Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4D9317CF7 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 18:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 53124 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2015 18:17:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 53047 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2015 18:17:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 53036 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2015 18:17:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:17:01 +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 marcus.mail@wtnet.de designates 84.46.103.120 as permitted sender) Received: from [84.46.103.120] (HELO mail-smtp-ng-out-4b.wtnet.de) (84.46.103.120) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 18:16:32 +0000 Received: from bc2-blade1.wtnet.de (mail-cust-ng-in-2.wtnet.de [84.46.103.102] (may be forged)) by bc2-blade7.wtnet.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t31IFoiM029438 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:15:50 +0200 X-WT-Originating-IP: 46.59.227.31 X-WT-Authenticated-As: marcus.mail Received: from f9.linux ([46.59.227.31]) (authenticated bits=0) by bc2-blade1.wtnet.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t31IFo2c021024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:15:50 +0200 Message-ID: <551C35D6.1060304@wtnet.de> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:15:50 +0200 From: Marcus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5. References: <551B9F59.5000903@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Am 04/01/2015 10:42 AM, schrieb jan i: > On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >> I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the >> small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed here on >> this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would like to see >> reflected in the Board report that the project still feels committed in >> getting it out as soon as possible with the current resources. So "no work >> is active" should become something like "work is progressing at a slow >> pace, but the project remains committed to delivering 4.1.2 as soon as >> possible". This is based on the expectation that the latter will be true >> and more visible when the Board report is committed: I will also try to go >> back to the list of bugs later this week. >> > I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to > reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that > is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep > the "no work is active". I would be more than happy to report next time, > that we have actually managed to bring out a release. +1, I also see the current development of 4.1.2 as stalled. I don't see: - applications for the release manager - even not after 2 (?) callouts. - tests with the new certification environment - bugfixes or committs that would support directly the release Sure, I can be wrong and have missed the crucial mails. But currently that is my impression and opinion. Marcus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org