incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:21:42 GMT

On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt <
>> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 31. March 2012 at 17:14, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Try to imagine yourself in the IPMC, being asked to vote for the release
>> of
>>> AOO 3.4. You want to make sure the release follows Apache policies and
>>> guidelines. You want to protect the ASF. You want to ensure that users,
>>> including developers using our source code packages, get the greatest
>>> benefit from the release. But you are faced with a 10 million line code
>>> project, larger and more complex than anything you've faced before at
>>> Apache.
>>> What do you do? Where do you start?
>>> Honestly, I have absolutely no idea. It is daunting task. But I think it
>>> is in our best interest as a PPMC to make our AOO 3.4 Release Candidate
>>> easy to review for the IPMC. This means understanding the common
>> questions
>>> and concerns they might have and preparing answers to these in advance.
>>> I've drafted an outline, and filled in some of the blanks, for a "Summary
>>> of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 IP Review" document on the wiki. I think this
>> will
>>> help raise the IPMC comfort level by documenting in one place the due
>>> diligence we performed and the final results. It also highlights the
>>> unusual things that came up in this project, such as the "mere
>> aggregation"
>>> inclusion of dictionaries in the binary packages.
>>> Here it is:
>>> Any help in filling in the blanks would be much appreciated, by me (of
>>> course), but hopefully also by the IPMC. If we should cover other topics,
>>> add those as well.
>> You have probably missed this
>> We have started a similar page and I would suggest that we consolidate
>> these 2 pages immediately to avoid duplicated work and confusion.
> I think they are subtly different. Your page is a summary of the release
> package, what is included, what different directories do, etc.  It is good
> for someone who has download the package, unzipped it, and is looking at
> the files.

I think that Marvin and Juergen have had productive conversations on general@i.a.o

Here is what I would want to see.

(1) BUILD instructions.  An accurate and complete description of the build of the binaries
from source including how much time it takes on various platforms. This would help an IPMC
plan how much time they will need to check the release. This is about the mechanics. Also,
how to run the RAT report.

(2) README. This can be the description of the release, dependencies, SGA, RAT excludes and
why, etc.

(3) NOTICE and LICENSE will need to be at the head of the tree in the standard location. Additions
for the Binary packages should end up in the appropriate place in those packages after the
build. I expect that these may differ slightly depending on the target platform?

> The page I started is more about the process we followed, what we did, what
> we removed, the decisions we made, and why. So it is more about the logic
> of what we did.  Your page is more about the end results.
> But it probably makes sense to combine these somehow, I agree.

Yes and no. I think that Rob is leaning in on the README and the other Wiki page is about
To Dos. For the release, I think that there are different aspects of the project's contents
that need to be explained in the each of four contexts.

(1) BUILD - how does one assemble the source into a usable binary?
(2) README - what are the project's components?
(3) LICENSE - what are the legal obligations?
(4) NOTICE - what are the copyrights?


> -Rob
>> Juergen
>>> Regards,
>>> -Rob

View raw message