incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:38:26 GMT
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