openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Marcum <cmar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Releasing the Apache OpenOffice API plugin for NetBeans
Date Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:48:30 GMT


On 03/20/2016 10:54 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [BCC to the PMC]
>
> >From the Chair,
>
> If this is considered an Apache release and identified as provided by the Apache OpenOffice
project, then the Apache release requirements must be satisfied.
>
> I know of no records on the AOO project obtaining an exception for this case from the
Foundation.  If there are any, please make known where that information is preserved.
>
> There is no difficulty with the formalities other than requiring patience and ensuring
that certain requirements on release packaging are satisfied.  The recent difficulty is not
having enough PMC members who were able to satisfy the binding vote requirement.  So long
as there are, as there seem to be now, this can go forward the same as the previous release
that Carl escorted through the process.
>
> One step that would be useful to take is having some identification of the UNO Tools
version releases that progresses separately from the Apache OpenOffice main product release
cadence.  It would be very useful and practical to have a naming of files and versioning in
the source-code release [candidates] that is distinct from the AOO version progression in
some manner, since only some of these will be bundled in the AOO releases of full OpenOffice.
 I imagine with practice, the delivery of the UNO Tools and facilitation of their use by others
will become straightforward.
>
> There was already discussion of ASF release policies on a related thread.  Here is the
relevant policy and practice material.
>
>     <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html>, along with
>
>     <http://apache.org/dev/release.html>.
>
>     Note that any committer (with a registered PGP signature) can pull
>     together a release, although it is the PMC that is responsible for
>     assuring its acceptability and approval.  Acceptability is also in
>     specific, narrow terms.  See the rules for voting on releases and
>     what those who vote approval are required to have done.  Read from
>     <http://apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release> down to
>     just before the Release Distribution topic.
>
> The Apache OpenOffice project does not have autonomy on this matter.  A key responsibility
of the PMC is assuring that the release process and its integrity are achieved and sustained.
 It happens that the ability of a PMC to accomplish releases in this manner is an indicator
of the project's viability.
>
> If the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee words and procedurally-approves
a narrow, specific request for an exception with regard to the UNO Tools of Apache OpenOffice,
it can be taken to Apache legal and elsewhere where review and approval at the Foundation
level is required.
>
>   - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 04:31
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Releasing the Apache OpenOffice API plugin for NetBeans
>>
>> Am 03/20/2016 11:29 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> On 20/03/2016 Marcus wrote:
>>>> Am 03/18/2016 12:19 AM, schrieb Carl Marcum:
>>>>> Do we need to treat the submission of plugin artifacts for
>> availability
>>>>> at NetBeans.org and through their update mechanism as official
>> project
>>>>> releases requiring a vote? ...
>>>> @all:
>>>> Is there anything that would speak against that Carl is going on with
>>>> this procedure from the past?
>>> I suggest that we continue as in the past. The NetBeans plugin is not
>>> related, code-wise, to the OpenOffice "main" releases at all, and we
>> can
>>> just let Carl maintain it with lazy consensus as usual, with no need
>> for
>>> a formal release.
>> that's good. It's also my impression that we don't need any more formal
>> way.
>>
>> @Rory:
>> Sorry, it seems I should have point out my opinion more visible. ;-)
>>
>> 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
>
>
I do prefer this is from the project and if it needs a vote that's okay 
I can put together instructions.

I just didn't want take people away from other tasks unless that's the 
way we want it done.

A few issues I'm not sure how to handle as an official ASF release in 
this case.

1. You can host the .NBM artifact somewhere besides NetBeans.org but the 
plugin page I referenced would become nothing more than an advertisement 
and not count downloads, comments, votes, etc. For those features and 
for the NetBeans IDE updater mechanism to work it must be hosted at 
NetBeans.org.
Maybe hosted at ASF and Netbeans would count?

2. The artifact is binary only with no source.

3. The artifact must be Java keytool signed and not PGP. At least the 
one hosted at Netbeans.org.

4. The artifact is built with the NetBeans IDE which PMC members would 
need to install.

Maybe we can come up with an acceptable procedure where the source is 
zipped and PGP signed and becomes the release hosted at ASF and a 
NetBeans.org compatible artifact is created from it to satisfy both 
requirements.

Thanks,
Carl


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


Mime
View raw message