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: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4
Date Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:29:03 GMT
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schmidt <
> > jogischmidt@googlemail.com> 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:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Summary+of+Apache+OpenOffice+3.4+IP+Review+Activities
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+FAQ
> >>
> >> 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
>
>
Yes, that is part of what informed the choice of material to present.  But
it is worth looking beyond that.  The old saying is "every new class of
testers finds a new class of bugs".  The same could be said of reviewers.
Marvin found one class of issues. Other IPMC members will have their own
particular interests and areas of concern.


> 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.
>
>
For now I've cross-linked the two pages.

-Rob


> (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?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message