Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
References: <FECD28B5-A3D7-4A68-B74F-7253972C2572@comcast.net>
 <9c3fa32d-7a52-d284-f4ce-1962fcf3e788@wtnet.de>
 <BB110949-6A3D-4976-BC03-33287049CB92@jaguNET.com>
 <b39763c2-ddf0-a85d-ff05-1864543d403a@hamburg.de>
 <7B576A6A-B7CA-47A1-B848-AF900DFF790A@jaguNET.com>
 <2182a60a-8e13-7b11-9c8b-d2d63d0ee69a@hamburg.de>
 <a856e618-a28c-0b20-494d-57a420746671@wtnet.de>
 <00413281-D762-469C-AE5D-C539FED9CA36@jaguNET.com>
 <533966c2-33fc-7477-61ca-0c8af4ddb827@wtnet.de>
 <4850cd00-0a05-0807-451a-af4ba11de3bb@Apache.org>
 <5ac6e568-a124-7370-9d9e-2b1f67deb1c9@wtnet.de>
 <d153b035-5c85-f031-7a12-c658ed98f6e0@acm.org>
 <F705DC0B-3B35-4D1D-9C05-60292EDBD7AE@jaguNET.com>
 <4D61FF73-44FD-4B53-BC22-0022647104F1@apache.org>
 <F8A7DF9A-02EA-4AE7-8094-FA631544E77D@jaguNET.com>
 <62310a0b-3639-2996-0881-88e765826436@wtnet.de>
 <C7935F2B-CD9A-4D86-8E6A-5FFEB600C186@jaguNET.com>
From: Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
Message-ID: <0469de9e-b7cd-a489-4d18-8b0cc1961ea6@wtnet.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:59:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C7935F2B-CD9A-4D86-8E6A-5FFEB600C186@jaguNET.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:59:58 -0000

Am 04.12.2017 um 13:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Good to know! Thx.
> 
> I do have a question about the BUILD number...
> 
> Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then
> release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800,
> 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6.
> Is that BUILD number now 9803?

in the past we have increased the build ID with every build that was 
done; regardless if it was successful at the end or which branch was 
build. I was a kind of total general consecutive number.

Of course we can change this behavior in a way that is better suited for 
us nowadays.

Marcus


>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs <petko@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
>>> Agreed... Right now we have:
>>> RSCVERSION=420
>>> RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
>>> BUILD=9800
>>> LAST_MINOR=m1
>>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>>> We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
>>> messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
>>> something like
>>> RSCVERSION=420
>>> RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
>>> BUILD=9800
>>> LAST_MINOR=b1
>>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>>> for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.
>>
>> at least the download scripting is knowing a beta release and is prepared. *)
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> // Beta Release: General properties.
>> DL_BETA.VERSION			= "4.2.0-Beta1";
>> DL_BETA.NAME			= "4.2.0 Beta1";
>> DL_BETA.MILESTONE		= "AOO420m1";
>> DL_BETA.BUILD			= "1234";
>> DL_BETA.SVN_REV			= "r1234567";
>> DL_BETA.REL_DATE		= "2017-Dec-XX";
>>
>> So, a typical filename could be:
>> Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0-Beta1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz
>>
>> *)
>> At least the scriping has parts to process to handle special steps and areas fot a beta release. However, of course it need to be tested and likely to be adapted. But don't worry I will take care ot this.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
>>>> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
>>>> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>>>>
>>>> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>>>>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>>>>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>>>>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>>>>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>>>>> not what we had voted for.
>>>>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>>>>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>>>>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>>>>> filenames.
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>>>>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>>>>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>>>>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.


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