openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Seidel <>
Subject Re: Release Manager for 4.2.0?
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2017 14:55:35 GMT
Hi Andrea,

Bouncing up your mail from march...

Am 27.03.2016 um 22:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 29/01/2016 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> For 4.2.0 we need a Release Manager. I would prefer NOT to be the
>> Release Manager for 4.2.0 since I'm finding that in this period I can
>> help more productively with tasks that do not require constant
>> interaction ...
>> I am surely available to have a significant role in the 4.2.0 release
> A few days after writing this, almost 2 months ago, sudden events left
> me incapacitated to make any significant contributions until very
> recently. I'm still unable to make long-term commitments.
> Anyway, there are some issues we need to get done as a team before
> appointing a release manager makes sense:
> 1) Enough code. Done. The merge of the recent gbuild work totally
> justifies a 4.2.0 release. Also, in 4.1.2 we only included a tiny
> fraction of the fixes that (at that time) were available on trunk. So
> here we are already OK, and we've been OK for months.
> 2) Localization. I got shell access to the Pootle server a few days
> ago. I'm still looking around, and if someone else want to join this
> is an important part. We need to have a solid process for updating
> translations (the full route: new strings in code -> Pootle -> back to
> code -> in localized builds) in place.

This is the part I would be interested to help!
Pootle synchronisation is essential for 4.2.0 and beyond.

Regards, Matthias

> 3) Buildbots and ASF-owned build machines. Buildbots are not essential
> for a release: 4.1.2 was built (like all previous releases in history)
> on non-ASF hardware; even if we build 4.2.0 on ASF-owned hardware, we
> can't use buildbots for it; we need to setup new systems. Those who
> read the infrastructure@ list can see the discussion I started there
> yesterday. Still, having buildbots helps QA and having ASF-owned build
> machines is an important investment for the project: at that point we
> will be able to make a release within days, not months. We should make
> as much progress as we can here. Again, if anybody can help, this is
> an important area.
> 4) There are several optimizations I have in mind, especially on
> reducing a bit our binary size on Linux (trust me, it is really a pain
> to commit all those binaries to SVN, or to any version control
> system). But they are not essential.
> I have just committed to the devtools/ area the scripts we (mainly
> Juergen) used to build the 4.1.2 release, with specs of the build
> machines. I've had them since last October, but I never committed
> them. They are a first step if we want to build our release binaries
> on ASF hardware: they contain build options and config.log to have
> some more information on the environment.
> My next priorities will be localization (especially, re-exporting the
> Italian translation to Pootle and re-importing it) and and a
> proof-of-concept VM for building releases on Linux (64 bit) based on
> the above scripts. There is plenty of room for other to jump in (Linux
> 32, Windows, Mac; or localization management) so please do!
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message