incubator-ooo-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From conflue...@apache.org
Subject [CONF] Apache OpenOffice Community > AOO 3.4.1 Reflection and Review
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:05:00 GMT
Space: Apache OpenOffice Community (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS)
Page: AOO 3.4.1 Reflection and Review (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Reflection+and+Review)
Comment: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Reflection+and+Review?focusedCommentId=30737357#comment-30737357

Comment added by Kay Schenk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>From my perspective, having working buildbots (with appropriate caretakers) is critical
to the credibility of our binary releases. This is not to diminish the efforts of volunteer
developers on their individual systems. I guess I am feeling, given mentor comments on general@incubator
for the 3.4.1 release, we need to reinforce both to the ASF and our user base WHAT steps we
take to produce these binary releases and why what we do is safe and will work for them. This
should be documented via a page on the project site as well I think. 

Which meshes well with this item--
"do we need a more formal written down release check list that we can easy reuse for every
release. What is important here?"

I would answer yes, but I don't know what to include. This should be documented as well as
part of a  QA process available for public consumption.

I know many opensource projects will not undergo the kind of scrutiny OpenOffice will/does.
But this product has a history in commercial supply/support. So, I feel we need to shore up
any items that speak to credibility/assurance.


Change your notification preferences: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewnotifications.action

Mime
View raw message