Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 10.204.156.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.156.18;
Message-ID: <4F476F01.7010601@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:05:37 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schmidt?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release
References: <4F47651C.7070902@googlemail.com> <4F476C25.1070902@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F476C25.1070902@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2/24/12 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 24/02/2012 J�rgen Schmidt wrote:
>> And I would like to propose the following schedule depending on the
>> progress we will make next week.
>> Monday: Feb. 27th new dev snapshots
>> Monday: March 5th first RC candidate (based on the progress next week)
>
> This is (of course) great and exciting news. I would only recommend to
> avoid the temptation to be marketing-driven... let RC1 be something that
> we believe we could actually release. There's nothing bad in using the
> name "dev" or "beta" for something that is not ready yet. This is how I
> interpret the "depending on progress" above, and it would be very good
> and show respect for users.

RC should be used indeed only if we think that it can be released, and 
this depends on the progress ;-)

>
>> - translation update, we have made minimal UI changes only and we will
>> use the 3.4 beta translation that were in place.
>
> Note that https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895 is still
> not solved: it might be that the 3.4 beta translations are not
> integrated in our current dev builds, or, more likely, that language
> packs are not being built correctly. I've just set that issue as a
> release blocker.
> Using the 3.4-beta translations would be OK, but we need the full set,
> not what we have now (see issue page).

here we might run into a problem because of not having the translation 
process in place 100%. We have to figure out which translation data is 
the latest one, it's still not 100% clear if we really have it :-(

>
> We will also need to:
> - Decide the URLs for all links in the suite (Extensions, Templates,
> Suite Updates, Extensions Updates...).

I hope the links wouldn't really change, but it have to be clarified

> - Describe the 3.3 -> 3.4 migration path; it would be good to avoid the
> need to reinstall extensions, but I don't know the current state of the
> art here.
that can't be avoided because of the removed berkeley DB. Not nice but 
we can't avoid it.

Juergen