openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
Subject Re: Releasing OpenOffice 4.1.3 (reopening the AOO410 branch)
Date Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:35:54 GMT

> On 11 Sep 2016, at 7:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/10/2016 12:55 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:40:48AM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3 sooner
>>> or later, with some duplication of work with respect to 4.1.2-patch1 but
>>> with more clarity for those who couldn't see that we made a release last
>>> month.
>>> 
>>> I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed
>>> structural fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take care of
>>> fixing version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2.
>> 
>> I'd suggest we create a AOO413 branch, as suggested on private@.
>> 
>> Also, if the procedure didn't change, we should stick to the rule that
>> only code with a bug and release blocker flag approved by the Release
>> Manager can be checked in that branch; that is: if you want to include
>> changes in the AOO413 branch:
>> 
>> 1) open a bug
>> 2) request releaser blocker status
>> 3) only once the release manager approves the release blocker status,
>>   commit your changes
> 
> Andrea argues that it is traditional to put all point releases in the same branch. Following
that tradition we would use AOO410 for all 4.1.x releases.
> 
> The reasons are lost in the mists of antiquity. The argument for carrying on that way
for now is that there may be people following AOO410 and doing downstream packaging that depend
on that behaviour.

I really don’t get that reasoning. I’d like examples to understand why people downstream
would be using a branch in the first place.
If anything, I’d half expect downstream to depend on the ‘Tag’ that a release was based
on , not the branch (that has since changed.)

Tags seem to be labelled correctly, branches should follow suit. But I’ll leave it to you
guys.

Gav…

Tags:-

.. <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/>
AOO340/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO340/>
AOO341/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO341/>
AOO400/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO400/>
AOO401/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO401/>
AOO410/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO410/>
AOO410_Beta/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO410_Beta/>
AOO411/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO411/>
AOO412/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO412/>
AOO4121/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO4121/>
SNAPSHOT/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/SNAPSHOT/>

All those 41* tags (5 of them) were based on using the same 410 branch.

> 
> A possible compromise is to treat AOO410 as you recommend for AOO413 from now on. We
would still create AOO414, which I see as being necessary to become more agile. We should
overlap testing, voting, and uploading of 4.1.3 with preparation of 4.1.4. Using the same
branch for both would not be good.
> 
> I can go either way on this.
> 
> Patricia
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


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