OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.0.

This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and distributed editions of OpenOffice.org.

The ones in my experience were produced by Novell.  They tracked *existing* OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release.

The screenshots give some sense for how this was done:

 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution.  (Notice how the files were identified).  The code differences had to be maintained in parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding Novell release.

 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition.

 3. The About box identified the Novell edition.

In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, just OpenOffice.org.  In particular, the support locations were OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org.

It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell edition.

When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes to mind.

I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.

If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.

Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis?

Well, I did ask you - and this is now more on point. Thank you.

> 
> Not to appear unduly humorless (since I don't always decode what Simon says very well), I need to say I was not seeing a Team OO.o 3.3.1 as the same as an OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 Novell Edition, since 3.3.1 it is not intended to be a parallel line, but a maintenance edition on the existing line.  (I see the humor for making an Apache OpenOffice edition of LO 3.x.  It is not possible of course and Simon did wink.)
> 
> My point was that the Novell approach apparently caused no damage to the brand and another edition with added functionality was provided.  However, it was clearly an OpenOffice.org release with supplemental provisions and never a fork.  

It is worth noting this. There will be packagers of AOO and OOo. It looks like what we allow as Apache OpenOffice vs. what was allowed as OpenOffice.org are now two different matters. A discussion of the Novell Edition gives one more example of a possible approach. Does it fit the TOOo example well, or is it more the general example of how to define a non-Apache OpenOffice.org "edition"? Perhaps we can find a policy here that works for the ASF, the PPMC, and the whole ecosystem.

> 
> So how the Team OO.o could be acknowledged for its significant part in making the 3.3.1 release happen might be done with similar modifications in the appearance of the distribution and installer along the lines of what Novell did, or even how Sun acknowledged itself for being the producer of a distribution on the installer and splash screens.  Oracle followed suit, even though these were Open Source distributions.  (I trust 3.3.1 will not hawk Java, browser toolbars, or anything like that, however.)  I suspect Apache OpenOffice binary releases will be clothed in a similar manner.  I do not suggest that 3.3.1 be downloaded from anywhere but the same place that OO.o 3.3.0 comes from.

Does this differ from the TOOo proposal? How long is this "same place" going to be supported by Oracle?

> The concluding point was at the end of my message.  I suggest restraints so that 3.3.1 remains locked into OpenOffice.org 3.3 lineage:  OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 could be presented gently as a Team OO.org contributed update of 3.3.0 but firmly in the OO.o 3.3 stream and distributed and supported entirely as if the OO.o project is its origin: registration is with OpenOffice.org, all live links concerning support, on-line help, downloading, etc., are OpenOffice.org.  The identification of Team OO.o would not direct users to that site although there would be some provision for finding out more about Team OO.o including providing its (non-clickable?) URL.

The Team OOo proposal (not necessarily shared here) has registration and other linkage back to teamopenoffice,org and not openoffice.org. You are proposing a modification to their plan. I tend to agree that most of the linkage needs to remain with openoffice.org.

Continued support for legacy downloads and the OOo mirror brain distribution cannot be ported to the ASF. We've discussed apache-extras for that. If TOOo is willing to migrate and support the LGPL legacy downloads currently offered through download.openoffice.org that would be helpful.

> There are technical conditions on how OO.o 3.3.1 is developed such that Apache OpenOffice and the ASF can contemplate accepting it as an update of OpenOffice.org.  That also has to be worked out.  I have my eye on the end game: how does this reach users and what will it appear as to them?  I suspect that Team OO.o has their attention on that aspect as well.

There are twists and turns between now and the end game. We need to focus on both the twists and the end.

> This was also a clumsy effort to move a conversation about this to the broad ooo-dev forum.  I'm not clear what success there is beside confirming that I and some others are humorless [;<).

I choose to take your humor as very subtle. There is so much happening ... let's not be afraid to make mistakes ... forward progress is being made.

Best Regards,
Dave


> 
> - Dennis 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:53
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.
> 
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic
>> 
>> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
>> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
>> consensus.
> 
> I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.
> 
>>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>>> 
>>> S.
>>> 
>>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious suggestion]
>>> 
>> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.
> 
> Oh, more humor :-)
> 
> Best Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.
>>>> 
>>>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

RE: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis?

Not to appear unduly humorless (since I don't always decode what Simon says very well), I need to say I was not seeing a Team OO.o 3.3.1 as the same as an OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 Novell Edition, since 3.3.1 it is not intended to be a parallel line, but a maintenance edition on the existing line.  (I see the humor for making an Apache OpenOffice edition of LO 3.x.  It is not possible of course and Simon did wink.)
 
My point was that the Novell approach apparently caused no damage to the brand and another edition with added functionality was provided.  However, it was clearly an OpenOffice.org release with supplemental provisions and never a fork.  

So how the Team OO.o could be acknowledged for its significant part in making the 3.3.1 release happen might be done with similar modifications in the appearance of the distribution and installer along the lines of what Novell did, or even how Sun acknowledged itself for being the producer of a distribution on the installer and splash screens.  Oracle followed suit, even though these were Open Source distributions.  (I trust 3.3.1 will not hawk Java, browser toolbars, or anything like that, however.)  I suspect Apache OpenOffice binary releases will be clothed in a similar manner.  I do not suggest that 3.3.1 be downloaded from anywhere but the same place that OO.o 3.3.0 comes from.

The concluding point was at the end of my message.  I suggest restraints so that 3.3.1 remains locked into OpenOffice.org 3.3 lineage:  OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 could be presented gently as a Team OO.org contributed update of 3.3.0 but firmly in the OO.o 3.3 stream and distributed and supported entirely as if the OO.o project is its origin: registration is with OpenOffice.org, all live links concerning support, on-line help, downloading, etc., are OpenOffice.org.  The identification of Team OO.o would not direct users to that site although there would be some provision for finding out more about Team OO.o including providing its (non-clickable?) URL.

There are technical conditions on how OO.o 3.3.1 is developed such that Apache OpenOffice and the ASF can contemplate accepting it as an update of OpenOffice.org.  That also has to be worked out.  I have my eye on the end game: how does this reach users and what will it appear as to them?  I suspect that Team OO.o has their attention on that aspect as well.

This was also a clumsy effort to move a conversation about this to the broad ooo-dev forum.  I'm not clear what success there is beside confirming that I and some others are humorless [;<).

 - Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

Hi Rob,

I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.

On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic
> 
> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
> consensus.

I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.

>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious suggestion]
>> 
> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.

Oh, more humor :-)

Best Regards,
Dave

> 
>> 
>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.
>>> 
>>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.
>>> 
>> 

Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

[Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>]

Hi Rob,

I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.

On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic
> 
> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
> consensus.

I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.

>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious suggestion]
>> 
> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.

Oh, more humor :-)

Best Regards,
Dave

> 
>> 
>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> 
>>> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.0.
>>> 
>>> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and distributed editions of OpenOffice.org.
>>> 
>>> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell.  They tracked *existing* OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release.
>>> 
>>> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done:
>>> 
>>> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution.  (Notice how the files were identified).  The code differences had to be maintained in parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding Novell release.
>>> 
>>> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition.
>>> 
>>> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition.
>>> 
>>> In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, just OpenOffice.org.  In particular, the support locations were OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org.
>>> 
>>> It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell edition.
>>> 
>>> When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes to mind.
>>> 
>>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.
>>> 
>>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.
>>> 
>> 

Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

[Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:

> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic

No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
consensus.

> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>
> S.
>
> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious suggestion]
>
If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.

>
> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.0.
>>
>> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and distributed editions of OpenOffice.org.
>>
>> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell.  They tracked *existing* OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release.
>>
>> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done:
>>
>> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution.  (Notice how the files were identified).  The code differences had to be maintained in parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding Novell release.
>>
>> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition.
>>
>> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition.
>>
>> In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, just OpenOffice.org.  In particular, the support locations were OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org.
>>
>> It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell edition.
>>
>> When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes to mind.
>>
>> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.
>>
>> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.
>>
>

Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration

[Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>]

It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same logic to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.

S.

[for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious suggestion]


On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> There are many details to figure out to have a maintenance release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.0.
> 
> This situation reminds me that here have been privately-produced and distributed editions of OpenOffice.org.
> 
> The ones in my experience were produced by Novell.  They tracked *existing* OpenOffice.org releases but were built by Novell with Novell features that were not in the corresponding OpenOffice.org release.
> 
> The screenshots give some sense for how this was done:
> 
> 1. There was a Novell download site for the distribution.  (Notice how the files were identified).  The code differences had to be maintained in parallel and re-integrated with an OO.o release for each corresponding Novell release.
> 
> 2. The splash screen on startup of the release identified a Novell edition.
> 
> 3. The About box identified the Novell edition.
> 
> In other respects it was *all* OpenOffice.org and neither Sun nor Novell, just OpenOffice.org.  In particular, the support locations were OpenOffice.org, and registration was at OpenOffice.org.
> 
> It looks like what is thought of as OpenOffice.org branding did not appear, though I haven't looked closely nor tracked down the last-ever Novell edition.
> 
> When I think of there being a Team OpenOffice.org edition 3.3.1, this comes to mind.
> 
> I would expect the OpenOffice.org site to be the user-centered support location, with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem with where that goes now.
> 
> If the Team OpenOffice.org contribution of a maintenance release goes forward, I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the OpenOffice.org development line, it needs to operate as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment for the current realities.
>