incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Making it easy for IPMC members to vote in favor of AOO 3.4
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:48:43 GMT

On Mar 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> 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.

Wearing my IPMC hat, you've heard what my interests are.

Make the following readily available with a predictable impact on my time and a vote for a
release will be eased..

> 
> 
>> 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.

Sure, one step at a time.

Lots of good progress this month.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -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
View raw message