Am 11.10.2017 um 13:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
After a night's sleep I decided that we should release
the best possible version of AOO 4.1.x as possible. Releasing
one w/ 2 known regressions just doesn't make sense.
So the remaining question was/is: What do we call it?
I decided that,
Jim, you are the Boss! :)
It is good you stay Release Manager! I appreciate that a lot!
Am 11. Oktober 2017 18:27:55 MESZ schrieb Kay Schenk :
>
>On 10/11/2017 05:46 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>>
>>> On October 11, 2017 at 12:20 PM Jim Jagielski
>wrote:
>>>
On 10/11/2017 05:46 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
On October 11, 2017 at 12:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
After a night's sleep I decided that we should release
the best possible version of AOO 4.1.x as possible. Releasing
one w/ 2 known regressions just doesn't make sense.
+1
Path: .
Working Copy Root Path: /Users/jim/src/asf/code/follow/aoo-414
URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO414
Relative URL: ^/openoffice/branches/AOO414
Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
Revision:
Jim,
can you give a short hint when you start building RC5 and the revision#?
Matthias
Am 11.10.2017 um 14:02 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Lets go ahead and add those. Add the flag and request them and I'll review
> and likely approve; at least we will doc them ;)
>
> Thx!
>> On Oct 11, 2017, at
I am starting on macOS and Linux-64 builds for 4.1.4-RC5 as we speak.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:20:53 -0400
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> After a night's sleep I decided that we should release
> the best possible version of AOO 4.1.x as possible. Releasing
> one w/ 2 known regressions just doesn't make sense.
>
> So the remaining question was/is: What do
> On October 11, 2017 at 12:20 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> After a night's sleep I decided that we should release
> the best possible version of AOO 4.1.x as possible. Releasing
> one w/ 2 known regressions just doesn't make sense.
+1
> So the plan is to "re-open"
Lets go ahead and add those. Add the flag and request them and I'll review
and likely approve; at least we will doc them ;)
Thx!
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Am 11.10.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Are these requested as 4.1.4
Am 11.10.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I decided that, procedurally, the AOO414 tag was premature,
>> and, as such, can be removed. I've gone ahead and done that.
>> So the plan is to "re-open" branches/AOO414; I will then apply
>> to it the 2 patches that have
Am 11.10.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Are these requested as 4.1.4 blockers in Bugz?
No.
>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Matthias Seidel
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> If time permits, could you have a look at:
>>
>>
Are these requested as 4.1.4 blockers in Bugz?
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> If time permits, could you have a look at:
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127141
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127538
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I decided that, procedurally, the AOO414 tag was premature,
and, as such, can be removed. I've gone ahead and done that.
So the plan is to "re-open" branches/AOO414; I will then apply
to it the 2 patches that have been applied to branches/AOO415
(after adjusting the version
Hi Jim,
If time permits, could you have a look at:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127141
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127538
Only small translation fixes, but they didn't make it into 4.1.4.
Regards, Matthias
P.S.: I am also OK, if we go "regression only" for RC5
Am
14 matches
Mail list logo