openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:30:17 GMT
Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Phillip Rhodes <motley.crue.fan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I like this idea... 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in the near-term, and then 4.2.0 in
> early 2017.  Feels like a good rhythm to aim for.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Sep 15, 2016 15:14, "Marcus" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am 09/15/2016 05:44 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>> 
>>> I am rather amazed by the idea of 4.1.4, shouldn't we release
>>> 4.2.0 instead? I mean ...
>>> 
>>> - I thought the idea behind 4.1.3 was to make a quick fix for
>>> 4.1.2 and to give more time for the 4.2.0 release process.
>>> - the code in trunk has over two years of development and is
>>> more secure than what lives in the 41* branch. It is rather
>>> disappointing to not see the code out sooner.
>>> 
>>> I believe you should continue as Release Manager for 4.1.4,
>>> or 4.2.0; the changes for 4.1.3 will already have to be
>>> included in future releases and we could benefit from the
>>> momentum of the dot release. Your vacations should also
>>> not be a problem as other people are likely to be in
>>> vacations during December as well.
>>> 
>> 
>> I still think we should put more QA effort into a 4.2.0 as we have changed
>> to many things. I cannot remember anymore which libraryies we have changed
>> in the last time. So, at least this is a risk in my eyes that deserves much
>> more attention.
>> 
>> Up to now I think tests where done here and there, e.g., when using a
>> 4.2.0 dev build for daily tasks. But I would like to see more efforts for
>> deeper tests before release this.
>> 
>> So, a fast 4.1.3 and a 4.1.4 still this year *and* then a 4.2.0 for the
>> beginning of next year (new year, new game ;-) ) would be a nice outlook.
>> And as an additional advantage - when we agree on this - this roadmap that
>> can be published, too. *)
>> 
>> However, my 2ct.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *) Just a note for everyone:
>> Discussing a topic here on a public mailing list does *not* mean that it
>> is automatically published.
>> 
>> It's the result of a discussion that can be declared published (here on
>> this mailing list) or made published (e.g., with a blog post). I think I'm
>> not the only one who makes a fine but clear difference bewteen "something
>> is public" and "something is published". Just wanted to mention this. ;-)
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message