incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: 3.4 release plan
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:14:09 GMT
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Andrea Pescetti
<> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>> Specifically I get comments from friends that the "Check
>>> for Updates" from the Help menu no longer functions due to URL update
>>> changes. Are there similar areas that we need to document?
>> Is this an issue with OOo 3.3?  The earlier 3.4 beta?  Or with the
>> recent AOO 3.4 test builds?
> The only place where this is an issue is 3.3. I don't know
> about 3.4 beta, but update notifications do not make much
> sense in (unfrequent) beta releases anyway. The recent Apache OpenOffice dev
> builds do not support notifications: the menu item is not there.
> By the way, the problem users experience is not related to code changes but
> to infrastructure changes: the update notifications server is unreachable
> since it was not migrated together with the other *
> services.

OK.  So are 3.3.0 users getting error messages today because that
service is down?  Or is the problem only that pre-3.3.0 users are not
getting update notifications telling them about the 3.3.0 release?

> I usually answer users along the lines of "The update server is unavailable
> due to migration; it's not important to restore it now since there would be
> no update to announce anyway; it might be that things change when a stable
> release is out" (I remember Martin Hollmichel or some other well-known guy
> saying that in principle it would be possible to get that service running
> again).

I'd argue that if 3.3.0 users are getting error messages today, then
it might be a good idea to set up the update notification server now,
even if it just tells 3.3.0 users that they have the latest official

> To anybody not familiar with the concept: update notifications are not
> product updates (don't think Firefox); the command just tells the user "No
> updates available" or "A new version of is available, please
> open and download it". So it seems feasible to replace
> it.

Is this the protocol that we are using:

> Regards,
>  Andrea.

View raw message