You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/18 14:24:10 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11
million downloads.
This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
(1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
Slovenian.
(2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
(3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
numerical equation solver.
(3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
servers.
For all of them exists a fallback at
http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
is not used in practice.
It will be removed in the next release.
For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating).
The vote starts now and will be open until:
Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
There where 11 +1 votes including
one IPMC member binding +1,
10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
one +1 vote from a community member.
No abstinations, no -1 votes.
Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
The vote will be open for 3 days.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
+1 (binding)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey
<ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
>
> With regards to my own vote, I'm going to try to apply Jukka's criteria on
> "rights":
>
> http://markmail.org/message/jtj27kdlhvgocexg
>
> Personally I'm fine with things like missing license headers or partially
> incomplete license metadata (which sounds like is the case here), as long
> as those are just omissions that don't fundamentally affect our rights (or
> those of downstream users) to distribute the releases and as long as
> there's a commitment to fix such issues in time for the next release.
>
> Extraneous information in the NOTICE file imposes a burden on some downstream
> distributors and consumers. Thee is almost certainly room for improvement in
> the AOO NOTICE file, and we have made some progress towards a consensus on
> exactly what ought to be in NOTICE since the first incubating release of AOO
> -- though there is also considerable room for improvement in the ASF
> documentation with regards to NOTICE. :)
>
> However, is there anything about the NOTICE file in this AOO release candidate
> which affects _rights_, either our own or those of downstream users? I've
> looked through the file, and if that's the case, I don't see it. If sebb
> thinks a respin is merited, that's his call, and his review is a welcome
> contribution. However, considering how much effort it takes to spin up an AOO
> release, the good faith and substantial effort invested by the podling in
> assembling the NOTICE file in the first place, and the good record of the AOO
> podling in incorporating suggestions, my opinion is that a promise to
> incorporate any NOTICE revisions into trunk suffices and that a new RC is not
> required.
>
> In contrast, I am more concerned about extra files that were apparently
> inadvertently committed and were not caught by either the primary mechanism of
> PPMC members watching the commits list or by the last line of defense of
> running a RAT report prior to rolling the release. If files which are
I did check on these JAR files, to see how they got into Subversion in
the first place. They were checked in as part of the legacy project
and brought over when we did the original svndump import of the
project last June. So it would not have been found looking at commit
logs.
But you are right that this should have been found during the IP
review and preparation of the AOO 3.4.0 release.
I think the main error was in believing that since this was a minor
maintenance release, with only a handful of carefully reviewed
patches, and that since AOO 3.4.0 was thoroughly reviewed and
approved, that we could concentrate our effort on reviewing the delta
between the two releases. Of course, if we do this we'll never find
pre-existing errors, and it is clear now that they can exist as well.
What's the old saying? "Every new class of users finds a new class of bugs".
Regards,
-Rob
> incompatible with our licensing end up in a distribution, that has the
> potential to affect _rights_. And what with AOO's history, there is a big
> target painted on the project and there is a conspicuous need to maintain
> absolute control over what ends up in releases.
>
> It looks like the late audit has revealed that those files are OK, but it
> feels like we might have dodged a bullet.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>
> When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
>
> With regards to my own vote, I'm going to try to apply Jukka's criteria on
> "rights":
>
> http://markmail.org/message/jtj27kdlhvgocexg
>
> Personally I'm fine with things like missing license headers or partially
> incomplete license metadata (which sounds like is the case here), as long
> as those are just omissions that don't fundamentally affect our rights (or
> those of downstream users) to distribute the releases and as long as
> there's a commitment to fix such issues in time for the next release.
>
> Extraneous information in the NOTICE file imposes a burden on some downstream
> distributors and consumers. Thee is almost certainly room for improvement in
> the AOO NOTICE file, and we have made some progress towards a consensus on
> exactly what ought to be in NOTICE since the first incubating release of AOO
> -- though there is also considerable room for improvement in the ASF
> documentation with regards to NOTICE. :)
>
> However, is there anything about the NOTICE file in this AOO release candidate
> which affects _rights_, either our own or those of downstream users? I've
> looked through the file, and if that's the case, I don't see it. If sebb
> thinks a respin is merited, that's his call, and his review is a welcome
> contribution. However, considering how much effort it takes to spin up an AOO
> release, the good faith and substantial effort invested by the podling in
> assembling the NOTICE file in the first place, and the good record of the AOO
> podling in incorporating suggestions, my opinion is that a promise to
> incorporate any NOTICE revisions into trunk suffices and that a new RC is not
> required.
Thanks.
> In contrast, I am more concerned about extra files that were apparently
> inadvertently committed and were not caught by either the primary mechanism of
> PPMC members watching the commits list
Checking three of these jars - there were all part of the initial svn commit - r1162288 - Initial import of the old OOo hg repository tip revision.
> or by the last line of defense of
> running a RAT report prior to rolling the release. If files which are
> incompatible with our licensing end up in a distribution, that has the
> potential to affect _rights_. And what with AOO's history, there is a big
> target painted on the project and there is a conspicuous need to maintain
> absolute control over what ends up in releases.
Thanks for your answer to Jürgen and your +1 to release.
> It looks like the late audit has revealed that those files are OK, but it
> feels like we might have dodged a bullet.
Yes, but the shotgun was loaded with salt, so it just stings a little ;-)
Regards,
Dave
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
With regards to my own vote, I'm going to try to apply Jukka's criteria on
"rights":
http://markmail.org/message/jtj27kdlhvgocexg
Personally I'm fine with things like missing license headers or partially
incomplete license metadata (which sounds like is the case here), as long
as those are just omissions that don't fundamentally affect our rights (or
those of downstream users) to distribute the releases and as long as
there's a commitment to fix such issues in time for the next release.
Extraneous information in the NOTICE file imposes a burden on some downstream
distributors and consumers. Thee is almost certainly room for improvement in
the AOO NOTICE file, and we have made some progress towards a consensus on
exactly what ought to be in NOTICE since the first incubating release of AOO
-- though there is also considerable room for improvement in the ASF
documentation with regards to NOTICE. :)
However, is there anything about the NOTICE file in this AOO release candidate
which affects _rights_, either our own or those of downstream users? I've
looked through the file, and if that's the case, I don't see it. If sebb
thinks a respin is merited, that's his call, and his review is a welcome
contribution. However, considering how much effort it takes to spin up an AOO
release, the good faith and substantial effort invested by the podling in
assembling the NOTICE file in the first place, and the good record of the AOO
podling in incorporating suggestions, my opinion is that a promise to
incorporate any NOTICE revisions into trunk suffices and that a new RC is not
required.
In contrast, I am more concerned about extra files that were apparently
inadvertently committed and were not caught by either the primary mechanism of
PPMC members watching the commits list or by the last line of defense of
running a RAT report prior to rolling the release. If files which are
incompatible with our licensing end up in a distribution, that has the
potential to affect _rights_. And what with AOO's history, there is a big
target painted on the project and there is a conspicuous need to maintain
absolute control over what ends up in releases.
It looks like the late audit has revealed that those files are OK, but it
feels like we might have dodged a bullet.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 August 2012 14:38, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>>> justify this new requirement?
>>>
>>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>>> are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>>> organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>>> this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try
>>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help
>>> improve things where you see they are lacking. This community
>>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>>
>>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The
>>> issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but
>>> it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>>> every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that
>>> need to be addressed.
>
> this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
> the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
> members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
> the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
> be noted and repaired for the next release.
There are two issues here:
1) whether the NOTICE file is correct
2) if not, whether the problems are such as to require a respin.
I hope we are agreed that the NOTICE file is not correct.
The reason I think that problems in NOTICE files are to be taken
seriously is that the N (&L) files are vital for our licensing.
> The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
> for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
> files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
> that's just a thought on my part.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>
>> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
>> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
>> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
>> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results.
>>
>> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
>> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
>> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic
>>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>>> you are now. Keep up the good work.
>>>
>>> --Thilo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>>> justify this new requirement?
>>>
>>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>>> are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>>> organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>>> this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try
>>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help
>>> improve things where you see they are lacking. This community
>>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>>
>>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The
>>> issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but
>>> it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>>> every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that
>>> need to be addressed.
>
> this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
> the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
> members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
> the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
> be noted and repaired for the next release.
>
> The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
> for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
> files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
> that's just a thought on my part.
>
We're just running the "community readiness" graduation vote on
ooo-dev right now. We're also discussing the composition of the PMC,
drafting the charter on our wiki, looking toward nominating a Chair,
etc. But no formal IPMC vote on graduation is underway. That will
happen in due course.
One option might be to agree that the NOTICE issues are not fatal to
the purpose of a NOTICE file, and approve the release. But then have
further discussion on it leading to changes in our trunk, and that
could be a condition of graduation.
-Rob
>
>
>
>>>
>>
>> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
>> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
>> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
>> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results.
>>
>> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
>> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
>> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic
>>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>>> you are now. Keep up the good work.
>>>
>>> --Thilo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>> justify this new requirement?
>>
>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>> are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>> organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>> this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try
>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help
>> improve things where you see they are lacking. This community
>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>
>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The
>> issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but
>> it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>> every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that
>> need to be addressed.
this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
be noted and repaired for the next release.
The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
that's just a thought on my part.
>>
>
> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results.
>
> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>
> -Rob
>
>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>
>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic
>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>> you are now. Keep up the good work.
>>
>> --Thilo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>
>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
On 21/08/12 15:24, Rob Weir wrote:
[...]
> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
> them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
> Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results.
>
> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>
> -Rob
Sure. You can do the same exercise with 20 IBM lawyers with
similar results. And still you need to get the approval of
IBM legal.
--Thilo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>> justify this new requirement?
>
> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
> are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
> organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are
> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
> this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try
> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
> of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help
> improve things where you see they are lacking. This community
> aspect is very important at Apache.
>
> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The
> issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but
> it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
> every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that
> need to be addressed.
>
A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break
them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results.
I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
-Rob
> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>
> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic
> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
> you are now. Keep up the good work.
>
> --Thilo
>
>
>>
>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>
>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>> vote.
>>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>> artefacts has not.)
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 21.08.2012 17:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>>> justify this new requirement?
>>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>>> are now.
>> To be clear: Branko is an IPMC mentor, and not part of the AOO community.
> Oops. I meant IPMC *member*. (and an ASF Member for a couple years)
>
>> And I do happen to agree with Benson (else-thread) that any NOTICE
>> problems here do not require a respin.
>>
(nod) I should've emphasized that I'm spamming ex-cathedra as an
uninterested observer. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>> justify this new requirement?
>>
>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>> are now.
>
> To be clear: Branko is an IPMC mentor, and not part of the AOO community.
Oops. I meant IPMC *member*. (and an ASF Member for a couple years)
>
> And I do happen to agree with Benson (else-thread) that any NOTICE
> problems here do not require a respin.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>> justify this new requirement?
>
> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
> are now.
To be clear: Branko is an IPMC mentor, and not part of the AOO community.
And I do happen to agree with Benson (else-thread) that any NOTICE
problems here do not require a respin.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> justify this new requirement?
Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are
normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try
to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help
improve things where you see they are lacking. This community
aspect is very important at Apache.
As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The
issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but
it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
most important files in your distribution, and you should make
every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that
need to be addressed.
Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic
when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
you are now. Keep up the good work.
--Thilo
>
> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>
> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
> vote.
>
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
> artefacts has not.)
>
> -- Brane
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> justify this new requirement?
It is his opinion, not a requirement.
> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
Nobody can veto a release. Even the board would require a majority vote,
though root has the power to stop distribution.
> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
> vote.
Of course it is reasonable to expect a podling to read and respect
the release process. That's the point of doing the release with IPMC
review.
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
> artefacts has not.)
Fairness has nothing to do with it. These issues are all documented
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practices-svn
This is not a difficult task, but it does require practice
to get right. Every RM on every project goes through this pain.
Adherence is necessary to enable peer review. Peer review
is necessary to enable volunteers to act on behalf of the ASF.
Acting on behalf of the ASF is necessary for legal protection of
the project contributors. We are teaching the project how to do
an open source release without being held individually liable for
the millions of things that might get one sued for making an
open source release.
Being half-assed about it would not be doing them a favor.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify this new requirement?
It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
vote.
It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
(N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
artefacts has not.)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
>> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
>> downloads.
>>
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
>> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>>
>> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
>> Slovenian.
>>
>> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>> resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>>
>> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as numerical
>> equation solver.
>>
>> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
>> servers.
>> For all of them exists a fallback at
>> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>> The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>> is not used in practice.
>> It will be removed in the next release.
>>
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
>> wiki page:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>
> I think the NOTICE file included in the source release is wrong.
> NOTICE files are for *required* notices only, and should be as short
> as possible, and should only relate to software that is actually
> included in the particular artifact in which they appear.
>
> There are several repeated instances of
>
> =======
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> =======
>
> There should only be one instance at the head of the file.
>
> The Tomcat (Tomcat? is that really included?) section mentions NSIS -
> is that really included?
>
> There are lots of other entries which look superfluous.
> It's vital that the NOTICE file only include *required* notices.
I can't argue about the exact content and the format how a NOTICE have
to look like. No changes in the NOTICE file for the src release compared
to AOO 3.4
We had many discussion on the NOTICE file for 3.4 and followed the
advices of we got from these discussion
The discussion took place on
ooo-dev
legal-discuss
And you can find comments here on the list.
>
> If the binary builds include additional software, then their N&L files
> need to include any required references.
The binaries includes an aggregated NOTICE file where other included
external software (category-b) is integrated.
Here we added the COINMP stuff for the 3.4.1 release that was raised as
feedback to 3.4.
>
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
mmh, I am unsure, the next time somebody else with a different view and
opinion comes up and we have to change it again?
Again we changed it according the advices we got for the AOO 3.4 release.
Juergen
>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>>
>> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
>> There where 11 +1 votes including
>> one IPMC member binding +1,
>> 10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>> one +1 vote from a community member.
>> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>>
>> Vote thread:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
> downloads.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>
> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
> Slovenian.
>
> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
> resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>
> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as numerical
> equation solver.
>
> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
> servers.
> For all of them exists a fallback at
> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
> The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
> is not used in practice.
> It will be removed in the next release.
>
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
I think the NOTICE file included in the source release is wrong.
NOTICE files are for *required* notices only, and should be as short
as possible, and should only relate to software that is actually
included in the particular artifact in which they appear.
There are several repeated instances of
=======
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
=======
There should only be one instance at the head of the file.
The Tomcat (Tomcat? is that really included?) section mentions NSIS -
is that really included?
There are lots of other entries which look superfluous.
It's vital that the NOTICE file only include *required* notices.
If the binary builds include additional software, then their N&L files
need to include any required references.
I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
> There where 11 +1 votes including
> one IPMC member binding +1,
> 10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
> one +1 vote from a community member.
> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
On 18.08.2012 17:53, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
> On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
>> release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
>> than 11 million downloads.
>>
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
>> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>>
>> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak,
>> and Slovenian.
>>
>> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>> resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>
> Do I actually need a bugzilla account to view the issue list? The above
> link directs me to a login screen...
It is a shared query. Please try this (slightly longer) link:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=OP&o3=equals&list_id=24324&f0=OP&v3=3.4.1_release_blocker%3F&query_based_on=Resolved341ReleaseBlocker&o2=equals&f4=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&j1=OR&f3=flagtypes.name&f2=flagtypes.name&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f5=CP&f6=CP&v2=3.4.1_release_blocker%2B&known_name=Resolved341ReleaseBlocker
-Andre
>
> -> richard
>
>>
>> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
>> numerical equation solver.
>>
>> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their
>> project servers.
>> For all of them exists a fallback at
>> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>> The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>> is not used in practice.
>> It will be removed in the next release.
>>
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
>> wiki page:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>>
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>>
>> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
>> There where 11 +1 votes including
>> one IPMC member binding +1,
>> 10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>> one +1 vote from a community member.
>> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>>
>> Vote thread:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>>
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
> release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
> than 11 million downloads.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>
> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak,
> and Slovenian.
>
> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
> resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
Do I actually need a bugzilla account to view the issue list? The above
link directs me to a login screen...
-> richard
>
> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
> numerical equation solver.
>
> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their
> project servers.
> For all of them exists a fallback at
> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
> The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
> is not used in practice.
> It will be removed in the next release.
>
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
> There where 11 +1 votes including
> one IPMC member binding +1,
> 10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
> one +1 vote from a community member.
> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.
For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly immaterial. And lastly, you cannot defer to "most would disagree"
as the only authority is the Foundation, rather than "most".
-g
On Aug 20, 2012 5:11 PM, "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> >> [ ] 0 Don't care
> >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
> >
> > http://s.apache.org/ha
> >
> > We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being
> inspected
> > and these will be part of the official release.
> >
> > The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> > interpreted by Roy Fielding:
> >
> > http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
> >
> > Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
> > management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the
> Board
> > of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
> > maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public
> at no
> > charge.
> >
> > http://s.apache.org/rk5
> >
> > This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
> > certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of
> Delaware
> > that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an
> IRS
> > 501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as
> part of
> > every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
> > open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the
> public."
> >
> > Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files
> are not
>
> Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software". So
> pick your definition. The industry standard was the OSI definition,
> or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes
> binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where
> "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given.
>
> See: http://opensource.org/osd.html
>
> I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries.
>
>
> > open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is
> applicable
> > only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we
> vote on
> > as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source
> artifacts.
> > Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
> > approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because
> the
> > binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for
> release
> > (even if it was derived from open source).
> >
>
> Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not open
> source.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> > I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write
> documentation
> > to explain something that is fundamental to the open source
> definition?
> >
> > I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> > casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> > release.
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>
> http://s.apache.org/ha
>
> We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
> and these will be part of the official release.
>
> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>
> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>
> Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
> management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
> of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
> maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
> charge.
>
> http://s.apache.org/rk5
>
> This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
> certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
> that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
> 501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
> every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>
> Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software". So
pick your definition. The industry standard was the OSI definition,
or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes
binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where
"well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given.
See: http://opensource.org/osd.html
I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries.
> open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
> only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
> as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
> Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
> approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
> binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
> (even if it was derived from open source).
>
Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not open source.
Regards,
-Rob
> I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
> to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>
> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> release.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 5:10 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>>> close, though seemingly not exact. The discrepancies are shown below.
>>> I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
>>
>> I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
>> (MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
>> tree based on revision r1372282.
>>
>> After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
>> made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
>> decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
>> something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.
>>
>> After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
>> some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
>> up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
>> the changed cxx files.
>>
>> I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
>> local changes to revision 1372282.
>>
>> If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
>> new ones.
>
> Thank you for the thorough explanation. If I have understood you correctly,
> all files flagged by either RAT or by the check against the svn export of
> revision 1372282 have been accounted for and we have sufficient rights to
> distribute them. That being the case, in my view it is not necessary to roll
> a new RC.
exactly that is my understanding when I checked the sources. We always
try to address concerns immediately. But we are also humans and no
machines and can make errors or can oversee things. But as mentioned
before we are happy to incorporate any kind of valuable feedback.
The more detaield the feedback is and potential concerns are the better
it is. And of course it is much easier to change things accordingly. We
are still learning.
>
> +1 to release.
Thanks
Juergen
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>> close, though seemingly not exact. The discrepancies are shown below.
>> I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
>
> I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
> (MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
> tree based on revision r1372282.
>
> After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
> made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
> decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
> something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.
>
> After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
> some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
> up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
> the changed cxx files.
>
> I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
> local changes to revision 1372282.
>
> If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
> new ones.
Thank you for the thorough explanation. If I have understood you correctly,
all files flagged by either RAT or by the check against the svn export of
revision 1372282 have been accounted for and we have sufficient rights to
distribute them. That being the case, in my view it is not necessary to roll
a new RC.
+1 to release.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>>
>> Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
>> ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
>> address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
>> challenged.
>>
>> I withdraw my -1.
>>
>>> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
>>> in either direction.
>>
>> I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
>>
>> It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
>> the RC. As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
>> a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
>> integrity. In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
>> a heuristic. :) I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
>> checklist anywhere.
>>
>>> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
>>> and/or the Artifacts in any way.
>>
>> * Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
>> * All archives contain identical source files.
>> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>> close, though seemingly not exact. The discrepancies are shown below.
>> I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
>
> I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
> (MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
> tree based on revision r1372282.
>
> After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
> made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
> decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
> something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.
>
> After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
> some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
> up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
> the changed cxx files.
>
> I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
> local changes to revision 1372282.
>
> If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
> new ones.
>
>
>> differences exist.
>> * I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
>> covered.
>>
>> The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
>> audit:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
>>
>> > ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
>>
>> No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
>>
>> > ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
>>
>> Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
>> Certification Revocation Lists.
>>
>> So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
>> redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
>> new src ZIP without them.
>>
>> If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.
>
> Both jars are checked in and this can be seen as mistake. The reason is
> that they are built by Netbeans projects and whoever checked in the code
> has checked in the dist folder as well. And a further mistake is that
> both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
> module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
> during the build process goes into the module output directory.
>
Or said otherwise, these two JAR's are built from ALv2-licensed source
code, part of the source artifact distribution:
> ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
> ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
So we have license to distribute and no special notice is required.
Apparently this redundancy was inherited from the initial code that
came in via the Oracle SGA. We'll fix in the trunk.
Regards,
-Rob
> For example:
> <module_name>/unxmacxi.pro/...
>
> The ant script that package the src release takes care of the output
> directories and exclude them. In this case the by mistake checked in
> jars are packed as well.
>
> This have to be fixed definitely and we have already started to fix it
> on trunk. See issues [1] and [2].
>
> The question is if it is release critical or not at this point? I think
> it isn't because the jars are the output of 2 existing NetBeans projects
> that are part of the src release as well. And I would like to prevent if
> possible a new revision number because that means new binaries as well.
>
>
> I propose the following for this release:
>
> 1. revert the debug output in the 3 *.cxx files and repackage the src
> release based on r1372282
>
> Cleanup for future releases on trunk.
> 2. Remove the 2 jars (the dist folder) from svn, adapt the projects to
> deliver the output in the module output directory
>
> 3. Check other binaries again and make the RAT exclude list more fine
> grained to document better for what reason the binaries have to be kept...
>
> Juergen
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120634
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120635
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>>
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
>> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
>> 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
>> 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
>> 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
>> Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
>> Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
>> Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
>> Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
>> Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
>> Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-05-31
>> 05:59:10.000000000 -0700
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-08-14
>> 07:18:47.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@
>>
>> DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>> Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
>> vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
>> mrXMimeCntFactory =
>> Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
>> OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
>> UNO_QUERY);
>> @@ -521,6 +522,7 @@
>>
>> DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>> // release potential NSStrings
>> for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
>> != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
>> {
>> @@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
>> // look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
>> // been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
>> be in the map
>> rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
>> - if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>> +
>> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
>> + if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
>> testFlavor.getStr());
>> oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
>> oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
>> oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
>> @@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>> if( ! sysFlavor )
>> {
>> OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
>> oOOFlavor.MimeType );
>> - if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>> + if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>> sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
>> OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
>> - else
>> - sysFlavor = it->second;
>> - }
>> + } else {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>> + sysFlavor = it->second;
>> + }
>> + } else
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>> +
>>
>> return sysFlavor;
>> }
>> @@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
>> {
>> NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
>> NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
>> NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
>> +
>> + rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
>> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
>> testFlavor.getStr());
>> +
>> return sysFlavor;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
>> }
>> else
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#
>> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
>> NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);
>>
>> if (str != NULL)
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#
>> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
>> [str retain];
>> [array addObject: str];
>> }
>> @@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
>> // #i89462# #i90747#
>> // in case no system flavor was found to report
>> // report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
>> - if( [array count] == 0 )
>> +// if( [array count] == 0 )
>> {
>> [array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
>> }
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2011-11-06
>> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2012-08-14
>> 06:27:33.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
>> Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
>> throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
>> if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
>> UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
>> throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
>> Unsupported data flavor")),
>> static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
>> }
>> @@ -92,11 +94,13 @@
>>
>> if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
>> NSOrderedSame)
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
>> NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
>> dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>> }
>> else
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
>> NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
>> dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>> }
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2011-11-06
>> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2012-08-14
>> 06:44:22.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
>> mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
>> :
>> [NSArray array];
>>
>> + int l = [types count];
>> + fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
>> ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);
>>
>> Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
>> @@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
>> void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
>> throw(RuntimeException)
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
>> if (mXClipboardContent.is())
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
>> Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
>> mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
>> sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
>>
>> @@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
>>
>> if (sysType != NULL)
>> {
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> sysType != NULL\n");
>> provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
>> - }
>> + } else
>> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> sysType == NULL\n");
>> }
>> mXClipboardContent.clear();
>> }
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>
> Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
> ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
> address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
> challenged.
>
> I withdraw my -1.
>
>> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
>> in either direction.
>
> I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
>
> It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
> the RC. As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
> a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
> integrity. In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
> a heuristic. :) I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
> checklist anywhere.
>
>> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
>> and/or the Artifacts in any way.
>
> * Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
> * All archives contain identical source files.
> * I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
> able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
> close, though seemingly not exact. The discrepancies are shown below.
> I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
(MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
tree based on revision r1372282.
After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.
After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
the changed cxx files.
I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
local changes to revision 1372282.
If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
new ones.
> differences exist.
> * I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
> covered.
>
> The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
> audit:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
>
> > ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
>
> No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
>
> > ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
>
> Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
> Certification Revocation Lists.
>
> So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
> redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
> new src ZIP without them.
>
> If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.
Both jars are checked in and this can be seen as mistake. The reason is
that they are built by Netbeans projects and whoever checked in the code
has checked in the dist folder as well. And a further mistake is that
both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
during the build process goes into the module output directory.
For example:
<module_name>/unxmacxi.pro/...
The ant script that package the src release takes care of the output
directories and exclude them. In this case the by mistake checked in
jars are packed as well.
This have to be fixed definitely and we have already started to fix it
on trunk. See issues [1] and [2].
The question is if it is release critical or not at this point? I think
it isn't because the jars are the output of 2 existing NetBeans projects
that are part of the src release as well. And I would like to prevent if
possible a new revision number because that means new binaries as well.
I propose the following for this release:
1. revert the debug output in the 3 *.cxx files and repackage the src
release based on r1372282
Cleanup for future releases on trunk.
2. Remove the 2 jars (the dist folder) from svn, adapt the projects to
deliver the output in the module output directory
3. Check other binaries again and make the RAT exclude list more fine
grained to document better for what reason the binaries have to be kept...
Juergen
[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120634
[2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120635
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
> gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
> 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
> 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
> 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
> Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
> Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
> Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
> Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
> Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
> Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-05-31
> 05:59:10.000000000 -0700
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-08-14
> 07:18:47.000000000 -0700
> @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@
>
> DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
> Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
> vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
> mrXMimeCntFactory =
> Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
> OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
> UNO_QUERY);
> @@ -521,6 +522,7 @@
>
> DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
> // release potential NSStrings
> for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
> != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
> {
> @@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
> // look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
> // been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
> be in the map
> rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
> - if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
> +
> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
> + fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
> + if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
> testFlavor.getStr());
> oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
> oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
> oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
> @@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
> }
> }
>
> + rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
> if( ! sysFlavor )
> {
> OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
> oOOFlavor.MimeType );
> - if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
> + if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
> sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
> OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
> - else
> - sysFlavor = it->second;
> - }
> + } else {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
> + sysFlavor = it->second;
> + }
> + } else
> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
> +
>
> return sysFlavor;
> }
> @@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
> {
> NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
> NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
> NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
> +
> + rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
> + fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
> testFlavor.getStr());
> +
> return sysFlavor;
> }
>
> @@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
> }
> else
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "#
> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
> NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);
>
> if (str != NULL)
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "#
> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
> [str retain];
> [array addObject: str];
> }
> @@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
> // #i89462# #i90747#
> // in case no system flavor was found to report
> // report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
> - if( [array count] == 0 )
> +// if( [array count] == 0 )
> {
> [array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
> }
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2011-11-06
> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2012-08-14
> 06:27:33.000000000 -0700
> @@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
> Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
> throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
> if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
> UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
> throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
> Unsupported data flavor")),
> static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
> }
> @@ -92,11 +94,13 @@
>
> if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
> NSOrderedSame)
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
> NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
> dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
> }
> else
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
> NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
> dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
> }
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2011-11-06
> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2012-08-14
> 06:44:22.000000000 -0700
> @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
> mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
> :
> [NSArray array];
>
> + int l = [types count];
> + fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
> ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);
>
> Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
> @@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
> void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
> throw(RuntimeException)
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
> if (mXClipboardContent.is())
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
> Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
> mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
> sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
>
> @@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
>
> if (sysType != NULL)
> {
> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> sysType != NULL\n");
> provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
> - }
> + } else
> + fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> sysType == NULL\n");
> }
> mXClipboardContent.clear();
> }
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
Thank you, Dave. I consider your statement to override the assertion on
ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
challenged.
I withdraw my -1.
> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
> in either direction.
I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
the RC. As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
integrity. In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
a heuristic. :) I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
checklist anywhere.
> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
> and/or the Artifacts in any way.
* Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
* All archives contain identical source files.
* I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
close, though seemingly not exact. The discrepancies are shown below.
I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
differences exist.
* I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
covered.
The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
audit:
http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
> ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
> ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
Certification Revocation Lists.
So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
new src ZIP without them.
If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.
Marvin Humphrey
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <js...@apache.org>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>"
gpg: aka "Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-05-31
05:59:10.000000000 -0700
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-08-14
07:18:47.000000000 -0700
@@ -511,6 +511,7 @@
DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
mrXMimeCntFactory =
Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
UNO_QUERY);
@@ -521,6 +522,7 @@
DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
// release potential NSStrings
for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
!= maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
{
@@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
// look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
// been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
be in the map
rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
- if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
+
+ rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
+ fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
+ if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
testFlavor.getStr());
oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
@@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
}
}
+ rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
if( ! sysFlavor )
{
OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
oOOFlavor.MimeType );
- if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
+ if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
- else
- sysFlavor = it->second;
- }
+ } else {
+ fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
+ sysFlavor = it->second;
+ }
+ } else
+ fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
+
return sysFlavor;
}
@@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
{
NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
+
+ rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
+ rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
+ fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
testFlavor.getStr());
+
return sysFlavor;
}
@@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
}
else
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "#
DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);
if (str != NULL)
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "#
DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
[str retain];
[array addObject: str];
}
@@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
// #i89462# #i90747#
// in case no system flavor was found to report
// report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
- if( [array count] == 0 )
+// if( [array count] == 0 )
{
[array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
}
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2011-11-06
01:26:39.000000000 -0800
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2012-08-14
06:27:33.000000000 -0700
@@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
Unsupported data flavor")),
static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
}
@@ -92,11 +94,13 @@
if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
NSOrderedSame)
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
}
else
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
}
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2011-11-06
01:26:39.000000000 -0800
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2012-08-14
06:44:22.000000000 -0700
@@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
:
[NSArray array];
+ int l = [types count];
+ fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);
Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
@@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
throw(RuntimeException)
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
if (mXClipboardContent.is())
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
@@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
if (sysType != NULL)
{
+ fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
sysType != NULL\n");
provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
- }
+ } else
+ fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
sysType == NULL\n");
}
mXClipboardContent.clear();
}
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Top-Post - you question is answered below.
In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote in either direction.
Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE and/or the Artifacts in any way.
Thanks & Regards,
Dave
On Aug 20, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> -1
>>
>> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
>> release:
>>
>> http://s.apache.org/ha
>>
>> We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
>> and these will be part of the official release.
>
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to argue with Rob.
>
>>
>> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
>> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>>
>> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>>
>> Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
>> management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
>> of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
>> maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
>> charge.
>>
>> http://s.apache.org/rk5
>>
>> This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
>> certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
>> that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
>> 501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
>> every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
>> open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>>
>> Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
>> open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
>> only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
>> as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
>> Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
>> approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
>> binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
>> (even if it was derived from open source).
>>
>> I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
>> to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>>
>> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
>> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
>> release.
>
> My IPMC VOTE was done entirely by inspecting / unpacking the source release and building a MacOSX distro entirely from source. The package started fine.
>
> Comparisons to SVN and a RAT scan via the buildbot was accomplished. rat-excludes file has not been changed since before the prior 3.4.0 release, but please look at it to see if there is anything in there that is troublesome - there are some "binary" files but they are in example and test directories. Perhaps there are edge cases, but it is typical to have examples and unit tests that include binaries in other projects.
>
> There are some wildcard excludes that may be better as specific.
>
> I recommend that you do any RAT scan on Linux as there is trouble of some kind on MacOSX and Windows.
>
> Let us know if you think that this is beyond "cups" and "saucers" level.
>
> I did not consider the binary packages for multiple platforms and languages at all in my VOTE.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>...
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
...
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue with Rob.
This sounds like a problem that the PPMC needs to solve.
(at a minimum, the term should be "discuss"; rarely should a healthy
community "argue", let alone concerns about "unproductive" discussions)
-g
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>
> http://s.apache.org/ha
>
> We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
> and these will be part of the official release.
I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to argue with Rob.
>
> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>
> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>
> Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
> management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
> of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
> maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
> charge.
>
> http://s.apache.org/rk5
>
> This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
> certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
> that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
> 501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
> every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>
> Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
> open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
> only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
> as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
> Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
> approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
> binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
> (even if it was derived from open source).
>
> I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
> to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>
> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> release.
My IPMC VOTE was done entirely by inspecting / unpacking the source release and building a MacOSX distro entirely from source. The package started fine.
Comparisons to SVN and a RAT scan via the buildbot was accomplished. rat-excludes file has not been changed since before the prior 3.4.0 release, but please look at it to see if there is anything in there that is troublesome - there are some "binary" files but they are in example and test directories. Perhaps there are edge cases, but it is typical to have examples and unit tests that include binaries in other projects.
There are some wildcard excludes that may be better as specific.
I recommend that you do any RAT scan on Linux as there is trouble of some kind on MacOSX and Windows.
Let us know if you think that this is beyond "cups" and "saucers" level.
I did not consider the binary packages for multiple platforms and languages at all in my VOTE.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
-1
I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
release:
http://s.apache.org/ha
We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
and these will be part of the official release.
The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
interpreted by Roy Fielding:
http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
charge.
http://s.apache.org/rk5
This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
(even if it was derived from open source).
I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
release.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>
>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>
>>
>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>
> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
I was on IRC and Jürgen reports that the upload is complete.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>
>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>> all working.
>>
>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>
>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>
>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>
>>>>> +1:
>>>>>
>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 11:25 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>
>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>
>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>
>
> Are they really all uploaded?
yes they are. I have already fixed the problem that some signature files
were not copied for Linux 64 bit (deb, rpm).
Seems to be a synch problem as Joe mentioned
Juergen
>
> I'm not seeing the en-US version here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/
>
> And the Chinese versions are missing:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-CN/
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-TW/
>
>
> -Rob
>
>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>
>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>
>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> I will work on the website
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>> all working.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <rg...@geek.net>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <
> jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>> FYI
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
> with
> >>>>> the release preparation ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
> keep
> >>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
> >>
> >> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
> >
> > the bits are uploaded to dist
> >
>
> Are they really all uploaded?
>
> I'm not seeing the en-US version here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/
>
> And the Chinese versions are missing:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-CN/
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-TW/
>
>
> -Rob
>
> > @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
> >
> > it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
> >
> > see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
> >
> > I will work on the website
> > (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>
Ok Jürgen,
Once the sync is complete and accessible at
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/ let us know and we'll sync
to our servers.
Roberto
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
> uploaded.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
> >>> all working.
> >>>
> >>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
> notifications.
> >>>
> >>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
> >>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> RC2
> >>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
> >>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> RC2
> >>>>>> has concluded.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The ballot passed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> VOTE TALLY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IPMC members:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> >>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
> >>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your support
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
--
====
This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
He uploaded to mino, still needs to complete
the sync between mino and www.eu and www.us
(aurora and eos).
>________________________________
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: rgaloppini@geek.net
>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:25 PM
>Subject: Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>
>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>
>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>
>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>
>
>Are they really all uploaded?
>
>I'm not seeing the en-US version here:
>
>http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/
>
>And the Chinese versions are missing:
>
>http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-CN/
>
>http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-TW/
>
>
>-Rob
>
>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>
>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>
>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> I will work on the website
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>> all working.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> FYI
>>>>>
>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>
>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>
>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>
> the bits are uploaded to dist
>
Are they really all uploaded?
I'm not seeing the en-US version here:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/
And the Chinese versions are missing:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-CN/
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-TW/
-Rob
> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>
> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>
> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> I will work on the website
> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>
> Regards
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>>
>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>> all working.
>>>
>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>>
>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <rg...@geek.net>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
> >> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> >>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> FYI
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now
> proceed
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload,
> will
> >>>>>>>>> keep
> >>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will work on the website
> >>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you
> have
> >>>>>>>> uploaded.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links
> are
> >>>>>>>> all working.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
> >>>>>>>> notifications.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers
> can
> >>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
> >>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
> >>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time
> (tomorrow),
> >>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, lets see.
> >>>>
> >>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
> >>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
> >>>>
> >>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will
> this
> >>>> work for you all?
> >>>>
> >>>> Marcus
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
> >>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
> >>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
> >>> should be in business.
> >>>
> >>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
> >>> goes well.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
> >> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
> >>
> >> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
> >> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
> >>
> >
> > We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
> > US and EU distribution servers:
> >
> > http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
> >
> > It looks that looks like it recently completed.
> >
> > Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
> >
>
> I just chatted with Roberto. He says they are ready!
>
> So can we all get our page changes onto staging? No one publish yet.
> But lets get the updated announcement, release notes, and especially
> the updated download pages in place.
>
> We can do a quick sanity check and if no problems are found then we
> can publish them later tonight.
>
> I'll hold off the announcement until tomorrow morning, giving some
> extra time for any errors to be reported at low volume before we turn
> on the fire hose!
>
For the time being AOO 3.4 is still the default, once the news is out we'll
set the dafult to AOO 3.4.1.
Note that the default comes into play for users downloading AOO directly
from SourceForge (mostly because of the Carousel on SourceForge directory
displaying the Apache OpenOffice ads).
Roberto
>
> -Rob
>
> > If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
> > and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
> >
> > Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
> > everyone not to publish yet.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine
> so I
> >>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> >>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
> >>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
> >>>>>>>>>> subject
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> >>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
> >>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>
--
====
This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: BAD link
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 23/08/2012 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack.
Exactly. And this often happened also for volunteers busy with QA
activities: a bug report in IssueZilla is supposed to use the English
form for commands and menus, to make it easier for developers to
reproduce the problem.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 09:49 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 08/23/2012 03:57 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> On 8/23/12 3:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/23/12 2:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
>>>>> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
>>>>
>>>> If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
>>>> language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
>>>> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
>>>> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
>>>> use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
>>>> where those en-US language packs downloaded.
>>>
>>> seems to be room for improvements, maybe we should think about
>>> multi-lang office with 2 langs -> en-US + 1 lang or move forward with
>>> the en-US language pack
>>
>> the easier part is to provide the en-US language packs that we have
>> voted on and that were part of the snapshot builds. I still don't know
>> why I have left them out... Maybe I simply have overseen them because of
>> our stupid directory structure I have to copy en-US separately. But that
>
> Yeah, yeah, understood the hidden wink. Will change with the next bigger
> release. ;-)
>
>> should be no excuse ;-) By the way I have copied them already on dist.
>
> OK, that would be also my suggestion. I don't see a reason to exclude
> them, too.
>
>> I will also work on some SDK release notes but I am not sure if I will
>> finish this before I go on vacation on Saturday. I have some other
>> things on my to-do list first.
>
> That sounds nice. You really deserve many days off. :-)
The en-US langpacks are available also on SourceForge. So, I've added
the links back to the "other.html" webpage.
Marcus
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 03:57 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> On 8/23/12 3:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/23/12 2:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>>>>
>>>> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
>>>> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
>>>
>>> If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
>>> language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
>>> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
>>> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
>>> use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
>>> where those en-US language packs downloaded.
>>
>> seems to be room for improvements, maybe we should think about
>> multi-lang office with 2 langs -> en-US + 1 lang or move forward with
>> the en-US language pack
>
> the easier part is to provide the en-US language packs that we have
> voted on and that were part of the snapshot builds. I still don't know
> why I have left them out... Maybe I simply have overseen them because of
> our stupid directory structure I have to copy en-US separately. But that
Yeah, yeah, understood the hidden wink. Will change with the next bigger
release. ;-)
> should be no excuse ;-) By the way I have copied them already on dist.
OK, that would be also my suggestion. I don't see a reason to exclude
them, too.
> I will also work on some SDK release notes but I am not sure if I will
> finish this before I go on vacation on Saturday. I have some other
> things on my to-do list first.
That sounds nice. You really deserve many days off. :-)
Ciao
Marcus
Re: BAD link
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/12 3:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/23/12 2:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>>>
>>> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
>>> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
>>
>> If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
>> language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
>> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
>> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
>> use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
>> where those en-US language packs downloaded.
>
> seems to be room for improvements, maybe we should think about
> multi-lang office with 2 langs -> en-US + 1 lang or move forward with
> the en-US language pack
the easier part is to provide the en-US language packs that we have
voted on and that were part of the snapshot builds. I still don't know
why I have left them out... Maybe I simply have overseen them because of
our stupid directory structure I have to copy en-US separately. But that
should be no excuse ;-) By the way I have copied them already on dist.
I will also work on some SDK release notes but I am not sure if I will
finish this before I go on vacation on Saturday. I have some other
things on my to-do list first.
Juergen
Re: BAD link
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/12 2:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>>
>> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
>> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
>
> If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
> language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
> use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
>
> It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
> where those en-US language packs downloaded.
seems to be room for improvements, maybe we should think about
multi-lang office with 2 langs -> en-US + 1 lang or move forward with
the en-US language pack
Juergen
Re: BAD link
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:03:35AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
> >>
> >> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
> >> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
> >
> > If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
> > language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
> > people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
> > English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
> > use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
> > where those en-US language packs downloaded.
> >
>
> I've updated the download page to remove the en-US langpack links. We
> can add them back in a day or two, once the files have been uploaded
> and synched.
>
> The stats I have for AOO 3.4.0 show that this langpack was download
> around 400/day. So not huge. I don't have the country breakdown in
> front of me, but I can run a report on it if you are interested.
If would be interesting, if I had any idea about what would these
numbers mean ;) If we see downloads coming from very specifics countries
with languages for which we provide full install sets, would it mean
that the translation is poor or incomplete at some point, and the user
prefers to switch to en-US? Hard to guess.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: BAD link
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>>
>> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
>> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
>
> If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
> language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
> people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
> English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
> use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
>
> It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
> where those en-US language packs downloaded.
>
I've updated the download page to remove the en-US langpack links. We
can add them back in a day or two, once the files have been uploaded
and synched.
The stats I have for AOO 3.4.0 show that this langpack was download
around 400/day. So not huge. I don't have the country breakdown in
front of me, but I can run a report on it if you are interested.
In any case, are we ready to publish the blog and website now? I think we are.
-Rob
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
Re: BAD link
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 02:18:22PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
>
> I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
> should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
If you install a localized install set, you get only that localized
language. IIRC OOo never released en-US language packs, that's why many
people working in translation, needing to check some UI string in
English, ended up installing the en-GB language pack. Although for this
use case, it would be better to provide archived versions.
It would be interesting to know the statistics, from which countries
where those en-US language packs downloaded.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: BAD link
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:36:56PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
>> > zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
>> > quickly.
>> >
>> > Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
>> > day.
>
> Interesting numbers, IIRC OpenOffice.org never released en-US language
> packs.
>
>
>> > What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
>> > switch to SF once it is ready?
>> >
>> > The links would start with:
>> >
>> > http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>> >
>>
>> Please ignore the above. It is one of the stupidest things I've said
>> this week. I first say the files are missing on the Apache dist
>> servers and then suggest that we point to the mirrors instead. Doh!
>> Of course the mirrors sync from the dist servers. So they are missing
>> the files as well.
>>
>> So in other words, no one has the en-US langpack except for the RC
>> copies on people.apache.org.
>
> Dummy question, but what if some one copies the files from our home
> folders to /www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1 ?
> I wasn't aware that we had access to this folder directly....
>
> arielch@minotaur:/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1$ pwd
> /www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1
>
These appear to be the instructions:
http://www.apache.org/dev/mirror-step-by-step.html
> Mmmm it looks like that folders should belong to the incubator group,
> and the group should have write access so that any committer can fix
> last minute bugs like this:
>
> arielch@minotaur:/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable$ ls -l .
> total 45
> drwxrwxr-x 2 jsc jsc 92 May 2 07:43 3.4.0
> drwxrwxr-x 2 jsc jsc 50 Aug 21 19:33 3.4.1
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
Re: BAD link
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:36:56PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
> > zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
> > quickly.
> >
> > Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
> > day.
Interesting numbers, IIRC OpenOffice.org never released en-US language
packs.
> > What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
> > switch to SF once it is ready?
> >
> > The links would start with:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
> >
>
> Please ignore the above. It is one of the stupidest things I've said
> this week. I first say the files are missing on the Apache dist
> servers and then suggest that we point to the mirrors instead. Doh!
> Of course the mirrors sync from the dist servers. So they are missing
> the files as well.
>
> So in other words, no one has the en-US langpack except for the RC
> copies on people.apache.org.
Dummy question, but what if some one copies the files from our home
folders to /www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1 ?
I wasn't aware that we had access to this folder directly....
arielch@minotaur:/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1$ pwd
/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1
Mmmm it looks like that folders should belong to the incubator group,
and the group should have write access so that any committer can fix
last minute bugs like this:
arielch@minotaur:/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable$ ls -l .
total 45
drwxrwxr-x 2 jsc jsc 92 May 2 07:43 3.4.0
drwxrwxr-x 2 jsc jsc 50 Aug 21 19:33 3.4.1
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: BAD link
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
-------- Original Message --------
From: drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:26:50 -0400
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>
>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>
>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>
>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>> a bit.
>>
>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>
>> Marcus
>
> Thanks,
>
> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
> they all seem fine.
>
> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
> stuff?
>
> //drew
I have just finished checking all Linux 32 & 64 (deb & rpm) all
languages and all trigger the expected downloads.
Dave
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>
>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>
>>>>> //drew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, JÃŒrgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JÃŒrgen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 01:58 AM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>>
>>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>
>>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>>
>>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>>> a bit.
>>>
>>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
>> they all seem fine.
>>
>> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
>> stuff?
>
> I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
> download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
> indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
> loaded. :-(
>
> http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
>
> Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of
> a better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
Anyway, I hope the links are well now. Otherwise lets see what could be
fixed on the next day.
It's now past 02:00am in Germany. Good night and CU tomorrow.
Marcus
>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have
>>>>>>> downloaded
>>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP
>>>>>>> SP3) and
>>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to
>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the
>>>>>>>>>> download page.
>>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else
>>>>>>>>>> can start
>>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done
>>>>>>>>>> quickly and be
>>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use
>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
>
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>>
>>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/sdk/index.html<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/**index.html<http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html>
>>>>
>>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>>> a bit.
>>>
>>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
>> they all seem fine.
>>
>> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
>> stuff?
>>
>
> I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
> download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
> indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
> loaded. :-(
>
> http://linkchecker.**submitexpress.com/<http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/>
>
> Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of a
> better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
>
> Marcus
linklint
http://www.linklint.org/
It's pretty easy to set up as I recall.
I could help probably...what root URL should we use?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/<http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3)
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to
>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_**OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_**
>>>>>>>>>> d3461.html<http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download
>>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/other.html<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly
>>>>>>>>>> and be
>>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>>>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>>>>> a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>>>>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
>>>> they all seem fine.
>>>>
>>>> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
>>>> stuff?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
>>> download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
>>> indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
>>> loaded. :-(
>>>
>>> http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
>>>
>>> Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of
>> a
>>> better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
>>>
>>
>> I think link checker would only get the first link into SF, but not
>> the asynch download that comes 5 seconds later. So it doesn't really
>> check for much.
>>
>
> OK
>
>
>>
>> I think of it like this: # of errors in download process == # of
>> errors we put in - # of errors we find and fix
>>
>> There is a lot we could do to lower the # of bugs we put it.
>> Automation is what we need. Right now the directory structure produced
I've prepared something. So, let's see if can show you a draft version
on the weekend.
>> by the build differs from the directory structure we have in the
>> download tree. I think that is the source of the complexity that is
>> hurting us. That, plus the fact that our download tree has an
>> irrational structure, more complicated than necessary. If we can
>> reduce this disconnect between build and distribution, I think it
>> would help.
For sure. Thanks to Kay for starting the new thread.
> possibly...and yet many of them are OK. But I do know Juergen, our tireless
> release manager, has been arguing for a different structure for a while,
> and that's fine. It was just given what was already setup in SF with 3.3
> that was my original concern. And, the fact that this request was in "new"
> territory if you will for the 3.4 release that I personally was very
> nervous about. How would this effect what they needed to do, etc.
> Basically, once the packs get loaded, we're into a what , maybe a 48 hour
> test period? If something went really wrong, well...
>
> But...this said about 3.4 and now 3.4.1, Marcus and I have have cleaned up
> a LOT of this script. Dealing with a directory structure change won't be
> the issue it would have been in May.
We should plan the dir change for the next bigger release. Should be
doable when it's no longer this year.
> So, I think we're good with suggestions for the future.
Marcus
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have
>> downloaded
>>>>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3)
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites
>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
>>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download
>>>>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can
>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>> and be
>>>>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian
>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
> > Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One more incorrect link
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
> >>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
> >>>>
> >>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
> >>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
> >>> a bit.
> >>>
> >>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
> >>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
> >>>
> >>> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
> >> they all seem fine.
> >>
> >> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
> >> stuff?
> >
> >
> > I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
> > download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
> > indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
> > loaded. :-(
> >
> > http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
> >
> > Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of
> a
> > better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
> >
>
> I think link checker would only get the first link into SF, but not
> the asynch download that comes 5 seconds later. So it doesn't really
> check for much.
>
OK
>
> I think of it like this: # of errors in download process == # of
> errors we put in - # of errors we find and fix
>
> There is a lot we could do to lower the # of bugs we put it.
> Automation is what we need. Right now the directory structure produced
> by the build differs from the directory structure we have in the
> download tree. I think that is the source of the complexity that is
> hurting us. That, plus the fact that our download tree has an
> irrational structure, more complicated than necessary. If we can
> reduce this disconnect between build and distribution, I think it
> would help.
>
possibly...and yet many of them are OK. But I do know Juergen, our tireless
release manager, has been arguing for a different structure for a while,
and that's fine. It was just given what was already setup in SF with 3.3
that was my original concern. And, the fact that this request was in "new"
territory if you will for the 3.4 release that I personally was very
nervous about. How would this effect what they needed to do, etc.
Basically, once the packs get loaded, we're into a what , maybe a 48 hour
test period? If something went really wrong, well...
But...this said about 3.4 and now 3.4.1, Marcus and I have have cleaned up
a LOT of this script. Dealing with a directory structure change won't be
the issue it would have been in May.
So, I think we're good with suggestions for the future.
> -Rob
>
>
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
> >>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> back to it..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> //drew
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have
> downloaded
> >>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3)
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jürgen
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites
> have
> >>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to
> >>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
> >>>>>>>>>> amount
> >>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download
> >>>>>>>>>> page.
> >>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can
> >>>>>>>>>> start
> >>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly
> >>>>>>>>>> and be
> >>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> doing it now...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian
> and
> >>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1
> >>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: BAD link
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
>
>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>>
>>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>
>>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>>> a bit.
>>>
>>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
>> they all seem fine.
>>
>> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
>> stuff?
>
>
> I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
> download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
> indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
> loaded. :-(
>
> http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
>
> Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of a
> better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
>
I think link checker would only get the first link into SF, but not
the asynch download that comes 5 seconds later. So it doesn't really
check for much.
I think of it like this: # of errors in download process == # of
errors we put in - # of errors we find and fix
There is a lot we could do to lower the # of bugs we put it.
Automation is what we need. Right now the directory structure produced
by the build differs from the directory structure we have in the
download tree. I think that is the source of the complexity that is
hurting us. That, plus the fact that our download tree has an
irrational structure, more complicated than necessary. If we can
reduce this disconnect between build and distribution, I think it
would help.
-Rob
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3)
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to
>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download
>>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly
>>>>>>>>>> and be
>>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>
>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>
>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
>>> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>>
>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>> a bit.
>>
>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>
>> Marcus
>
> Thanks,
>
> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
> they all seem fine.
>
> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
> stuff?
I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
loaded. :-(
http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of
a better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
Marcus
>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>
>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>
>>>>> //drew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >> One more incorrect link
> >>
> >> The SDK release notes points to:
> >> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
> >>
> >
> > That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
> > http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
> >
> > It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
> > have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
>
> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
> a bit.
>
> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>
> Marcus
Thanks,
I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
they all seem fine.
Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
stuff?
//drew
>
>
>
> >> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
> >>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
> >>>
> >>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
> >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
> >>>
> >>> back to it..
> >>>
> >>> //drew
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
> >>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
> >>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
> >>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jürgen
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
> >>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
> >>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> >>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
> >>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
> >>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
> >>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
> >>>>>>> able to publish that page.
> >>>>>> doing it now...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
> >>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
> >>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
> >>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Rob
>
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> One more incorrect link
>>
>> The SDK release notes points to:
>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>
>
> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>
> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
> have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
a bit.
In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
Marcus
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>
>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>
>>> back to it..
>>>
>>> //drew
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link (was: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice
3.4.1 (incubating) RC2_
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> One more incorrect link
>
> The SDK release notes points to:
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>
That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even
have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0?
-Rob
> //drew
>
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>
>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>
>> back to it..
>>
>> //drew
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>> > For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>> > the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>> > made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>> >
>> > Jürgen
>> >
>> > Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > >>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>> > >>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>> > >>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>> > >>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>> > >>>
>> > >>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>> > >>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>> > >>> If others can help with this, please do:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>> > >>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>> > >>> able to publish that page.
>> > >> doing it now...
>> > >>
>> > > It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>> > >
>> > > I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>> > > Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>> > > main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>> > > automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>> > >
>> > > -Rob
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>> -Rob
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: BAD link (was: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice
3.4.1 (incubating) RC2_
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
One more incorrect link
The SDK release notes points to:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
//drew
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>
> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>
> back to it..
>
> //drew
>
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
> > For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
> > the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
> > made first tests. All is working fine so far.
> >
> > Jürgen
> >
> > Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > >>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
> > >>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
> > >>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> > >>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
> > >>>
> > >>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
> > >>> of traffic referred to from that site.
> > >>>
> > >>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
> > >>> If others can help with this, please do:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
> > >>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
> > >>> able to publish that page.
> > >> doing it now...
> > >>
> > > It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
> > >
> > > I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
> > > Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
> > > main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
> > > automatically when we push the updates to that script.
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> -Rob
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
>
>
Re: BAD link
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 01:27 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>
>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/<http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/>
>>>>
>>>> back to it..
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>>> files/stable/3.4.1/<http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/>
>>>
>>>
>> Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.**4.1/<http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/>
>>
>> We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
>> zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
>> quickly.
>>
>> Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
>> day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
>> switch to SF once it is ready?
>>
>
> Good idea. 400 is too much to ignore for some hours or a day, especially
> on a release day with announcement.
>
>
> The links would start with:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-**closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/**
>> files/stable/3.4.1/<http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/>
>>
>>
>> Would that make sense?
>>
>
> + the file name. Yes, that should do the trick.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
Hi. I just got in a bit ago and am in the process of downloading Linux
32bit (from SF). Everything seems OK so far...I will double check when it's
finished and I unpack it. I'm not sure about the other situations you're
discussing here but for my situation, all is good.
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_**OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_**
>>>>>>>> d3461.html<http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good
>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download
>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/other.html<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can
>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 01:27 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>
>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>
>>> back to it..
>>
>>
>> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>
>
> Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
> We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
> zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
> quickly.
>
> Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
> day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
> switch to SF once it is ready?
Good idea. 400 is too much to ignore for some hours or a day, especially
on a release day with announcement.
> The links would start with:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
>
> Would that make sense?
+ the file name. Yes, that should do the trick.
Marcus
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/12 2:00 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/23/12 1:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>>
>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>
>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>
>>>> back to it..
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>>
>>
>> Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>
>> We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
>> zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
>> quickly.
>
> seems that I missed the en-US language packs, I will upload them
>
>>
>> Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
>> day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
>> switch to SF once it is ready?
>>
>> The links would start with:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>
>>
>
> sounds ok to me and will cause not too much traffic temporary until the
> mirrors are synched.
I was too fast and should have read the thread completely.
I can't remember the reason why I left out the en-US lang packs, we
should check if they are necessary at all or if en-US is always there.
We should remove the link for now until we have checked it.
I will also do more checks on the staging pages to get an overview where
we exactly are ...
Juergen
>
> Juergen
>
>> Would that make sense?
>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>
Re: BAD link
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/12 1:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>
>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>
>>> back to it..
>>
>>
>> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>
>
> Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
> We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
> zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
> quickly.
seems that I missed the en-US language packs, I will upload them
>
> Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
> day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
> switch to SF once it is ready?
>
> The links would start with:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
>
sounds ok to me and will cause not too much traffic temporary until the
mirrors are synched.
Juergen
> Would that make sense?
>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>
>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>
>>> back to it..
>>
>>
>> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
>>
>
> Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
> We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
> zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
> quickly.
>
> Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
> day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
> switch to SF once it is ready?
>
> The links would start with:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
Please ignore the above. It is one of the stupidest things I've said
this week. I first say the files are missing on the Apache dist
servers and then suggest that we point to the mirrors instead. Doh!
Of course the mirrors sync from the dist servers. So they are missing
the files as well.
So in other words, no one has the en-US langpack except for the RC
copies on people.apache.org.
So unless we're willing to go out tonight with a "check back tomorrow"
message for that language pack we'll need to wait until tomorrow for
these files to at least get onto SourceForge.
I'll revert the change I just made that pointed those links to the
Apache mirrors.
It is quite possible that this is all resolved before I wake up
tomorrow. If so, please someone remember to publish the draft blog
post at the same time you publish the website, or within a few
minutes. They reference each other.
Regards,
-Rob
>
> Would that make sense?
>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
>>
>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>
>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>
>> back to it..
>
>
> It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
>
Missing on the Apache dist servers as well, e.g.:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
We'll nede Juergen to upload that and SF to copy it. With the time
zone difference (Hamburg versus California) this will not happen
quickly.
Looking at the download stats I see it gets around 400 downloads per
day. What if we pointed to the Apache mirrors tonight, and then
switch to SF once it is ready?
The links would start with:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/
Would that make sense?
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>
>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>
>>> Jürgen
>>>
>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>
>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>
>>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>>
>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
Re: BAD link
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/23/2012 12:41 AM, schrieb drew:
> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>
> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>
> back to it..
It seems the langpacks for en-US are completely missing:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/
Marcus
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>
>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>> doing it now...
>>>>
>>> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>>>
>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
BAD link (was: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating) RC2_
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
The Mac en_US language pack points to:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
back to it..
//drew
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>
> Jürgen
>
> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
> >>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
> >>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
> >>>
> >>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> >>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
> >>>
> >>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
> >>> of traffic referred to from that site.
> >>>
> >>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
> >>> If others can help with this, please do:
> >>>
> >>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
> >>>
> >>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
> >>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
> >>> able to publish that page.
> >> doing it now...
> >>
> > It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
> >
> > I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
> > Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
> > main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
> > automatically when we push the updates to that script.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Lange <jl...@juergen-lange.de>.
For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded
the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and
made first tests. All is working fine so far.
Jürgen
Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>>
>>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>
>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>
>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>>
>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>
>>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>>> able to publish that page.
>> doing it now...
>>
> It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
>
> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>
> -Rob
>
>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 23/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
The Italian page in staging already pointed to 3.4.1 indeed. I modified
the Italian main page and download page so that they refer to 3.4.1.
Changes are still unpublished, feel free to publish at release time.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>
>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>
>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>
>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>
>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>
>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>> able to publish that page.
>
> doing it now...
>
It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing
I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and
Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the
main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release
automatically when we push the updates to that script.
-Rob
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating) RC2
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>
> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>
> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
> of traffic referred to from that site.
>
> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
> If others can help with this, please do:
>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>
> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
> able to publish that page.
doing it now...
>
> -Rob
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/22/2012 11:29 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>>
>> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_**OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_**d3461.html<http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html>
>>
>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>
>
> The reason is simple: We are doing to much work in the public, here on
> ooo-dev. ;-)
>
> So, everybody can read and try if he can already get what others don't
> know of yet. Pretty the same in the good, old OOo days.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
or maybe they just an eye on the SF areas... who knows.
>
> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
>> If others can help with this, please do:
>>
>> http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/other.html<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html>
>>
>> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
>> able to publish that page.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/22/2012 11:29 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
>
> For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>
> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
> of traffic referred to from that site.
The reason is simple: We are doing to much work in the public, here on
ooo-dev. ;-)
So, everybody can read and try if he can already get what others don't
know of yet. Pretty the same in the good, old OOo days.
Marcus
> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
> If others can help with this, please do:
>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>
> I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
> on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
> able to publish that page.
>
> -Rob
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have
already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org.
Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet.
For example this article is being spread via Twitter:
http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount
of traffic referred to from that site.
So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page.
If others can help with this, please do:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start
on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be
able to publish that page.
-Rob
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/22/2012 11:19 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 08/22/2012 10:18 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload,
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time
>>>>>>>> (tomorrow),
>>>>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> work for you all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>>>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>>>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>>>>> should be in business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>>>>> goes well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>>>>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>>>>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
>>>> US and EU distribution servers:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>
>>>> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>>>>
>>>> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just chatted with Roberto. He says they are ready!
>>>
>>> So can we all get our page changes onto staging? No one publish yet.
>>> But lets get the updated announcement, release notes, and especially
>>> the updated download pages in place.
>>>
>>> We can do a quick sanity check and if no problems are found then we
>>> can publish them later tonight.
>>>
>>> I'll hold off the announcement until tomorrow morning, giving some
>>> extra time for any errors to be reported at low volume before we turn
>>> on the fire hose!
>>
>>
>> OK, I've sent the website updates into staging.
>>
>
> Great. Thanks.
>
> I see your changes here: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/
>
> And here: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>
> It would be good to have some volunteers test that page to make sure
> there are no broken links.
>
> And what about the legacy pages:
>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/legacy/index.html
>
> and
>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/legacy/other.html
>
> These point to OOo 3.3.0. I suppose makes sense. But where would
Sure
> someone go to find AOO 3.4.0? Do we have a link for that?
As long as they are not moved to the ASF archive a link to it doesn't
make sense. But when transferred, then a link to the ASF archives is
easy to add.
>> The next publish should make them public. E.g., an update with a little news
>> paragraph on "www.openoffice.org/index.html" to show that AOO 3.4.1 is new
>> and now available. ;-)
>>
>
> OK. I've updated the banner announcement link to point to the blog post.
Great
> I also updated the Arabic NL page, which I did not think myself
> capable of doing, until I found it was in English:
>
> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/ar/index.html
>
> I'll see if there are any other NL pages that I can easily update.
I'll do it for the German website.
> Anything else? What are we missing? This seems too easy.
I still need to update the porting page. But thats not really relevant
for AOO 3.4.1.
Marcus
>> @Michael:
>> FYI
>>
>> The downloads for Slovak are referring still to SourceForge directly. When
>> you have finished updating the sk links on your NL webpage, then we can
>> change the main download portal to refer first to the sk website.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
>>>> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
>>>> everyone not to publish yet.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/22/2012 10:18 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload,
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time
>>>>>>> (tomorrow),
>>>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> work for you all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>>>> should be in business.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>>>> goes well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>>>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>>>
>>>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>>>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
>>> US and EU distribution servers:
>>>
>>> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>
>>> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>>>
>>> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>>>
>>
>> I just chatted with Roberto. He says they are ready!
>>
>> So can we all get our page changes onto staging? No one publish yet.
>> But lets get the updated announcement, release notes, and especially
>> the updated download pages in place.
>>
>> We can do a quick sanity check and if no problems are found then we
>> can publish them later tonight.
>>
>> I'll hold off the announcement until tomorrow morning, giving some
>> extra time for any errors to be reported at low volume before we turn
>> on the fire hose!
>
>
> OK, I've sent the website updates into staging.
>
Great. Thanks.
I see your changes here: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/
And here: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
It would be good to have some volunteers test that page to make sure
there are no broken links.
And what about the legacy pages:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/legacy/index.html
and
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/legacy/other.html
These point to OOo 3.3.0. I suppose makes sense. But where would
someone go to find AOO 3.4.0? Do we have a link for that?
> The next publish should make them public. E.g., an update with a little news
> paragraph on "www.openoffice.org/index.html" to show that AOO 3.4.1 is new
> and now available. ;-)
>
OK. I've updated the banner announcement link to point to the blog post.
I also updated the Arabic NL page, which I did not think myself
capable of doing, until I found it was in English:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/ar/index.html
I'll see if there are any other NL pages that I can easily update.
Anything else? What are we missing? This seems too easy.
Regards,
-Rob
> @Michael:
> FYI
>
> The downloads for Slovak are referring still to SourceForge directly. When
> you have finished updating the sk links on your NL webpage, then we can
> change the main download portal to refer first to the sk website.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>>> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
>>> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>>>
>>> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
>>> everyone not to publish yet.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ciao
>
> Marcus
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/22/2012 10:18 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
>>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>>
>>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>>
>>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
>>>>> work for you all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>>> should be in business.
>>>>
>>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>>> goes well.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>>
>>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
>> US and EU distribution servers:
>>
>> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>>
>> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>>
>
> I just chatted with Roberto. He says they are ready!
>
> So can we all get our page changes onto staging? No one publish yet.
> But lets get the updated announcement, release notes, and especially
> the updated download pages in place.
>
> We can do a quick sanity check and if no problems are found then we
> can publish them later tonight.
>
> I'll hold off the announcement until tomorrow morning, giving some
> extra time for any errors to be reported at low volume before we turn
> on the fire hose!
OK, I've sent the website updates into staging.
The next publish should make them public. E.g., an update with a little
news paragraph on "www.openoffice.org/index.html" to show that AOO 3.4.1
is new and now available. ;-)
@Michael:
FYI
The downloads for Slovak are referring still to SourceForge directly.
When you have finished updating the sk links on your NL webpage, then we
can change the main download portal to refer first to the sk website.
Marcus
>> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
>> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>>
>> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
>> everyone not to publish yet.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
>>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
--
Ciao
Marcus
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>
>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>
>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
>>>> work for you all?
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>> should be in business.
>>>
>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>> goes well.
>>
>>
>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>
>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>
>
> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
> US and EU distribution servers:
>
> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> and
>
> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>
> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>
I just chatted with Roberto. He says they are ready!
So can we all get our page changes onto staging? No one publish yet.
But lets get the updated announcement, release notes, and especially
the updated download pages in place.
We can do a quick sanity check and if no problems are found then we
can publish them later tonight.
I'll hold off the announcement until tomorrow morning, giving some
extra time for any errors to be reported at low volume before we turn
on the fire hose!
-Rob
> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>
> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
> everyone not to publish yet.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Michal Hriň <mi...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dňa Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:40:05 +0200 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> napísal:
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time
>>>>>> (tomorrow),
>>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>>
>>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>>
>>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will
>>>>> this
>>>>> work for you all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>>> should be in business.
>>>>
>>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>>> goes well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>>
>>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
>> US and EU distribution servers:
>>
>> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>>
>> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>>
>> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
>> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>>
>> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
>> everyone not to publish yet.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I got some questions maybe later, maybe stupid, maybe in wrong thread, but :
>
> 1) I hit today on [Stage] link today some times, is it problem ?
>
I don't understand. You are getting errors on the staging site?
> 2) I need exact links for the files, and I don't know where the files will
> be.
The URL's will be on this page, once Marcus updates it:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html
But the form will be like this:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/localized/sk/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Win_x86_install_sk.exe/download
> It will be in SourceForce openoffice.mirror directory ?
> (i can't provide Apache links because of load, right ?)
>
Correct. It will be a sourceforge link.
> 3) The whole ooo-site 'll be publised in the same time, so in this time have
> to
> be all NL pages reworked ?
>
It will be sufficient if we have the updates for the main
openoffice.org/download site ready. Any another NL pages that are
ready can be published at the same time. But if others are not
updated until tomorrow or even next week, this is OK.
> 4) There wasn't been Slovak packages of AOO from 3.2.1, so lot of users use
> AOO 3.4 in Czech
> language and 3.3.0 too (3.3.0 has only language pack). The redirection of
> update service to /sk/download
> will not work right ?
We can have the OOo 3.2.1 update notifications lead users to the new
Slovak page for AOO 3..4.1
But we already have a Czech translation of AOO 3.4.1, so we would
point those running earlier Czech versions to the new Czech version.
So I don't know what the best way to inform Slovak speakers who are
using the Czech version of OpenOffice before.
But here is one idea: You could add a message on the Czech homepage,
saying that the Slovak translation is now available:
http://www.openoffice.org/cs/
That way, when someone upgrades from Czech 3.3.0 or 3.4.0, and gets
sent to that page, they will hear about the Slovak translation. Would
that work?
> Or is it used some geolocating service based on IPs - from which country
> user access to pages(or can be)?
>
Two things: new downloads and upgrade downloads. Upgrade downloads
get dispatched based on the language of the user's existing OpenOffice
install. New installs use the HTTP language headers, I think. But I
don't know the details of that logic.
> 5) Google has indexed old SK page, (I slowly remove it) but is possibe force
> Google's robots to reindex page ?
> NOT now but one day.
>
I can include a URL to the new SK page in the release announcement.
That should encourage Google to recognize it and index it.
Regards,
-Rob
> Thanks for answers and sorry for bad timing.
> Regards,
> Michal Hriň
>
>
>
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Michal Hriň <mi...@aol.com>.
Dňa Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:40:05 +0200 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> napísal:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
>> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload,
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time
>>>>> (tomorrow),
>>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, lets see.
>>>>
>>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>>
>>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will
>>>> this
>>>> work for you all?
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>>> should be in business.
>>>
>>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>>> goes well.
>>
>>
>> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
>> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>>
>> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
>> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>>
>
> We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
> US and EU distribution servers:
>
> http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> and
>
> http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> It looks that looks like it recently completed.
>
> Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
>
> If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
> and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
>
> Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
> everyone not to publish yet.
>
> -Rob
>
Hi all,
I got some questions maybe later, maybe stupid, maybe in wrong thread, but
:
1) I hit today on [Stage] link today some times, is it problem ?
2) I need exact links for the files, and I don't know where the files will
be.
It will be in SourceForce openoffice.mirror directory ?
(i can't provide Apache links because of load, right ?)
3) The whole ooo-site 'll be publised in the same time, so in this time
have to
be all NL pages reworked ?
4) There wasn't been Slovak packages of AOO from 3.2.1, so lot of users
use AOO 3.4 in Czech
language and 3.3.0 too (3.3.0 has only language pack). The redirection of
update service to /sk/download
will not work right ?
Or is it used some geolocating service based on IPs - from which country
user access to pages(or can be)?
5) Google has indexed old SK page, (I slowly remove it) but is possibe
force Google's robots to reindex page ?
NOT now but one day.
Thanks for answers and sorry for bad timing.
Regards,
Michal Hriň
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine
>>>>> so I
>>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>>
>>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>>
>>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>>
>>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>>
>>>>> I will work on the website
>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
>>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, lets see.
>>>
>>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>>
>>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
>>> work for you all?
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>
>> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
>> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
>> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
>> should be in business.
>>
>> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
>> goes well.
>
>
> I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
> this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
>
> Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
> I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
>
We were waiting for the sync to finish, distributing the files to the
US and EU distribution servers:
http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
and
http://www.eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
It looks that looks like it recently completed.
Just need a go ahead from Roberto.
If he says it is ready on their side can move our changes to staging
and do some quick testing to make sure we don't have any broken links.
Actually, we can move to staging now if we want. But just be careful
everyone not to publish yet.
-Rob
> Thanks
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
>>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/22/2012 06:15 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>
> On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>>
>>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>>
>>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>>
>>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>>
>>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>>
>>>> I will work on the website
>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>>> all working.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
>>> unless we hear otherwise.
>>
>> OK, lets see.
>>
>> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
>> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>>
>> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
>> work for you all?
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
> OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
> in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
> bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
> should be in business.
>
> I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
> goes well.
I'm at home now and just found this mail which seems to be the latest in
this thread and for the 3.4.1 release.
Is everything uploaded, distributed and available for public download?
I had no chance yet to check myself, so I'm simply asking. ;-)
Thanks
Marcus
>>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
>>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/21/2012 02:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>>
>>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>>
>>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>>
>>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>>
>>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>>
>>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>>
>>> I will work on the website
>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>>> uploaded.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>>> all working.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>>> notifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>
>> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
>> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
>> PDT) if that's ok.
>>
>> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
>> unless we hear otherwise.
>
> OK, lets see.
>
> 09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
> 08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
>
> What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
> work for you all?
>
> Marcus
>
OK, new release notes and slight tweak to install instructions are now
in staging (committed not published), so when Marcus comes along in a
bit and uploads the new 3.4.1 main download stuff and publishes, we
should be in business.
I'm basically "offline" for a good part of the day today, so I hope all
goes well.
>
>
>> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
>> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the
>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 08/21/2012 11:16 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>
> On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> FYI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will
>>>>> keep
>>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>>
>>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>>
>> the bits are uploaded to dist
>>
>> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>>
>> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>>
>> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>>
>> I will work on the website
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have
>>>> uploaded.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>>> all working.
>>>>
>>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade
>>>> notifications.
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>
> I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
> minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
> PDT) if that's ok.
>
> I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
> unless we hear otherwise.
OK, lets see.
09:00am PDT will be 06:00pm CET. Very likely I won't be home before
08:00pm CET (11:00am PDT).
What about to set the release time to 12:00pm PDT (high noon), will this
work for you all?
Marcus
> But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
> don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>>>>>> (incubating) RC2
>>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 08/21/2012 01:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> FYI
>>>>>
>>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>>
>>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>>
>> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
>
> the bits are uploaded to dist
>
> @Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
>
> it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
>
> see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
>
> I will work on the website
> (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
>
> Regards
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>>
>>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>>> all working.
>>>
>>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>>
>>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>>
>>> -Rob
I will link in the new Release Notes where it goes and post some very
minor update to the Installation page tomorrow, 2012-08-22, (9:00ish
PDT) if that's ok.
I'm assuming Marcus will do what he's prepared at that time (tomorrow),
unless we hear otherwise.
But...Juergen and Marcus's "tomorrow" comes much earlier than mine so I
don't know exactly what time anything will be happening.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices:
take it or leave it. "
-- Buddy Hackett
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 9:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>>> the release preparation ...
>>>
>>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>>
>>
>> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
>
> I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
the bits are uploaded to dist
@Roberto: what do you need for SourceForge
it's the same directory structure as for 3.4
see http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/
I will work on the website
(http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html) tomorrow
Regards
Juergen
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>>
>> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
>> all working.
>>
>> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>>
>> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
>> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>>
>>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>>> has concluded.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>>
>>>>> +1:
>>>>>
>>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 7:51 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>>> the release preparation ...
>>
>> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
>> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>>
>
> 1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
I am still on the final go to start the upload :-(
Juergen
>
> 2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
>
> 3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
> all working.
>
> 4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
>
> Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
> coordinate their availability tomorrow?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>>
>>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>>> has concluded.
>>>>
>>>> The ballot passed.
>>>>
>>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>>
>>>> +1:
>>>>
>>>> IPMC members:
>>>>
>>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>>
>>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your support
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> FYI
>>
>> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
>> the release preparation ...
>
> I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
> you informed when the bits are uploaded
>
1) 12 hours for the mirrors to sync?
2) SourceForge can grab the tree from dist.apache.org after you have uploaded.
3) Then website updates, some brief testing to ensure the links are
all working.
4) Then the announcement via all channels, including the upgrade notifications.
Do we want to set a tentative time for #3 and #4, so volunteers can
coordinate their availability tomorrow?
-Rob
> Juergen
>
>
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
>> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>>
>> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>>> has concluded.
>>>
>>> The ballot passed.
>>>
>>> VOTE TALLY
>>>
>>> +1:
>>>
>>> IPMC members:
>>>
>>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>>> +1 Dave Fisher
>>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>>
>>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> Thank you for your support
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/21/12 5:45 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> FYI
>
> we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
> the release preparation ...
I am waiting on the ok of infrastructure to start the upload, will keep
you informed when the bits are uploaded
Juergen
>
> Juergen
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
> From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
> sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
>
> On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
>> has concluded.
>>
>> The ballot passed.
>>
>> VOTE TALLY
>>
>> +1:
>>
>> IPMC members:
>>
>> +1 Marvin Humphrey
>> +1 Dave Fisher
>> +1 Jim Jagielski
>>
>> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>>
>> Thank you for your support
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>
>
>
Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
FYI
we have passed the vote on general@incubator. We can now proceed with
the release preparation ...
Juergen
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:18 +0200
From: Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
> has concluded.
>
> The ballot passed.
>
> VOTE TALLY
>
> +1:
>
> IPMC members:
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> +1 Dave Fisher
> +1 Jim Jagielski
>
> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>
> Thank you for your support
>
> Juergen
>
>
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
sorry for posting it again but I forgot the RESULT tag in the subject
On 8/21/12 5:29 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
> has concluded.
>
> The ballot passed.
>
> VOTE TALLY
>
> +1:
>
> IPMC members:
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> +1 Dave Fisher
> +1 Jim Jagielski
>
> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
>
> Thank you for your support
>
> Juergen
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
has concluded.
The ballot passed.
VOTE TALLY
+1:
IPMC members:
+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski
For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5031F593.9010801%40gmail.com%3E
Thank you for your support
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org