incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juergen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Date Sun, 22 Apr 2012 01:07:18 GMT
On Sunday, 22. April 2012 at 08:42, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> @Kay,
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> I trust that someone else can indicate how this works. 
> 
> Having successfully built from source seems to be a key requirement, and one would hope
that at least three people confirm that. Of course, there is support for some many platforms
and user configurations that I don't know what can be said for coverage at this level.
> 
> On the general incubator list, there has been discussions around the fact that the essential
release is the source code and that it be buildable as well as satisfying other conditions
regarding dependencies, IP, signatures, documentation, notices, etc. Many view the binaries
as conveniences. 
> 
> For us, the binaries have been essential components and are a goal of this consumer-facing
project. But that is a quality issue, not so much a release issue, perhaps. On the other hand,
the binaries are artifacts of the release, and so conditions on those artifacts apply as well,
it seems to me.
> 
> Here's the key FAQ on releases that I am aware of:
> <http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html>.
> 
> This is one of the key items:
> <http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release>.
> 
> That is about top-level-project PMC releases (the IPMC is the top-level for us). Elsewhere,
it is pointed out that the conditions for incubator releases are in addition to those:
> <http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.htm>.
> 
> There is a great deal of material in that incubator release management guide, although
it is all in draft. Although there are many placeholders, I think it provides a good picture
of the essentials. 
> 
> - Dennis

we all agree that we have to fulfill some basic and general Apache rules and requirements
for a release. I would say we have done our best to address all this things.
Many things are written down and many not and AOO brings of course some new things to Apache
that probably have influence on many areas including the release process.
I would like to propose that we listen to questions from the IPMC and answer this question
as best as we can or rework things if necessary.
As mentioned before we have done our best to achieve the Apache requirements as well as our
own requirements related to the product itself. Means features, quality, stability etc.
Don't let us speculate, just wait and answer concrete questions.
And the source code can be build but requires some more work as a small Java library. A building
guide is available and can be found on the wiki page.

Juergen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 16:22
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/21/2012 01:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > Committers and PPMC members are expected to cast informed ballots.
> > If any contributor casts a "-1", it should be accompanied by a clear,
> > specific explanation and suggestion of actions that would cure the
> > situation.
> > 
> > Here is something that all project contributors can participate in,
> > with or without voting:
> > 
> > PARTICIPATE IN QUALITY-ASSURANCE COVERAGE OF THE CANDIDATE
> > 
> > It is valuable to download the source code and confirm that binaries
> > can be built.
> > 
> 
> 
> OK, I have a question on this one. MUST we download and build or can we 
> vote on an already built (binary) version? There was some discussion 
> about this, and, yes, there are notes about this on general information 
> for Apache releases, but...I jsut noticed the vote from Hagar Delest 
> which implies he used a binary so this is why I ask.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will download the source and try my hand...just in case. I 
> DO want to vote, and vote correctly.
> 
> I have had NO issues with the binary I now have.
> 
> 
> [ ... ] 


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