incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 02:29:08 GMT
I think we need to carefully analyze both why an old infra OOo 3.4 makes sense and why it doesn't.

I'm not sure the following statement is true, or not. I think it is more a challenge.

One huge advantage to doing a release on the existing OOo infrastructure is that the process
could be watched and documented by AOOo as it occurs. This may actually give AOOo a quicker
route to an Apache OOo 4.0 release and graduation.

If this course were followed we would need to make sure that Oracle's grant can be made to
cover the resulting codebase as completely as possible. This may mean changing the license
on the existing OOo infrastructure.

IP clearance and mercurial to svn transformation proceed. Everything here at AOOo proceeds
with the addition that we completely monitor the release process.

Opposing consideration:

We don't really become an Apache project until we get an Apache release and everyone is committed
to the Apache Way.

How much does the following consideration influence our decision?

There is a huge consumer market that is waiting for an OOo 3.4.

Regards,
Dave

On Jul 4, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> Is there a big deal with discussing a further OOo release on the OOo
> lists? And note I say lists plural.   Remember, a release at OOo
> requires coordination among several different groups, dev, qa, doc,
> translation, etc.  They have their own lists, dozens of them, that are
> all involved in preparing a release.  We have none of them here, and I
> don't think it is a very good idea to put all that traffic onto
> ooo-dev, in addition to the current discussions.  The easiest way to
> make a release on OOo infrastructure is to actually make a release on
> OOo infrastructure.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't see the point of moving such discussion elsewhere.
>> Look, we did exactly this with subversion and it was NO BIG DEAL.
>> This list will be expected to determine whether or not such
>> a goal is worthwhile (and will be supported by the PPMC) so
>> why not let the discussions happen wherever, including here?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:32:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
>>> 
>>> IMHO, if we're discussing a non-Apache release then let's discuss it
>>> on a non  Apache dev list.  You've listed some plausible reasons why
>>> volunteers  might want to work on an OOo release on the legacy
>>> infrastructure.   OK.  Great.  The discussion lists at OOo are part of
>>> that  infrastructure.
>>> 
>>> Also, we need to consider the OpenOffice.org trademark.  If  a
>>> non-Apache project wishes to name their release "OpenOffice.org"  then
>>> they will need to make a formal request to Apache for this and get  it
>>> approved.  Perhaps a mere formality in this case, but a necessary  one.
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
wrote:
>>>> An Apache release while in incubation is a goal, perhaps  even
>>>> a blocker for graduation for ooo, but it shouldn't come at a  cost
>>>> of abandoning existing user needs for a lengthy period of  time.
>>>> The ASF is a pragmatic bunch, and realizes that this  project
>>>> is coming in with over a decade of prior history  attached.
>>>> 
>>>> That history will now merge with ASF objectives, but  it doesn't
>>>> have to be immediately all-or-nothing.  If the user community  expects
>>>> a forthcoming release in a timely fashion, and that cannot  be
>>>> accomplished as a full ASF release, then other avenues (like
>>>>  collaboration with OO regarding distribution) can and should
>>>> be  explored.
>>>> 
>>>> (IMO).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message  ----
>>>>> From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>>>>>  Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 8:17:58 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on  the old infrastructure
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM,  Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>>> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>   wrote:
>>>>>> Oh right, I said to myself knowingly, especially since  any  release
under
>>> the
>>>>> old infrastructure is essentially an LGPL  release.  And it  would be
an
>>>>> opportunity for  cooperation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Uh, wait, I then said  to myself,  how do we get that back under
Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice.org unless we manage  to have it  covered under the Oracle
grant.
>>> Hmm.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>  > And what do we do about the  work that Armand Le Grand has been
 busily
>>>>> continuing in the old infrastructure.   He can recontribute  that, of
>> course,
>>>>> but, uh ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Um,  say again,  this might work out how?
>>>>>  >
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't see it.  What are the   hallmarks of an Apache release?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) Apache 2.0  license
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) IP check  list
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3)  Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to  Committers
>>>>>  who have signed the ICLA
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4) Work done transparently on  the  Apache lists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact, if you follow the  general.incubator.a.o list  you'll see the
>>>>> Incubation PMC close to  shutting down another Podling because  they
are
>>>>> not doing their work  at Apache, but are doing it  elsewhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, getting to  a first Apache release will require  work.  But we only
>>>>> get there by  doing the work.  I don't see how  releasing something
>>>>> outside of  Apache gets us any closer to an Apache  release.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  -Rob
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  - Dennis
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  PS: LibreOffice is  currently at releases 3.3.3 (presumed stable)
and
>>> 3.4.0
>>>>> (early adopter) with a  3.4.1 release candidate or two  currently under
test.
>>> I
>>>>> think there are 3.5 and  4.0 mumbles too, but  my eyes have glazed over
and
>>> I've
>>>>> given up tracking the  pace of  builds there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original  Message-----
>>>>>>  From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com]
>>>>>  > Sent:  Monday, July 04, 2011 06:19
>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>  >  Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
>>>>>  >
>>>>>> The  other thing I probably should mention here is that  this
>>>>>> presents a  golden opportunity to collaborate with LO  should the
>>>>>> "old" ooo  infrastructure be considered unable to  handle
>>>>>> another ooo  release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>  >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>  >>  From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>>>>  >>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>  >>  Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:11:09 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re:  Releasing OOo 3.4  on the old infrastructure
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>  >> Point of reference:  the  subversion project used non-ASF
>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>> to conduct releases  that would've been  blocked by ASF policy
 on
>>> licensing
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   had they used our mirror system.  It is certainly  possible
to do
>>  the
>>>>>>> same sort of thing with ooo for an interim solution,  until 
the
>>> codebase
>>>>>>> has been "cleaned up" to meet with ASF   policy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [ ...  ]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message