incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:22:49 GMT
Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is
it totally up to the single teams ?

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

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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message