incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Need to Revisit RAT Excludes and Wildcards
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:57:30 GMT
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>  ...
>> Hi Folks,
>> We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
> I think so too :(.
>> We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin
>> asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official SOURCE
>> release.
> Marvin's intervention is very far reaching indeed. It pretty much supports the position
> that there is no such thing as a binary release, and it involves some issues that have
> to be solved before graduation.

Now I think you are getting ahead of yourself.  I've shown that the
IPMC has repeatedly voted on releases that included binaries, and has
done this recently and without dissent.  Three of the most recent 7
podlings to have graduated included binaries in their releases.

> For the podling, up till now, the source was only of secondary importance because
> end users (and QA) can't really evaluate the source code and instead are interested
> in the behaviour of the program (therefore the executables). As I see it, the issue of
> considering the source code alone is very valid for the IPMC. I think it is perfectly
> reasonable that this issue has come up at this time.

It would have been even more fine if the concern came up in the
previous podling releases, from this project, or from any of the many
other that included bbinaries ;-)

> The particular concern of how the "official" packages are generated and distributed
> is also interesting. At this time I would say the FreeBSD port is as legitimate and
> worthy of being tagged "Apache OpenOffice" as the Windows packages in
> sourceforge.

That doesn't logically follow.



>> PS. Sure glad that we did as suggested by Pedro ;-)
> Yes, thanks for mentioning! I took a lot of heat for it at the time but finally it should
> be clear it had to be done :).
> Pedro.

View raw message