incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:51:37 GMT
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