From ooo-dev-return-24610-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Fri Aug 17 16:27:00 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 A3752DF87 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23760 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 23682 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 -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 23673 invoked by uid 99); 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 +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@gmail.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; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:26:52 +0000 Received: by bkcik5 with SMTP id ik5so2110270bkc.6 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YypfRpZ7Pvu+MYkK+kOC221QuOPZpcxbUanSnTuB55Y=; b=fFK7YX2jFVjRQvXwI9S1JUc5fuoLF/hsUchqmxi2vXxINE2ssIg/FmkZdm2rI0l7SV 3xl6Csq6FGRN73hfugzVtkdqZFfis0BZGfB4wDer+BEJkbQ9hdZ6pBb14uoXbNfvU/NU 3AdT/XnJWwRcQ3so/qMauZTpMEyb3acFOjpSkzSMeH66uge6PqWapeo+VcJrvwb6+wHF vpH/qT8AoSdFd79bZlC5a73ZosEjC/q+TOFhte5F4YQQXUGTMiN5brH105bmspe44sVc qUMV9Y3zgAYXx2wjVN6ghWhOdbUI6P6P43PvjFHJ/KzPCN5x9x+9MF77FODevUE+thHP etqg== Received: by 10.205.125.7 with SMTP id gq7mr2150941bkc.98.1345220791822; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [9.155.131.47] (deibp9eh1--blueice2n2.emea.ibm.com. [195.212.29.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id he8sm3832875bkc.3.2012.08.17.09.26.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <502E70B2.4050300@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:26:26 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBTY2htaWR0?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Extend release vote till after testing? References: <1345218901.2676.1.camel@sybil-gnome> <1345219630.2676.4.camel@sybil-gnome> In-Reply-To: <1345219630.2676.4.camel@sybil-gnome> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/17/12 6:07 PM, drew wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the >>> vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not >>> finished till Monday. >>> >>> Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished? >>> >> >> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does >> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your >> test or anyone else's tests. >> >> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC >> process. Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper >> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage. Even if a showstopper >> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we >> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here. >> > > Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the > current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait? > > I would wait. no need to wait, if you feel comfortable with your testing/verification cast your vote. Juergen > > Thanks > > ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps. > >> -Rob >> >>> Thanks >>> >>> //drew >>> >>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote: >>>> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report >>>> 1. BVT passed [1] >>>> 2. PVT is done [2] >>>> 3. Automation FVT passed [3] >>>> 4. Installation test complete [4] >>>> 5. General testing is done [5] >>>> 6. Native build testing [6] >>>> >>>> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next >>>> Monday. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282 >>>> [2] >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282 >>>> [3] >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282 >>>> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2 >>>> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282 >>>> [6] >>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing >>> >>> >> > >