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: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
Date Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:22:01 GMT
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02.08.2012 13:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.08.2012 14:56, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30.07.2012 19:19, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please be sure to decouple the source builds
>>>>>> from downloading artifacts directly from svn.apache.org.
>>>>>> I trust that has been done by now as what 3.4.0
>>>>>> did constitutes an infra policy violation, besides
>>>>>> complicating eventual graduation moves of your svn tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point.  Thanks for reminding me.  I have created bug 120425 [1]
>>>>> for
>>>>> copying the category-A tarballs to an external server, apache-extras.
>>>>> I
>>>>> am
>>>>> doing this on trunk because, as I hope you will agree, a micro release
>>>>> is
>>>>> not the right place for such a change.
>>>>>
>>>> The issue is our svn tree will move after graduation, but there is no
>>>> redirection like there is with the website.
>>>>
>>>> So instead of being in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/
>>>> we will be in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice or something
>>>> like that.
>>>>
>>>> So those who have downloaded the AOO 3.4.1. source tarball will find
>>>> that their script breaks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.  There are simple technical solutions for this problem:
>>>
>>> - Copy, don't move, at least the ext_sources/ tree of the repository.
>>> The
>>> incubator copy can be deleted on our next release.
>>>
>>> - Use an SVN link to keep the old incubator URL for ext_sources/ alive
>>> until
>>> the next release.
>>>
>>> - Wait with the transition of the repository until the next release.
>>>
>> I don't see how this solves the Infrastructure policy issue.  If I
>> understand it correctly, it is not merely about where in SVN we store
>> these dependencies. The issue is that we have our build script hitting
>> SVN at all.   Joe could confirm that.
>
>
> I just wanted to point out that if we find a political consensus then we
> also have a technical solution for the problem.
>
> Besides, I donĀ“t think that the downloading of the tarballs by the build
> script is a big problem.  Most tarballs are checked out together with the
> rest of the source code from SVN.  The build script basically makes sure
> that none of the tarballs has been deleted in the meantime.
> The exception, of course, are builds from the source release, that does not
> contain any tarballs.  But with the few downloads of the source release I
> can not see a problem here either.
>
> Last, but not least, bug 120425 is already fixed.  All tarballs of the
> branch and most of trunk are now downloaded
>
> - from their original download servers (where I have found them)
>

With the way we did it before, the MD5 hash was encoded into the file
name, so we could easily detect whether or not the source tarball had
been modified.  How do we handle that when we now download the tarball
from the original download server?   Are we including and verifying
the expected hashes in the build script?

-Rob

> - first fallback is apache-exrtras
>
> - second fallback (will be removed shortly) is the SVN repository.
>
> -Andre
>
>
>> What if we bundled the cat-a dependencies in the source tarball?
>> Would that work?   Same net downloads, but the bandwidth then comes
>> from the mirror network.
>>
>>> Independently from this problem, it might be a good idea to have a
>>> transition phase after graduation during which both URLs are valid.
>>>
>>> -Andre
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Andre
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120425
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>>>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 1:17 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>> (incubating)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I plan on testing the Release Candidate 3.4.1 on WinXP/SP3, and
>>>>>>> verifying installing over OOo 3.3.0, AOO 3.4.0 and LO 3.5.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be good if others could mention what they intend to
look at,
>>>>>>> so we can avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, is the RAT scan results online anywhere?   It would be
good to
>>>>>>> review that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if anyone has handy a diff of the NOTICE and LICENSE files
from
>>>>>>> 3.4.0 to 3.4.1, that would be good to review as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message