From ooo-dev-return-21653-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jun 21 11:42:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE5E9504 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5919 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 11:42:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5843 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 11:42:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 5827 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2012 11:42:41 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:42:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.47] (HELO mail-bk0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:42:34 +0000 Received: by bkcjm2 with SMTP id jm2so401430bkc.6 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lcT6peYwkBK1BeiyVq10dXAsublHVN1S7FxZOZsk/Z8=; b=eIaTKhHQyrGvnIxT0v0tgBMYF2aOJBJw4ungFMYw9NFXyLrxy6UY4YRPkLX/Kuq9g6 Zvcg4bsqKjcaLYmBSsHcv5Y0CY5uIhsw9F2sd98rOLa2gCK48h0QBhdsyKqxoArpzzvW h1voC78IaXrxGOyOOrAK172TYalwWH+hDCzZjcftu8w2a71syg14zhBYsdhaXNRdxVwh oo96WLZC3Rd+CBLB7Rfni1jJxydmdDvA+Gg8KSU2Ao/tddRMu9qytpyWl/JV4O1fmNin QSBBXVCBESJdVpcsfjIXJkgUyj/J6WHNA65c6gg0EmphJC78b7QTCDsLNH/omGVdrVy0 WD/w== Received: by 10.204.132.87 with SMTP id a23mr10893304bkt.134.1340278933647; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [9.155.131.47] (deibp9eh1--blueice2n2.emea.ibm.com. [195.212.29.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ie3sm31751476bkc.1.2012.06.21.04.42.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FE30894.6030103@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:42:12 +0200 From: =?GB2312?B?Sqi5cmdlbiBTY2htaWR0?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]What is the criteria for 3.4.1 release blocker? References: <001901cd4f61$14622210$3d266630$@acm.org> <4FE2B5C1.7080703@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/21/12 12:40 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > I wonder if any one can help to update this criteria to 3.4.1 wiki ? I am not sure what you mean, do you mean to add a link on the wiki page to the definition of showstopper? > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Feature+Planning by the way I moved this page under Releases -> AOO 3.4.1 but the link still works The idea was to reduce the redundant version number in each page name, see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots But as I have noticed afterwards it doesn't really work because the page itself is under OOOUSERS directly. I thought it would be saved hierarchical as in mediawiki :-( > It was my favorite, but I'm on vacation now and difficult to update the wiki from my phone... enjoy your vacation Juergen > > - Simon > > > 发自我的 iPhone > > 在 2012-6-21，7:54，De Bin Lei 写道： > >> Juergen, thank for your comments, now the criteria is more clear, thanks >> again. >> >> 2012/6/21 Jürgen Schmidt >> >>> On 6/21/12 5:51 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>> I think safety is of high value. >>>> >>>> That includes security issues and also data loss/corruption. The last >>> includes crashers that result in unrecoverable loss of work. Hidden loss >>> of work and document corruption that does not appear until the document is >>> opened later is particularly serious. >>>> >>> >>> >>> We used in general the following criteria (details where we are more >>> less based on can be foud under [2]) >>> >>> - crashes (including data loss/corruption) >>> - security fixes >>> - regressions >>> >>> I would also include >>> - memory leaks >>> when a fix is available and it is well tested that nothing else breaks >>> >>> >>> - maintenance issues (like updating reference type library, version >>> strings, images, ...) >>> >>> >>> A micro release like 3.4.1 is only for fixing serious problems and not >>> to introduce new features. Excepting new translations. >>> >>> Minor releases, eg. 3.5, can include any kind of fix, features and >>> improvements. Bigger UI changes should be discussed and probably better >>> included in a major release. >>> >>> See also [1] and especially [2] >>> >>> We should update these pages on demand to reflect our guideline how we >>> want handle this in the future. A common understanding is of course >>> important here. >>> >>> >>> Juergen >>> >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria >>> [2] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Stopper >>> >>> >>>> - Dennis >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: dongjun zong [mailto:zongdj001@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 20:31 >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]What is the criteria for 3.4.1 release blocker? >>>> >>>> I think high severity regression issue, common usage function related >>> issue >>>> should be considered as release blocker. >>>> >>>> 2012/6/21 Ji Yan >>>> >>>>> From my point of view, security and high usability issue should be set >>> as >>>>> blocker >>>>> >>>>> 2012/6/21 debin lei >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, All >>>>>> I noticed that there are some issues, which are proposed as 3.4.1 >>> release >>>>>> blocker recently. However, I am not sure what is the criteria for the >>>>>> release blocker? >>>>>> Is it regression or impact serious ? Or high benefit to risk ratio from >>>>> dev >>>>>> view ? >>>>>> I think maybe consider more things, but not sure. >>>>>> So if you can give your criteria and discuss here to make the things >>> more >>>>>> clear will be very helpful. >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>> Lei De Bin >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards >>> Lei De Bin >>> >>> >>> >>>