incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [BUG] AOO cannot be installed
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:27:14 GMT
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 15:34 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:47 -0800, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 1/2/2012 8:47 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are developer snapshots available - if you follow the ML
closely they are discussed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Have a look at this: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/devsnap.php
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Raphael has been making significant contributions to AOO since
day one.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Andrew RIst and others have been working with Gavin from Apache
Infra on buildbots for several platforms.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4197
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree that this information is hard to find. Someone should blog
about it and let people know...
>> >> > This is indeed an on going project.  I am trying to work with infrastructure
to get this up and running.  As such, the infrastructure team is a limited resource, and
basically, we are waiting for our turn.  (right now they are dealing with other fires, like
someone who uploaded a 9GB website and pushed CMS right to the edge...  DAVE  ;-)
>> >>
>> >> The only sledgehammer build coming will be when we pull the trigger on the
logo change. Otherwise everything is a vertical.
>> >>
>> >> > This is moving forward, a little patience is in order.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure that stable templates and extensions is taking some of Gavin's
attention away from the buildbot. What's our priority?
>> >
>> > My thoughts on this - the application, the physical distribution files,
>> > should take precedence for branding purpose.
>> >
>>
>> And why cannot we do both?
>
> We can, of course.
>
> It's a judgment call regarding timing and sequence.
>
> My primary reason for advocating that particular sequence is as an
> attempt to control, finesse if you will, the conversation in the
> extended user community and media.
>
> As Graham pointed out a few times, rightfully, there are certain at
> which is natural interest - this next few weeks I would expect to one of
> those.
>
> I believe that the change to the top level branding on the website,
> particularly if that coincides with an announcement (blog, email, etc)
> as discussed in another thread, will generate a certain level of
> conversation.
>

The number of people who visit the website right now == small

The number of people who will visit the website when we have a 3.4
release == very large

The number of users who will even notice work-in-progress with the
rebranding before 3.4 releases == a fraction of small

The number of users who will be harmed by work work-in-progress with
the rebranding before 3.4 releases == zero

The effort to enable staging of rebranding so it all shows up on the
website for the first time coordinated with the 3.4 release == more
than zero

The effort to include mention of the rebranding along with other
communications about the 3.4 release when it happens == almost zero

Volunteering to help with rebranding communications when the time
comes and to help with rebranding on the web site now == Rob

Volunteering to set up staging for the rebranding so it can be flipped
on with a switch later == ?

Remember, when we get close to the 3.4 release, we're all going to be
very busy with other things, both anticipated and not anticipated.
The stuff that can be done now should be done now.  You don't want to
end load tasks like this.   What is easy to do, and has practically
the same impact, is to delay blog posts, and other far-reaching
announcements of the rebranding until the 3.4 release comes out.

My $0.02

-Rob

> I also feel it worthwhile to maximize that moment of interest by
> waiting, which does not mean not working on and staging, on the
> re-branded launch of the site, if you will, by setting as our trigger
> the ability to change the link on the website for the Developer Snapshot
> build to an actual download of Apache OpenOffice.
>
> In a real sense, I feel, one then has a conversation not only about the
> ephemeral changes of a name but substantive conversations about the
> results of the projects real purpose, to date.
>
> Now, as I said it's a subjective call and I recognize it's just my
> opinion - I won't be hurt if folks as group decide it's not really worth
> the delay.
>
> But again I'm not saying don't start re-branding the web pages and other
> items [1], only that it's staged work for a coordinated roll out event.
>
> //drew
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Presentations
> It would be great if someone grabbed one of these real quick also..
>
>
>> After all, there are volunteers who can
>> update the branding on the website who are not able to update the C++
>> code.  So it is not like making progress on the website rebranding
>> comes at the expense of updating the C++ code.
>>
>> > In other words, I would advocate leaving the branding on the
>> > OpenOffice.org website basically unchanged from as it is today and work
>> > smartly towards the change to what displays on the users screens when
>> > they download and install a binary retrieved from the site.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying to delay the web site branding change until a full 3.4
>> > release, but rather only until a link to an ASP buildbot download URl is
>> > ready for publishing. My working assumption on time for that, if I'm
>> > understanding correctly what I'm reading in the mailing list, is that
>> > this is really not that far off down the road - a week, a few weeks most
>> > it sounds like.
>> >
>> > I think it makes sense branding wise to manifest intentions in little
>> > details such as this, right now (last few days) with the few thousand
>> > signups on the announce list and some other social net activity it seems
>> > as if the next ring outwards of OO.o interested individuals are waking
>> > up to what is happening here - so maybe for this next week we don't
>> > break the visual links to the legacy OO.o site, not until we have that
>> > concrete link to what is actually of interest to them, the application.
>> > Let the early bird versions of the application break the ice with the
>> > full blown new name and branding, not the website.
>> >
>> > just my .02
>> >
>>
>> I'm not hearing an objection to someone doing the inevitable website
>> branding updates now.  It is just that you would prefer yourself to
>> concentrate on the product code?
>>
>> (I'm disregarding for the moment the possibility that you have a
>> opinion on what other volunteers should do.  I'm not sure that is
>> entirely relevant.  The direction of the project in the end is the sum
>> of our individual preferences for what we want to work on at a given
>> time, not what we want others to work on)
>>
>> > //drew
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Dave
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> >>> Hash: SHA1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hello Jürgen,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Am 02.01.2012 10:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> >> >>>> Hi Mechtilde,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Mechtilde<ooo@mechtilde.de>
 wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hey,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> you discuss about Release Plan and who are allowed to distribute
>> >> >>>> binaries with the name Apache OpenOffice.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> But:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> What should a user do?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> There is no "official" binary available which anyone can
install for
>> >> >>>> testing.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The DEB binary from  http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>> >> >>>> can't be installed on a Debian 64 bit system.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I already described this problem at 17.12.2011 but nothing
happened. As
>> >> >>>> Ariel described there must be an update of one programm
on the buildbot.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Does Apache also want to release more than one plattform?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> So we also need test binaries for these plattforms.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> In my opinion this is an *absolute release stopper* not
to have binaries
>> >> >>>> to test from "official" build maschines.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> it's of course a serious problem where we have to find
a solution. We don't
>> >> >>>>> have the same infra structure as before and the release
engineers did a lot
>> >> >>>>> to ensure a common base line to support as many Linux
versions as possible.
>> >> >>> At this time there is NO other version for any plattform on
>> >> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/ available
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Normally the office would come via the distro and would
have been build for
>> >> >>>>> the distro and the specific versions of the system
libraries. This is much
>> >> >>>>> easier and i hope we can achieve this state in the
future...
>> >> >>> There is NO version of Apache OpenOffice and there is NO version
to test
>> >> >>> it before a release.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> For now we have to find another solution. We should
update the build bot
>> >> >>>>> machine if possible. You have already mentioned the
note from Ariel. And it
>> >> >>>>> would be probably good to have a 32 bit build bot machine
as well.  That
>> >> >>>>> would help a lot and would probably  address most
the systems (an update
>> >> >>>>> on  Linux system is done quite often, isn't it)
>> >> >>> It depends on the based distribution.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Debian oldstable ( ca. 3 years old IMO) contains e very newer
version of
>> >> >>> the epm programm than the one Ariel talked from.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> We should define the exact switches that we use for
our binary releases and
>> >> >>>>> hopefully we can provide a set of builds on various
systems for testing
>> >> >>>>> purposes.
>> >> >>> That's what I ask for.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> There is definitely a lot of room for improvements,
so let us start to
>> >> >>>>> figure our out what works best and let us improve our
build/release process
>> >> >>>>> over time.
>> >> >>> So when can we start to test the first binary coming from Apache?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thats my question
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Kind Regards
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Mechtilde
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Juergen
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Kind Regards
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Mechtilde
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> >> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk8B3D0ACgkQucZfh1OziSsnIQCgng7nknPbh6l9CDepzoTrw9AG
>> >> >>> K2YAn39Ck/9nbWa7CgWoD8EXJZuB0wZe
>> >> >>> =ulAm
>> >> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message