uncompressed all files until the actual dirs/files. All 3
dirs had the same total file size of 1,541,414,704 bytes. This has to
be enough when it comes to "you have to check all source files".

Tomorrow I'll build the release from a package file.

I've uncompressed the ZIP file and started a clean build. Unfortunately,
I get the following error:

[...]
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:

In function
`FmXGridControl::createPeer(com::sun::star::uno::Reference

const&, com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&)':
fmgridif.cxx:(.text+0x68b2): undefined reference to `non-virtual thunk
to WindowListenerMultiplexer::acquire()'
/usr/bin/ld:
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:

relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol
`_ZThn48_N25WindowListenerMultiplexer7acquireEv' can not be used when
making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:259: recipe for
target
'/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so'

failed
make: ***
[/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so]

Error 1
dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all'

1 module(s):
svx
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/svx/prj

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build
by running:

build --from svx

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

2016-10-04 Thread Patricia Shanahan




On 10/4/2016 4:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:


On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.

A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's control. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
decide when to start a vote.


I've build today that branch with release options. Is this sufficient or
do I need to build from the [zip|gz|bzip] file?


I believe it does have to be from the zip etc. but I am not sure. The actual 
wording is:

"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all signed 
source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet all requirements of 
ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile 
as provided, and test the result on their own platform."



The release is the tarball/zip itself and not the "tag". So it (the
build) needs to be from the zip/tarball.


I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

61 matches

Mail list logo