openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:19:13 GMT
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Christoph Jopp <> wrote:
> Am 18.04.2012 23:01, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Christoph Jopp <> wrote:
>>> Am 18.04.2012 19:17, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael, I am curious what has you be interested in the availability
>>>>> an AOO 3.4 Release Candidate.
>>>>>>  1. What does it say to you when a project build set is designated
>>>>> "Release Candidate"?
>>>>>>  2. What use would you make of such a designated build different
from a
>>>>> developer snapshot and an actual release (i.e., AOO 3.4[.0])?
>>>>> I wonder if there might be some language misunderstanding when we say
>>>>> casually, "We'll soon be voting on a Release Candidate"?
>>>>> To some this could mean we will have a vote to label a particular
>>>>> build as a "Release Candidate".  That interpretation would explain
>>>>> some of the post we've been seeing.  But that is not how it really
>>>>> works.
>>>>> What actually happens is two things:
>>>>> 1) The Release Manager (Juergen) declares that a particular build is
>>>>> the Release Candidate.
>>>>> 2) The PMC then votes on whether or not to release the Release Candidate.
>>>>> When we say "vote on a Release Candidate", some readers might think
>>>>> that we're voting to make the Release Candidate.  But we're really
>>>>> voting to release the Release Candidate.  Like when I vote for
>>>>> candidate for US President, I'm not voting to make him a candidate.
>>>>> I'm voting to make him President.
>>>> A further point of clarification. Does "Release Candidate" in the ASF have
>>>> the same meaning as the traditional meaning. See, for example:
>>>> Given this definition, a Release Candidate means the "final" test before
>>>> the actual "release".
>>>> So, to me, and perhaps others, a "release candidate" is NOT the same as a
>>>> release. And, to me, a "release candidate" as opposed to a "release"
>>>> implies some predetermined time announced to the public at large, for FINAL
>>>> testing -- seems like 2 weeks is typical.
>>>> I am not sure at this point if this historical definition applies in the
>>>> ASF.
>>>> I think it would be valuable to head up a new thread on this -- "What it
>>>> means to vote on a release candidate at the ASF" -- or something similar
>>>> folks have a better understanding of "release candidates"/"release" at the
>>>> ASF.
>>> I might be totally wrong, but I think the main difference is that this
>>> project as long as it is a podling does not release anything.
>>> The one who releases is the Incubator project and the podling (PPMC)
>>> presents (after voting) the Incubator project a "candidate to be
>>> released". Then the Incubator project votes whether it should be
>>> officially released or not.
>> The PPMC votes to approve the Release Candidate as suitable for
>> release.  The IPMC, which has the overall responsibility for ensuring
>> that all podling releases conform to Apache policies, then votes on
>> whether the release can actually occur.
>> But this is not why we call it a "candidate".  Even once we graduate
>> to be a Top Level Project (TLP) and vote on our own release, we would
>> still call this stage a Release Candidate.
>> I have no idea how the project did testing before, but the approach I
>> learned was to match the risk with the test effort. So after major
>> code changes you have a major test effort.  And when code changes are
>> minor, then you have less testing.  And when there are almost no
>> coding changes, like when simply updating the NOTICE.txt file, then
>> you have only the smallest test effort.  As we get closer to a release
>> we reduce the rate of change in the code, but also reduce the testing
>> effort.   So releasing code is like pulling a trigger on a rifle, slow
>> and smooth, not a sudden jerky motion.
>> The major coding effort for AOO 3.4 was the removal/replacement of
>> copyleft components with compatibly licensed components.  That work
>> was completed last year. That was what needed most of the test effort,
>> and that testing was already done.  The product changes in recent
>> weeks have been very minor, generally around packaging the language
>> translations and dictionaries.  So it should be sufficient to
>> concentrate the scope of testing to what has changed.  That doesn't
>> mean that a volunteer is not permitted to go back and test code that
>> has not changed in 6 months.  But it would not be an optimal use of
>> their time.
>>> So all that can be checked for bugs and regressions are the unofficial
>>> snapshots.
>> Volunteers are welcome to check any build or release candidate for any
>> bugs at any time and enter them into BZ.  There are no restrictions on
>> this.  However, to the extent we want to take an engineering-informed
>> approach to QA, and make optimal use of volunteer time, and use this
>> effort in a way that best improves product quality, then we want to be
>> testing much earlier in the project cycle.  That is why Lily sent
>> several notes to the list, months ago, asking for help testing AOO dev
>> snapshots.  I don't think anyone offered to help, despite these
>> several requests :-(
> Just to make one thing clear upfront: I didn't want to criticize the old
> or the new process of testing and releasing.
> As many people seemed to be confused about the naming, I tried to
> explain - and failed.
> I'll try again and maybe fail again.
> I think the confusion comes from the different process in the old project.
> The old process, as I see it (some other people might know better) was
> somewhat tiered:
> The source in the version control system was only touched by some core
> developers. From time to time a developer snapshot was made available
> for people not able or willing to build from source. But these
> dev-snapshots were largely used by people with high affinity to the
> project and/or technical understanding.

In other words, mainly Sun employees.

> I think some mirrors did not distribute dev-snapshots.
> "Internal" QA was done perpetually.
> Then Beta-Releases and Release Candidates were announced and published
> to a bigger community including users with less or no "technical"
> understanding to test and report.

So, in my opinion, only one of these is really "QA".  If you are not
following a test plan and coordinating with others to maximize test
coverage and reduce overlap, then you are not really doing QA.  If you
are not specifically targeting the areas of the code that have been
changed, then it is not really QA.

It is the difference between what an editor does when editing a book
versus what a reader does when reading a book.  You can't replace an
editor with a large number of casual readers. And you can't replace QA
with a large number of casual users of a build.

Of course,I would not discourage use of dev snapshots, and submitting
bug reports based on that.  But it does not replace a disciplined QA
effort. It sounds like that was mainly internal at Sun. We need to
reform that effort at Apache.   That is what Lily was trying to do,
but was pretty much ignored.

> And so I think some people are waiting for the announcement of a
> "Release Candidate" published through the mirror system for final
> testing through the greater community.
> And I just wanted to say that the procedure has changed and I think a
> Release Candidate in the above sense would not come.

That is correct.

> Anybody feel free to correct me.
>> -Rob
>>> Is this correct?
>>> Christoph
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>  - Dennis
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Michael Acevedo []
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:36
>>>>>> To: Apache OpenOffice
>>>>>> Subject: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I was wondering if the AOO 3.4 Release Candidate is now available
>>>>>> download? I see an entry in the Wiki that says so.
>>>>>> Many Thanks
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Michael

View raw message