incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
Date Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:10:00 GMT
On 10/30/12 4:22 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is
> it totally up to the single teams ?

It's up to the teams I think

> 
> Do we use the "review statistic" in pootle to anything, it seems actually
> quite clever.

we don't make use of it right now and I have to confess that I haven't
really looked in it yet because of the lack of time.


Juergen

> 
> Jan.
> 
> On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES <rgb.mldc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...  it would probably allow to skip the release process
and
>> voting,
>>>>> since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for
>> different
>>>>> platforms).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for
source
>>>>> releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think
>> that the
>>>>> practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a
>>>>> different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that
>> we
>>>>> do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at
a
>>>>> certain level of trust for the packager and translations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries
>>>>>>> depend on, where that source is from this project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform
port
>> of
>>>>>>> existing source packages.  But we're not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources
>>>>>>> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order
to
>>>>>>> build the localized binaries.  No downstream consumer of the
source
>>>>>>> will be able to build these localizations without having access
to
>> the
>>>>>>> translated resources.  Therefore these resources should be reviewed,
>>>>>>> voted on and released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works,
>>>>>>> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages
from
>> the
>>>>>>> help files.  They are under copyright and made available under
>>>>>>> license.  So we need to do our due diligence via the release
process
>>>>>>> before we distribute such materials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source
>>>>>> and binary form".  The issues are the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, the source package is canonical.  I'm surprised to hear
talk
>>>>>> now of releasing only binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to
>>>>> make new translations available as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based
>>>>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked
>>>>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical
>>>>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included
>>>>> automatically.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are
>>>>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can
>>>>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product
>>>>> version but based on a new revision number including the new
>> translations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to
>> "additional
>>>> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being
>> prepared
>>>> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something
>> like
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and
>>> still require that we go through a release vote.
>>>
>>> Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process?  It isn't that hard.
>>> And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the
>>> "Apache" label on software we make available to the public.
>>
>> I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain
>> level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway.
>>
>> Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it.
>> If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if
>> possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only
>> the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine
>> with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ricardo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message