Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dave2wave@comcast.net
 designates 76.96.27.228 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksogiopETRqABaos1DTuyth6frHQcwFVUY8RWVU+p_E+Z1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:29:08 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3386DE61-CE2C-423E-819A-BF99A2B28041@comcast.net>
References: <1308479011.2937.45.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <1309710429.2926.17.camel@fedora> <20110704130652.GB7821@ulungele.erack.de>
 <982917.17079.qm@web161427.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <492117.42264.qm@web161425.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <01b201cc3a85$2ca2a620$85e7f260$@acm.org>
 <CAP-ksohxrGo_aJ2Ezr4qAZGUgfG5n3aGKZeGUU_ej=DFmgDYfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <250879.52824.qm@web161427.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAP-ksoi15SVUWKwAAqnctDrqeX2nbp4nMi24Nm+CjNJwrmxATA@mail.gmail.com>
 <770559.80021.qm@web161427.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAP-ksogiopETRqABaos1DTuyth6frHQcwFVUY8RWVU+p_E+Z1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org

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.
>=20
> -Rob
>=20
>=20
> 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?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ----- 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
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> -Rob
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> (IMO).
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> ----- 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
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>  > 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 ...
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Um,  say again,  this might work out how?
>>>>>  >
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> I don't see it.  What are the   hallmarks of an Apache release?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 1) Apache 2.0  license
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 2) IP check  list
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 3)  Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to  =
Committers
>>>>>  who have signed the ICLA
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 4) Work done transparently on  the  Apache lists.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>  -Rob
>>>>>=20
>>>>>>  - Dennis
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>  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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>  >
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> ----- 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
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>  >> Point of reference:  the  subversion project used non-ASF
>>> infrastructure
>>>>>>> to conduct releases  that would've been  blocked by ASF policy  =
on
>>> licensing
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>   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.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> [ ...  ]
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20