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 10.205.132.71 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.132.71;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F48C56F.4020008@gmx.de>
References: <4F47651C.7070902@googlemail.com>
	<CAKQbXgD6-wsaGMFTt3esNxd7w2o-9auyC8ZFkUspPAiJPEL0Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<-2259114031281902786@unknownmsgid>
	<4F48C56F.4020008@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:52:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAHZP38Arfom6u9ix00tPo8NEA5X946EUy613-DekqL9Z8thFuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release
From: =?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_Schmidt?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0b8585b687004b9da1ea2

--000e0ce0b8585b687004b9da1ea2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Am Samstag, 25. Februar 2012 schrieb O.Felka :

> Am 25.02.2012 01:06, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rgardler@opendirective.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  Without commenting on the dates, schedules and technical issues I
>>> would urge you to make sure you allow significant time for IP review
>>> from mentors and the IPMC. I imagine this release will get a great
>>> deal of attention and, almost without a doubt, someone will come up
>>> with something that needs to be addressed.
>>>
>>>
>> Mentors and IPMC members have had 8 months to offer IP related
>> comments. They are welcome at any time. But in my experience declaring
>> a Release Candidate is especially effective at concentrating their
>> attention on that task.
>>
>> We should plan on having multiple RC iterations. There are enough
>> unwritten rules related to release requirements that we'll almost
>> certainly need several iterations.   But the most effective way to
>> uncover these unwritten rules is by proposing a RC for a release vote.
>>
>
> A release by votes? Wouldn't it be better to have some
> concrete release criteria?
> Having some quality goals that must be reached?


it is not contradictory and have I pointed out that we don't release if
there are valid concerns.

We will release when we don't have critical show stopper issues. And
discussion on show stopper issues should take place on ooo-dev when issues
marked as critical.
I don't think we have to define the rules for show stopper issues again and
can use the existing ones (e.g. crashes, data loss, ...)

I hope people will take it serious and don't vote against a release without
valid concerns.

Juergen


> Groetjes,
> Olaf
>

--000e0ce0b8585b687004b9da1ea2--