openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] milestone build (Was: [RELEASE] 3.5, 4.0, fixpack, milestone build...)
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:26:48 GMT
Am 10/09/2012 03:58 AM, schrieb Shenfeng Liu:
> 2012/10/9 Ariel Constenla-Haile<>
>> Hi Jürgen, *
>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> The build bots are still not build the same as we do for the binary
>>> releases (please correct me if I am wrong). Means as long as we don't
>>> have build bots which are building with the same configuration we should
>>> provide the builds manually in the same way we did it for the release.
>>> @Ariel, would that be ok for you fro now until we have a better solution?
>> Yes, I will apply the set up described in
>> , that is,
>> decreasing Linux system requirements to glibc 2.5
>> Any one is welcome to take any of the two architectures (building on
>> Linux is multiplied by 4: rpm/deb, 32 and 64 bits; this counts on
>> building time and uploading the packages); if not, I will take care of
>> both.
>>> I will take care of Windows and MacOS.
>>>>   (2) How many language support can we get for this milestone build? Not
>>>> necessary to be 100% translated, but can be a base for volunteers to
>> verify
>>>> the translation.
>>> We should include the languages that we have released and add all
>>> languages where we notice active volunteers who help us to support these
>>> further languages (eg. Polish, Danish, Scots Gaelic, ...)
>>>>   (3) The current development snapshot naming [a] is a little confusing
>> to
>>>> me. I wonder if we can change the naming to reflect the date of the
>> build?
>>> I am not sure if understand you correct. The revision is a unique
>>> identifier and makes it clear what went in the snapshot. We probably
>>> upload the builds not all on the same day. Means I am not sure how a
>>> date can help here.
>> I guess that besides the revision, milestone builds can be identified by
>> their milestone number, which should be increased in every milestone
>> build: AOO350m1 AOO350m2 etc
>> just like in OOo times there was DEV300m105 DEV300m106 etc
>> it could start now from DEV350m1
> OK, I understand the revision now, and let's forget the "date".
> And I agree with Ariel that a milestone number like AOO350m1 will be better
> when we promote it.
> I personally do not think we need to use mirror. But a download page that
> Marcus suggested will be good.

Sure, the download page can point to the builds on the mirror system or 
the ASF people's directories (when the paths are unified then automatism 
is much easier).

But when using the mirrors we could:
- stear the timeframe how long a milestone should be online,
- when to release the next dev build,
- a simple point of downloadable dev builds,
- and of course we can see how often which file was downloaded. To see 
if it's worth the efforts at all.

So, I think we should try to distribute the dev builds via the mirror 
system. If we laster think that it doesn't make sense anymore then we 
can stop it.


View raw message