You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> on 2013/07/12 11:11:18 UTC
[VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Hi all,
this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
continue the success of OpenOffice.
This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
(2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
interoperability issues
(3) 600 defects are fixed
(4) many more features and improvements are integrated
For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
updated and polished ...
The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
The vote starts now and will be open until:
UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Ricardo Berlasso <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/12 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
I'm using the dev builds on a daily basis since some time now, and this
last build solved the few problems I had.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
+1 for releasing this RC as AOO 4.0
I have made many tests on my own, including a complete build of the src
release under MacOS and verifying the signature etc.
We can always do better and can fix more bugs but the overall situation
will not change. It will be always the same.
Please continue to verify translations and improve it, it's not wasted
time. These improvements will go in the next release. The same for the
new file type and application icons. We should continue the good work
and should integrate it asap on trunk.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
Verified sigs and hashes for source distributions. Reviewed clean RAT
scan report.
+1
Regards,
-Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 15/07/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
Just to close this thread for future reference: a critical issue was
found before the files were published and announced, so this thread will
not result in any further release actions.
The new release candidate, based on revision 1503704, is the one we will
vote on, in a separate thread that will probably be opened by Juergen as
usual when all files are ready.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/15 Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 22:11 schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
>
> Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 21:53 schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
>
> Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 21:40 schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>
> Am 07/15/2013 08:02 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>
> Am 07/15/2013 07:44 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
> 2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini<roberto.galoppini@**gmail.com<
> roberto.galoppini@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>
> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
>
> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate
> the
> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
> special directory for Sourceforge.
>
> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
> **files/4.0.0/<
> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/>
> <https://**sourceforge.net/projects/**openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**
> 0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>
>
> )
>
>
> But
> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/****<
> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**>
> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https**://sourceforge.net/projects/**
> openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**0.0/binaries/de/<
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/
> >
>
>
> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>
> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>
>
> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>
> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>
> Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
> from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
>
> I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
> (rsync.apache.org::apache-**dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
> and we can't rsync files from there.
>
>
> a bit lower in this mail thread Juergen stated this:
>
> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>
>
> We get this error:
> $ rsync rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external .
> @ERROR: chroot failed
> rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at
> /SourceCache/rsync/rsync-42/rsync/main.c(1398) [receiver=2.6.9]
>
>
> If it's not a temporary problem, you can try to assemble the right URL
> from the content of this, maybe it's working:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
>
> PS:
> I don't know how much you are doing with rsync, so maybe this will help
> also:
>
>
> http://www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress/rsync-error-5-may-be-exactly-what-it-says-165/
>
> Otherwise Juergen should help out.
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Roberto,
>
> I got the rsync URL from the infra team, if there is a problem we have to
> figure it out with infra. I haven't used rsync and don't know what the
> problem is.
> We just created a new directory that is not synchronized with the Apache
> mirrors and is today mainly for you or other externals.
>
> just to make it even more clear, you have to rsync
> dist/externaldist/openoffice only. There are the binaries and only the
> signatures files, the checksum and hashes are duplicated. We want them on
> the apache mirrors and I duplicate them for simplification only
>
> Juergen,
You still need to fix the chroot error in the apache-dist-external rsync
module.
Either the path configured is wrong or there is a permission problem (by
default rsync accesses data using user "nobody").
Can you please help this?
Second best if you know where are those files and you want to upload them
this would work too.
Let me know asap.
Thanks
>
> Marcus told me that I send the reply to him only. Sometimes the mail
> client on my phone is driving me crazy...
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
> Juergen
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> I can imagine that this is the way to go. However, Juergen as Release
> Manager should have the last word.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>
>
> signatures/checksum/hashes
>
>
> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>
> dist/externaldist/openoffice/****4.0.0/binaries -> contains all
> the
>
> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>
> A complete file list can be found under
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_dist_files.txt<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt>
> <http://**people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_**dist_files.txt<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
> <http://people.apache.org/~**jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>
>
> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>
>
> If you have further questions please let me know.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on
>
> confirmation
> of infra... I will keep you informed
>
> Juergen
>
> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>
> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>
> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue
> that
> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>
> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
> ballot
> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>
> Vote tally
>
> +1 Sylvain Dennis
> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
> +1 Fr web forum
> +1 V Stuart Foote
> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
> +1 Joost Andrae
> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
> +1 Shengfeng Liu
> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>
> 0 Michal Hriň
>
> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release
> candidate
> as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>
> compared
>
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
>
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
> concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the
> combination
>
> of
>
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging
>
> the
>
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>
> the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>
> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://**cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**
>
> display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+**Release+Notes<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> >
>
> .
>
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will
>
> be
>
> updated and polished ...
>
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify
> and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki
> page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>
> Development+Snapshot+Builds#****DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-****
>
> AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/**
> OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+**Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**
> AOOSnapshot<
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
> >
>
>
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-****<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**>
> output.html<http://people.**apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/**
> aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html<
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>
>
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>
> like
>
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our
>
> project
>
> members.
>
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 22:11 schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
> Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 21:53 schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
> > Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 um 21:40 schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> > > Am 07/15/2013 08:02 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> > > > 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
> > > >
> > > > > Am 07/15/2013 07:44 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini<ro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
> > > > > > > > > > special directory for Sourceforge.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
> > > > > > > > > https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
> > > > > > > > > **files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/>
> > > > > > > > > <https://**sourceforge.net/projects/**openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**
> > > > > > > > > 0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>
> > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
> > > > > > > > > https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/****<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**>
> > > > > > > > > files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https**://sourceforge.net/projects/**
> > > > > > > > > openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
> > > > > > > > I've created them for testing purpose only.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
> > > > > > > > Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
> > > > > > > from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
> > > > > > (rsync.apache.org::apache-**dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
> > > > > > and we can't rsync files from there.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > a bit lower in this mail thread Juergen stated this:
> > > > >
> > > > > rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
> > > >
> > > > We get this error:
> > > > $ rsync rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external .
> > > > @ERROR: chroot failed
> > > > rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at
> > > > /SourceCache/rsync/rsync-42/rsync/main.c(1398) [receiver=2.6.9]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If it's not a temporary problem, you can try to assemble the right URL
> > > from the content of this, maybe it's working:
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
> > > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
> > >
> > > PS:
> > > I don't know how much you are doing with rsync, so maybe this will help
> > > also:
> > >
> > > http://www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress/rsync-error-5-may-be-exactly-what-it-says-165/
> > >
> > > Otherwise Juergen should help out.
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay.
> > Roberto,
> >
> > I got the rsync URL from the infra team, if there is a problem we have to figure it out with infra. I haven't used rsync and don't know what the problem is.
> > We just created a new directory that is not synchronized with the Apache mirrors and is today mainly for you or other externals.
> >
> >
> >
>
> just to make it even more clear, you have to rsync dist/externaldist/openoffice only. There are the binaries and only the signatures files, the checksum and hashes are duplicated. We want them on the apache mirrors and I duplicate them for simplification only
>
Marcus told me that I send the reply to him only. Sometimes the mail client on my phone is driving me crazy...
Juergen
>
> >
> > Juergen
> > >
> > > Marcus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I can imagine that this is the way to go. However, Juergen as Release
> > > > > Manager should have the last word.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcus
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > signatures/checksum/hashes
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
> > > > > > > > > > signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
> > > > > > > > > > the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > dist/externaldist/openoffice/****4.0.0/binaries -> contains all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A complete file list can be found under
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt>
> > > > > > > > > > <http://**people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_**dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
> > > > > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/~**jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you have further questions please let me know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Juergen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on
> > > > > > > > > > > confirmation
> > > > > > > > > > > of infra... I will keep you informed
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Juergen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
> > > > > > > > > > > > revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
> > > > > > > > > > > > ballot
> > > > > > > > > > > > closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vote tally
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Sylvain Dennis
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Fr web forum
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 V Stuart Foote
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Rob Weir (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Joost Andrae
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Shengfeng Liu
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 0 Michal Hriň
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Juergen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a call for vote on releasing the following release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > candidate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > continue the success of OpenOffice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This release candidate provides the following important changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compared
> > > > > > > > > > to former OpenOffice releases:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > concept
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > combination
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interoperability issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) 600 defects are fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
> > > > > > > > > > > > AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://**cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+**Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > updated and polished ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki
> > > > > > > > > > > > > page:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Snapshot+Builds#****DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-****
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/**
> > > > > > > > > > OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+**Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**
> > > > > > > > > > AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-****<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > output.html<http://people.**apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/**
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote starts now and will be open until:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > members.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] 0 Don't care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/15/2013 08:02 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>
>> Am 07/15/2013 07:44 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>
>>> 2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini<ro...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>>
>>>> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>>>>>>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
>>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>>>>>> **files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/>
>>>>>> <https://**sourceforge.net/projects/**openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**
>>>>>> 0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
>>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/****<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**>
>>>>>> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https**://sourceforge.net/projects/**
>>>>>> openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
>>>>> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
>>>> from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
>>> (rsync.apache.org::apache-**dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
>>> and we can't rsync files from there.
>>>
>>
>> a bit lower in this mail thread Juergen stated this:
>>
>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>>
>
> We get this error:
> $ rsync rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external .
> @ERROR: chroot failed
> rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at
> /SourceCache/rsync/rsync-42/rsync/main.c(1398) [receiver=2.6.9]
If it's not a temporary problem, you can try to assemble the right URL
from the content of this, maybe it's working:
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
PS:
I don't know how much you are doing with rsync, so maybe this will help
also:
http://www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress/rsync-error-5-may-be-exactly-what-it-says-165/
Otherwise Juergen should help out.
Sorry for the delay.
Marcus
>> I can imagine that this is the way to go. However, Juergen as Release
>> Manager should have the last word.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>>>>>
>>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>>>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>>>>>>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/****4.0.0/binaries -> contains all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A complete file list can be found under
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>>> <http://**people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_**dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~**jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on
>>>>>>>> confirmation
>>>>>>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>>>>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>>>>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
>>>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Vote tally
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>>>>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>>>>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>>>>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>>>>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>>>>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>>>>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>>>>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release
>>>>>>>>>> candidate
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>>>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>>>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> compared
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
>>>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the
>>>>>>>>>> combination
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>>>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://**cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**
>>>>>>> display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+**Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>>>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki
>>>>>>>>>> page:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#****DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-****
>>>>>>> AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/**
>>>>>>> OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+**Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**
>>>>>>> AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-****<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**>
>>>>>>>>>> output.html<http://people.**apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/**
>>>>>>>>>> aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> Am 07/15/2013 07:44 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
>> 2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini<ro...@gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>
>>> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>>>>>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>>>>> **files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/>
>>>>> <https://**sourceforge.net/projects/**openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**
>>>>> 0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>
>>>>> >)
>>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
>>>>> https://sourceforge.net/****projects/openofficeorg.mirror/****<https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**>
>>>>> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https**://sourceforge.net/projects/**
>>>>> openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.**0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
>>>> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
>>> from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
>>>
>>>
>> I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
>> (rsync.apache.org::apache-**dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
>> and we can't rsync files from there.
>>
>
> a bit lower in this mail thread Juergen stated this:
>
> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>
We get this error:
$ rsync rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external .
@ERROR: chroot failed
rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at
/SourceCache/rsync/rsync-42/rsync/main.c(1398) [receiver=2.6.9]
Roberto
>
> I can imagine that this is the way to go. However, Juergen as Release
> Manager should have the last word.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>>>>
>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>>>>>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/****4.0.0/binaries -> contains all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A complete file list can be found under
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>> <http://**people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_**dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>> <http://people.apache.org/~**jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.**txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-****external
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on
>>>>>>> confirmation
>>>>>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>>>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>>>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
>>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote tally
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>>>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>>>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>>>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>>>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>>>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>>>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>>>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release
>>>>>>>>> candidate
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> compared
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
>>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the
>>>>>>>>> combination
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://**cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**
>>>>>> display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+**Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki
>>>>>>>>> page:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**<https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#****DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-****
>>>>>> AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.**apache.org/confluence/display/**
>>>>>> OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+**Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**
>>>>>> AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/****aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-****<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**>
>>>>>>>>> output.html<http://people.**apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/**
>>>>>>>>> aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/15/2013 07:44 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> 2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini<ro...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>
>> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>>
>>> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
>>>>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>>>>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
>>>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>)
>>>> But
>>>> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
>>>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>>>> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
>>>> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
>>> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
>> from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
>>
>
> I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
> (rsync.apache.org::apache-dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
> and we can't rsync files from there.
a bit lower in this mail thread Juergen stated this:
rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-**external
I can imagine that this is the way to go. However, Juergen as Release
Manager should have the last word.
Marcus
>>> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>>>>
>>>>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>>>>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/**4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
>>>>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>>>>
>>>>> A complete file list can be found under
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>>
>>>>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-**external
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>>>>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>>>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote tally
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> compared
>>>>>
>>>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**
>>>>>>>> output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>
>>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/15 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
>
> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>
>> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
>>>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>>>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
>>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>)
>>> But
>>> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
>>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>>> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
>>> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>>>
>>
>> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>>
>>
>> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>>>
>>
>> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
>> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>>
>
> Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
> from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
>
I ask that because the old location doesn't have 4.x
(rsync.apache.org::apache-dist/incubator/ooo/files/)
and we can't rsync files from there.
Roberto
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>>>
>>>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>>>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>>>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>>>
>>>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/**4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
>>>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>>>
>>>> A complete file list can be found under
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>>
>>>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-**external
>>>>
>>>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>>>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the
>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote tally
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> compared
>>>>
>>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar
>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**
>>>>>>> output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> like
>>>>
>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/15 Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
>>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**files/4.0.0/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/>)
>> But
>> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
>> https://sourceforge.net/**projects/openofficeorg.mirror/**
>> files/4.0.0/binaries/de/<https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/>
>> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
>>
>
> I've created them for testing purpose only.
>
>
> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
>>
>
> I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
> Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
>
Ok, if we need to do that I need to know where can we rsync copy files
from. Please communicate is ASAP because updating mirrors takes a lot.
Thanks
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>>
>>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>>
>>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/**4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
>>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>>
>>> A complete file list can be found under
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo40_external_dist_files.txt<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt>
>>>
>>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-**external
>>>
>>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote tally
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>>>>>>
>>>>> compared
>>>
>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>> .
>>>
>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**
>>>>>> output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>>>>>>
>>>>> like
>>>
>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>>>> members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/15/2013 06:48 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> 2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
>> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
>> special directory for Sourceforge.
>>
>
>
> There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/) But
> the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/
> Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
I've created them for testing purpose only.
> Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
I would expect that there is an automatism to grep the files from the
Apache Dist folder(s). Was this not the way how it was done for 3.4.x?
Marcus
>> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
>> signatures/checksum/hashes
>>
>> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
>> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
>> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>>
>> dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
>> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>>
>> A complete file list can be found under
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
>>
>> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external
>>
>> If you have further questions please let me know.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>>
>>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>>
>>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>>
>>>> Vote tally
>>>>
>>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>>
>>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>>
>>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
>> compared
>>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination
>> of
>>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>>
>>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>>
>>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
>> .
>>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>>>
>>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>>
>>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
>> like
>>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>>> members.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/15 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Hi,
>
> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
> special directory for Sourceforge.
>
There is a 4.0.0 "staged" folder set up which is good (
https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/) But
the only files uploaded are some "de" binaries have been uploaded at
https://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/de/
Those are ok, but there are no other files uploaded to SF yet for 4.0.
Is anyone working on uploading all the reaming files?
Roberto
>
> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
> signatures/checksum/hashes
>
> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>
> dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
>
> A complete file list can be found under
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
>
> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external
>
> If you have further questions please let me know.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
> > of infra... I will keep you informed
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> > On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
> >> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
> >>
> >> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
> >> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
> >> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
> >>
> >> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
> >> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
> >>
> >> Vote tally
> >>
> >> +1 Sylvain Dennis
> >> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
> >> +1 Fr web forum
> >> +1 V Stuart Foote
> >> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
> >> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
> >> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
> >> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
> >> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
> >> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
> >> +1 Joost Andrae
> >> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
> >> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
> >> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
> >> +1 Shengfeng Liu
> >> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
> >> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
> >> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
> >>
> >> 0 Michal Hriň
> >>
> >> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> >>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> >>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> >>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
> >>>
> >>> This release candidate provides the following important changes
> compared
> >>> to former OpenOffice releases:
> >>>
> >>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> >>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination
> of
> >>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> >>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> >>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
> >>>
> >>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> >>> interoperability issues
> >>>
> >>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
> >>>
> >>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
> >>>
> >>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> >>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> >>> updated and polished ...
> >>>
> >>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> >>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> >>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
> >>>
> >>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
> >>>
> >>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
> >>>
> >>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
> >>>
> >>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
> >>>
> >>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
> >>>
> >>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would
> like
> >>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> >>> members.
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> >>> [ ] 0 Don't care
> >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/15/2013 06:08 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi,
>
> the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
> binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
> special directory for Sourceforge.
is this due to the size of the release?
> dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
> signatures/checksum/hashes
>
> dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
> signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
> the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
>
> dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
> binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
I think this will lead to a different URL than I've used for testing.
Let's see what this will mean for the DL websites. Seems it's the best
to wait and see what will happen on SourceForge to continue any testing.
> A complete file list can be found under
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
The binaries are in "www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries/..."
and also in
"www.apache.org/dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries/...". Any
reason for this duplication?
Marcus
> rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external
>
> If you have further questions please let me know.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>
>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>
>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>
>>> Vote tally
>>>
>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>
>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>
>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>
>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>
>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>
>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>
>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>
>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>>
>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>>
>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>
>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>
>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>> members.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Ciao
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
the upload is finished already. We agreed on a structure to separate the
binaries from the src release and make the binaries available in a
special directory for Sourceforge.
dist/openoffice/4.0.0/source -> contains the src release +
signatures/checksum/hashes
dist/openoffoce/4.0.0/binaries -> contains the
signatures/checksum/hashes only. For security reasons we keep them on
the Apache dist folder and provide them from there as in the past.
dist/externaldist/openoffice/4.0.0/binaries -> contains all the
binaries (SDK, full install, lang packs) + signatures/checkssum/hashes
A complete file list can be found under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_dist_files.txt
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo40_external_dist_files.txt
rsync Url: rsync.apache.org::apache-dist-external
If you have further questions please let me know.
Juergen
On 7/15/13 3:55 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
> of infra... I will keep you informed
>
> Juergen
>
> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>
>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>
>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>
>> Vote tally
>>
>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>> +1 Fr web forum
>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>> +1 Joost Andrae
>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>
>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>
>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>
>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>> interoperability issues
>>>
>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>
>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>> updated and polished ...
>>>
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>
>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>
>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>
>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/15/13 4:00 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
>> of infra... I will keep you informed
>>
>
> Is this something special for AOO that we need to get permission from
> Infra to upload? Is this because of the size of the release?
They wanted to be informed that is at least what I learned from earlier
releases. And yes I believe it is the amount of 22 GB. I informed infra
on Friday that we are planning a release and that the vote will be
finished today. We will see.
Juergen
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>>
>>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>>
>>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>>
>>> Vote tally
>>>
>>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>>> +1 Fr web forum
>>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>>> +1 Joost Andrae
>>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>>
>>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>>
>>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>
>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>
>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>
>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>
>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>
>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>>
>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>>
>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>
>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>
>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>> members.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
> of infra... I will keep you informed
>
Is this something special for AOO that we need to get permission from
Infra to upload? Is this because of the size of the release?
-Rob
> Juergen
>
> On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
>> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>>
>> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
>> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
>> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>>
>> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
>> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>>
>> Vote tally
>>
>> +1 Sylvain Dennis
>> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
>> +1 Fr web forum
>> +1 V Stuart Foote
>> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
>> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
>> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
>> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
>> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
>> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
>> +1 Joost Andrae
>> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
>> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
>> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
>> +1 Shengfeng Liu
>> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
>> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
>> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>>
>> 0 Michal Hriň
>>
>> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>
>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>> interoperability issues
>>>
>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>
>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>> updated and polished ...
>>>
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>
>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>
>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>
>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
I can't start the upload on dist because I have to wait on confirmation
of infra... I will keep you informed
Juergen
On 7/15/13 3:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
> revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
>
> The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
> member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
> were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
>
> 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
>
> Vote tally
>
> +1 Sylvain Dennis
> +1 Marco A.G. Pinto
> +1 Fr web forum
> +1 V Stuart Foote
> +1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
> +1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
> +1 Kay Schenk (binding)
> +1 Jan Iversen (binding)
> +1 Rob Weir (binding)
> +1 Marcus Lange (binding)
> +1 Joost Andrae
> +1 Donald Harbison (binding)
> +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
> +1 Regina Henschel (binding)
> +1 Shengfeng Liu
> +1 Andre Fischer (binding)
> +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
> +1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
>
> 0 Michal Hriň
>
> -1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
> On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>
>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>
>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>> interoperability issues
>>
>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>
>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>> updated and polished ...
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>
>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[RESULT][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
The vote period to release the RC (based on release branch AOO40,
revison 1502185) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0 has ended.
The ballot result in 20 votes, 18 +1 votes including 12 binding PMC
member votes. One abstain vote and one -1 vote based on an issue that
were not clear. Nobody was able to reproduce the problem.
3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot
closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.0
Vote tally
+1 Sylvain Dennis
+1 Marco A.G. Pinto
+1 Fr web forum
+1 V Stuart Foote
+1 Armin Le Grand (binding)
+1 Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
+1 Kay Schenk (binding)
+1 Jan Iversen (binding)
+1 Rob Weir (binding)
+1 Marcus Lange (binding)
+1 Joost Andrae
+1 Donald Harbison (binding)
+1 Andrea Pescetti (binding)
+1 Regina Henschel (binding)
+1 Shengfeng Liu
+1 Andre Fischer (binding)
+1 Juergen Schmidt (binding)
+1 Herbert Duerr (binding)
0 Michal Hriň
-1 Raphael Bircher (binding)
Thanks
Juergen
On 7/12/13 11:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 14 July 2013 17:29, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> > Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> > OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> > continue the success of OpenOffice.
> >
> > This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> > to former OpenOffice releases:
> >
> > (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> > where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> > reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> > existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> > Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
> >
> > (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> > interoperability issues
> >
> > (3) 600 defects are fixed
> >
> > (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
> >
> > For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> > .
> > But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> > updated and polished ...
> >
> > The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> > releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> > review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
> >
> > The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
> >
> > The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
> >
> > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
> >
> > The vote starts now and will be open until:
> >
> > UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
> >
> > But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> > to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> > members.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> > [ ] 0 Don't care
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
>
> +1
>
> good job!!!!!!!!!!
>
+1
>
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> -- Jon Bon Jovi
>
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/14 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> > Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> > OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> > continue the success of OpenOffice.
> >
> > This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> > to former OpenOffice releases:
> >
> > (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> > where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> > reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> > existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> > Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
> >
> > (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> > interoperability issues
> >
> > (3) 600 defects are fixed
> >
> > (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
> >
> > For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> > .
> > But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> > updated and polished ...
> >
> > The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> > releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> > review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
> >
> > The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
> >
> > The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
> >
> > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
> >
> > The vote starts now and will be open until:
> >
> > UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
> >
> > But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> > to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> > members.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> > [ ] 0 Don't care
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
>
> +1
>
> good job!!!!!!!!!!
>
+1 well said
>
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> -- Jon Bon Jovi
>
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
+1
good job!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
-- Jon Bon Jovi
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 12.07.2013 11:11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1 release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
+1 ...same experience...
Am 14.07.2013 20:55, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Installed without problems, opened & edited & saved my usual files, all
> without problems or crashes.
>
> +1, lets release it.
>
> Marcus
>
>
Kind regards, Joost
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Installed without problems, opened & edited & saved my usual files, all
without problems or crashes.
+1, lets release it.
Marcus
Am 07/12/2013 11:11 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Armin Le Grand <Ar...@me.com>.
Hi List,
I have now played with a self-build pro AOO400 for two days, had no
crash ;-)
+1
Sincerely,
Armin
On 12.07.2013 11:11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
ALG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/14/13 11:31 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> -1 We can't release a version with a potential crash in selection
> copy/paste on windows 64 bit versions.
it is your right to vote as you want and what your personal opinion is.
But as I mentioned earlier it would help us if concerns are more
detailed and more qualified that we can take it serious.
I can only guess that you mean the problem regarding Windows 8 64 bit
and here several people tried to reproduce the issue but nobody was able
to reproduce.
For me there is no copy/paste problem at the moment with the RC.
Juergen
>
> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>
>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>
>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>> interoperability issues
>>
>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>
>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>
>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>> updated and polished ...
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>
>>
>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
Raphael,
Is there any specific defect about the crash in selection copy/paste on
windows 64 bit that you concern?
If yes, could you please tell the Bugzilla ID?
Thanks!
- Shenfeng (Simon)
2013/7/15 Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
> -1 We can't release a version with a potential crash in selection
> copy/paste on windows 64 bit versions.
>
>
> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>
>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>
>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>> interoperability issues
>>
>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>
>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>> .
>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>> updated and polished ...
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>
>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
-1 We can't release a version with a potential crash in selection
copy/paste on windows 64 bit versions.
Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by V Stuart Foote <VS...@utsa.edu>.
+1 -- buildbot nightlys have been solid for some time.
Still a number of resolved showstoppers ought to be verified, if anyone is
inclined to help knock a few out:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&namedcmd=4.0.0_release_blocker%2B%2C%20Resolved&Bugzilla_restrictlogin=on&sharer_id=251929&list_id=72815&remaction=run
But that is a QA crossing t's and dotting i's effort. The issues are fixed.
Otherwise mostly just polishing and Poodle tweaks for L10n support between
now and a final release.
Personally it's ready, let's get it out the door so we can move on to the
good stuff coming at 4.1, e.g. ia2 branch integration for full IAccessible2
support.
Juergen Schmidt wrote
> ...
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
--
View this message in context: http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-OpenOffice-4-0-RC-tp4647589p4647630.html
Sent from the Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Sylvain DENIS <sy...@gmail.com>.
+1
Sylvain DENIS
Expert TIC, WEB & FLOSS
Le 12/07/13 11:11, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Michal Hriň <mi...@aol.com>.
Hi,
[X] 0 Don't care
Regards,
Michal Hriň
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
No release blocking issues found according to my testing in Windows 7.
Feel a little pity that 2 of my opened defects not fixed in 4.0. But I
believe it is more important to deliver 4.0 with so many valuable features
ASAP. And we can keep continuous delivery to have more enhancement step by
step after 4.0.
So:
+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
- Shenfeng (Simon)
2013/7/12 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 12/07/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. ...
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Andrea
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
Hello,
>The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
Is it possible to rebuild french language pack for this RC?
We have to do some changes to fix translation errors in Pootle.
However, +1
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marco A.G.Pinto" <ma...@mail.telepac.pt>.
+1
On 12/07/2013 10:11, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
--
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 12.07.13 15:30, schrieb Shenfeng Liu:
> Rapheal,
> I agree that the RC build should be tested.
> But I think rather than the time, what we really care should be what is
> tested. I'm looking forward Yu Zhen(our QA lead)'s RC test plan. If we get
> a satisfiable plan and the test can be finished within 3 days, I will give
> my +1 immediately. More people helping the test, the faster we can get it
> done and release 4.0 out.
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
> 2013/7/12 Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
>
>> Hi at all
>>
>> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios.
>> Pleas give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
>> enought time to make the final tests.
>>
>> Greetings Raphael
>>
>> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>
>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>> interoperability issues
>>>
>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>
>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>>> .
>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>> updated and polished ...
>>>
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>>
>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>>
>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>
>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
Rapheal,
I agree that the RC build should be tested.
But I think rather than the time, what we really care should be what is
tested. I'm looking forward Yu Zhen(our QA lead)'s RC test plan. If we get
a satisfiable plan and the test can be finished within 3 days, I will give
my +1 immediately. More people helping the test, the faster we can get it
done and release 4.0 out.
- Shenfeng (Simon)
2013/7/12 Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
> Hi at all
>
> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios.
> Pleas give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
> enought time to make the final tests.
>
> Greetings Raphael
>
> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>
>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>
>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>> interoperability issues
>>
>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>
>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> AOO+4.0+Release+Notes<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes>
>> .
>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>> updated and polished ...
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> Development+Snapshot+Builds#**DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-**AOOSnapshot<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot>
>>
>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/**aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-**output.html<http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html>
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Ricardo Berlasso <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/13 imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> On 2013/07/13 18:20, Marcus (OOo) said:
> > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> >>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> >>
> >> UI translation is not complete:
> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> >
> > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an agreement
> > that we need 100% for a release?
>
> I'm curious, too. For a couple of years (3.1-3.3 I suppose),
> OpenOffice was released with about 92% of Traditional Chinese
> translated. Do we have to be 100% translated to be included in the
> release list?
>
AFAIK, yes: a 100% translated UI was the prerequisite for a localized build
on both, 3.4.0 and 3.4.1.
Regards
Ricardo
>
> >
> > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI [1].
> > So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> >
> > I don't want to force a release, just asking.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
On 2013/07/13 18:20, Marcus (OOo) said:
> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
>> wrote:
>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>
>> UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>
> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an agreement
> that we need 100% for a release?
I'm curious, too. For a couple of years (3.1-3.3 I suppose),
OpenOffice was released with about 92% of Traditional Chinese
translated. Do we have to be 100% translated to be included in the
release list?
>
> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI [1].
> So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>
> I don't want to force a release, just asking.
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/13/2013 02:52 PM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>
>>> UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>
>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>
> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
Thanks
> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the mailing
> list...").
Of course, that's why I wrote: ;-)
> I don't want to force a release, just asking.
Marcus
>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 14 July 2013 19:17, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> imacat wrote:
>> > 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>> > conference (COSCUP 2013,http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>> > announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>> > would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>> released.
>>
>> As Juergen wrote, it is expected that we add more languages as they
>> become ready. We'll probably add them in small batches and not
>> one-by-one, in order to have a more efficient process. But if you reach
>> 100% in the UI we will make sure you don't have to wait more than a few
>> weeks to get your language officially released.
>>
>
> I dont quite understand what you mean, will 4.0 have different version
> numbers as we add more languages ?
>
> I would be against releasing 4.0 with e.g. 8 languages, and then after a
> few weeks re-release it with the same version number just more languages.
> When 4.0 is released thats final to me, next is 4.0.1 or 4.1
>
> Or are you talking about releasing language packs, which is quite different
> ?
>
No. We're talking about not changing the AOO 4.0 code, but just
binaries with the new language strings. So the version tags would not
change. (Why should they if the code has not changed?).
Of course, we don't re-release the existing languages.
If you recall we did this exact same thing with AOO 3.4.1 when we
released Danish.
To do otherwise brings needless complications, such as:
1) Either re-releasing new versions for existing languages, where only
the version tags have changed, but no code or language strings have
changed, e.g., in Spanish, French, Italian, etc.
or
2) Having much more complicated update notification logic, where now
we need to track that AOO 3.4.1 Danish upgrades to AOO 4.0.1, but AOO
3.4.1 French upgrades to AOO 4.0.0. And this complication then lives
on to the next release, where Danish 4.0.1 upgrades to AOO 4.1.0, but
there is no French 4.0.1, etc.
Remember: We can always unambiguously determine what source was used
for what binary, even if we incrementally add more languages for 4.0
later.
Regards,
-Rob
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 14 July 2013 19:17, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> imacat wrote:
> > 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> > conference (COSCUP 2013,http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> > announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> > would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
> released.
>
> As Juergen wrote, it is expected that we add more languages as they
> become ready. We'll probably add them in small batches and not
> one-by-one, in order to have a more efficient process. But if you reach
> 100% in the UI we will make sure you don't have to wait more than a few
> weeks to get your language officially released.
>
I dont quite understand what you mean, will 4.0 have different version
numbers as we add more languages ?
I would be against releasing 4.0 with e.g. 8 languages, and then after a
few weeks re-release it with the same version number just more languages.
When 4.0 is released thats final to me, next is 4.0.1 or 4.1
Or are you talking about releasing language packs, which is quite different
?
rgds
jan I.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
imacat wrote:
> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> conference (COSCUP 2013,http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version released.
As Juergen wrote, it is expected that we add more languages as they
become ready. We'll probably add them in small batches and not
one-by-one, in order to have a more efficient process. But if you reach
100% in the UI we will make sure you don't have to wait more than a few
weeks to get your language officially released.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/14/2013 07:12 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 18:37 schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>> thread.
>>
>> For reference here is the old policy:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>
>> My new suggestion:
>>
>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>
>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>
>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar.
>> This should be translated much better than 90%.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>> don't think so.
>>
>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>> better for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>
>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>> They want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not
>> translated parts.
>>
>> And now, add your points.
> first of all I would like to bring the release out and then we can discuss the process for the future.
>
> For now we have defined to use 100% UI and as much as possible for Help.
>
> And I personally don't like to move back to UI less than 100%. And I see of course a big difference between UI and help. But it is not easy because useful short help is part of the Help and will be shown in the UI directly ... Long term goal should be 100% for everything and I believe it is doable with active communities. Once you have reached 100% the maintenance will be less effort. Only new features or minor rework have to be done hopefully.
Sorry if you have understood to apply the new policy for AOO 4.0. Of
course this should not be the case.
Marcus
>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mailing
>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The
>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we
>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support
>>>> local communities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>
>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>> we released.
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>> next train.
>>>>
>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>
>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>
>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we absolutely
>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>
>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>
>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
>>>>
>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for
releases
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 18:37 schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
> thread.
>
> For reference here is the old policy:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>
> My new suggestion:
>
> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>
> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>
> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar.
> This should be translated much better than 90%.
>
> Why?
>
> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
> don't think so.
>
> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
> better for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>
> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
> They want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not
> translated parts.
>
> And now, add your points.
first of all I would like to bring the release out and then we can discuss the process for the future.
For now we have defined to use 100% UI and as much as possible for Help.
And I personally don't like to move back to UI less than 100%. And I see of course a big difference between UI and help. But it is not easy because useful short help is part of the Help and will be shown in the UI directly ... Long term goal should be 100% for everything and I believe it is doable with active communities. Once you have reached 100% the maintenance will be less effort. Only new features or minor rework have to be done hopefully.
Juergen
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
> > > > > On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> > > > > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > > > > > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> > > > > > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > UI translation is not complete:
> > > https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> > > > > > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
> > > > > > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > mailing
> > > > > > list...").
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> > > > > > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> > > > > > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
> > > > > > incomplete
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> > > > > > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The
> > > > > > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 4.0.0
> > > > > > RC.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
> > > > > sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
> > > > > discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> > > > > conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> > > > > announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> > > > > would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > released.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
> > > > > (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
> > > > > our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
> > > > > governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
> > > > > available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
> > > > > development could not be based on.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
> > > > > If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
> > > > > certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we
> > > can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support
> > > local communities.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
> > >
> > > 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
> > > can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
> > >
> > > 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
> > > to "miss the train".
> > >
> > > IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
> > > leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
> > > we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
> > > making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
> > > 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
> > > that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
> > > we released.
> > >
> > > From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
> > > translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
> > > language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
> > > need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
> > > the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
> > > next train.
> > >
> > > So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
> > > Is that enough time?
> > >
> > > -Rob
> >
> > This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
> > and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
> > release.
> >
> > Re the old stated "policy" on :
> >
> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >
> > If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
> >
> > But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
> > translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we absolutely
> > require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
> >
> > Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
> > the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
> >
> > http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
> > > (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
> > > > Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
> > >
> > > in the project or at least in the translation part.
> > > >
> > > > It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
> > > is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
> > > >
> > > > Juergen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> For reference here is the old policy:
>>>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>
>>> My new suggestion:
>>>
>>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>>
>>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>>
>>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>>> don't think so.
>>>
>>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>> better
>>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>>
>>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>> They
>>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> And now, add your points.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>
>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>>
>
> In many cases, it is probably a "time" factor rather than an interest
> factor. I'm not really familiar with the normal tracking and communication
> between translation volunteers and developers on this list with respect to
> release date targets, however. Maybe this needs improvement.
>
>
>
>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>> then release it.
>>
>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>> release.
>>
>
> yes, I agree.
>
>
>>
>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>
>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>>
>
> again, agreement
>
>
>>
>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>> state and help translate.
>>
>
> hmmmm...I don't know how this would mesh with Apache release policy.
>
> I guess what you're saying is they could be handled like development
> snapshots, but ultimately fail the release test? We need to investigate
> this.
We need to VOTE to release whether or not it is an official source release or any type of binary convenience release. For the PMC vote on a language pack the bar to +1 won't be as high because the IP concerns differ.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>
>>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>> the
>>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>
>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>> we
>>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>> is
>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>
>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>> not
>>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>>> we
>>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>>> support
>>>>> local communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>>> we released.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>>> next train.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>> 4.0
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>
>>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>>
>>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>>> absolutely
>>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>> on
>>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>>
>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>> German
>>>>>
>>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>> complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>> participate
>>>>>
>>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>> that
>>>>>
>>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> -- Jon Bon Jovi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> For reference here is the old policy:
>>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>
>>>> My new suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>>>
>>>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>>>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>>>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>>>> don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>>> better
>>>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>>>
>>>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>>>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>>> They
>>>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>>>> parts.
>>>>
>>>> And now, add your points.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>>
>>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>>>
>>
>> In many cases, it is probably a "time" factor rather than an interest
>> factor. I'm not really familiar with the normal tracking and communication
>> between translation volunteers and developers on this list with respect to
>> release date targets, however. Maybe this needs improvement.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>>> then release it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>>> release.
>>>
>>
>> yes, I agree.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>>
>>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>>>
>>
>> again, agreement
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>>> state and help translate.
>>>
>>
>> hmmmm...I don't know how this would mesh with Apache release policy.
>>
>> I guess what you're saying is they could be handled like development
>> snapshots, but ultimately fail the release test? We need to investigate
>> this.
>>
>
> I mean treat it *exactly* like we do a dev snapshot. It is not
> advertised outside of the project. The only difference is it would
> be built with the AOO 4.0 release code revision. Or think of itas
> being an early build of the re-release of AOO 4.0 with additional
> languages. Eventually, if/when the translation is completed, we have
> a RC at that time, and a vote and then they are released.
So a policy could be that we will build Dev Snapshots of Language Packs if the translation is over N%?
Where N could be 80 or 75%?
I think that this would encourage language communities to make the effort.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>>
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>>> not
>>>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> local communities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>>>> we released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>>>> next train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>>> 4.0
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>>
>>>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>>> on
>>>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>>> German
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>>> complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>>> participate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
>> -- Jon Bon Jovi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>> > I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>> > thread.
>> >
>> > For reference here is the old policy:
>> >
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>> >
>> > My new suggestion:
>> >
>> > 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>> >
>> > 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>> >
>> > 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>> > should be translated much better than 90%.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>> > average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>> > don't think so.
>> >
>> > 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>> better
>> > for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>> >
>> > 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>> > should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>> They
>> > want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>> > parts.
>> >
>> > And now, add your points.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>
>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>>
>
> In many cases, it is probably a "time" factor rather than an interest
> factor. I'm not really familiar with the normal tracking and communication
> between translation volunteers and developers on this list with respect to
> release date targets, however. Maybe this needs improvement.
>
>
>
>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>> then release it.
>>
>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>> release.
>>
>
> yes, I agree.
>
>
>>
>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>
>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>>
>
> again, agreement
>
>
>>
>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>> state and help translate.
>>
>
> hmmmm...I don't know how this would mesh with Apache release policy.
>
> I guess what you're saying is they could be handled like development
> snapshots, but ultimately fail the release test? We need to investigate
> this.
>
I mean treat it *exactly* like we do a dev snapshot. It is not
advertised outside of the project. The only difference is it would
be built with the AOO 4.0 release code revision. Or think of itas
being an early build of the re-release of AOO 4.0 with additional
languages. Eventually, if/when the translation is completed, we have
a RC at that time, and a vote and then they are released.
-Rob
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > Marcus
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>> >>>
>> >>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>> >>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>> >>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>> the
>> >>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>> >>>
>> >>> mailing
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> list...").
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>> we
>> >>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>> >>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>> is
>> >>>>>> incomplete
>> >>>
>> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>> >>>
>> >>> The
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>> >>>
>> >>> 4.0.0
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> RC.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>> >>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>> >>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>> >>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>> >>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>> >>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>> >>>
>> >>> released.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>> >>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>> >>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>> >>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>> not
>> >>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>> >>>>> development could not be based on.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>> >>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>> >>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>> >>> we
>> >>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>> >>> support
>> >>> local communities.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>> >>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>> >>> to "miss the train".
>> >>>
>> >>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>> >>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>> >>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>> >>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>> >>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>> >>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>> >>> we released.
>> >>>
>> >>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>> >>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>> >>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>> >>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>> >>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>> >>> next train.
>> >>>
>> >>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>> >>> Is that enough time?
>> >>>
>> >>> -Rob
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>> >> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>> 4.0
>> >> release.
>> >>
>> >> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>> >>
>> >> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>> >>
>> >> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>> >> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>> >> absolutely
>> >> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>> >>
>> >> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>> on
>> >> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>> >>
>> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>> German
>> >>>
>> >>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>> complete.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>> participate
>> >>>
>> >>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>> that
>> >>>
>> >>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Juergen
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> -- Jon Bon Jovi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
> > I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
> > thread.
> >
> > For reference here is the old policy:
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >
> > My new suggestion:
> >
> > 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
> >
> > 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
> >
> > 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
> > should be translated much better than 90%.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
> > average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
> > don't think so.
> >
> > 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
> better
> > for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
> >
> > 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
> > should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
> They
> > want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
> > parts.
> >
> > And now, add your points.
> >
>
>
> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
> the bar, not lowering it.
>
> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>
In many cases, it is probably a "time" factor rather than an interest
factor. I'm not really familiar with the normal tracking and communication
between translation volunteers and developers on this list with respect to
release date targets, however. Maybe this needs improvement.
> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
> then release it.
>
> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
> release.
>
yes, I agree.
>
> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>
> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>
again, agreement
>
> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
> state and help translate.
>
hmmmm...I don't know how this would mesh with Apache release policy.
I guess what you're saying is they could be handled like development
snapshots, but ultimately fail the release test? We need to investigate
this.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
> >>>
> >>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> >>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
> >>>
> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> >>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
> the
> >>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
> >>>
> >>> mailing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> list...").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
> we
> >>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> >>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
> is
> >>>>>> incomplete
> >>>
> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
> >>>
> >>> The
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
> >>>
> >>> 4.0.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
> >>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
> >>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> >>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> >>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> >>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
> >>>
> >>> released.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
> >>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
> >>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
> >>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
> not
> >>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
> >>>>> development could not be based on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
> >>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
> >>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
> >>>>>
> >>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
> >>> we
> >>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
> >>> support
> >>> local communities.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
> >>>
> >>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
> >>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
> >>>
> >>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
> >>> to "miss the train".
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
> >>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
> >>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
> >>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
> >>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
> >>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
> >>> we released.
> >>>
> >>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
> >>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
> >>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
> >>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
> >>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
> >>> next train.
> >>>
> >>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
> >>> Is that enough time?
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>
> >> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
> >> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
> 4.0
> >> release.
> >>
> >> Re the old stated "policy" on :
> >>
> >>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >>
> >> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
> >>
> >> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
> >> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
> >> absolutely
> >> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
> >>
> >> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
> on
> >> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
> >>
> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
> German
> >>>
> >>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
> complete.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
> participate
> >>>
> >>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
> that
> >>>
> >>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
-- Jon Bon Jovi
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/2/13 2:04 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> -1 from my side, too much work for me with the current setup
>> As long as we can't use builds from build bots for the release I won't
>> have time to do a monthly lang update.
>
> Andrew reconfigured the Windows buildbots in this direction, but the
> weekly Windows snapshot build after the update was not successful:
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
>
> Still, the concept of "releasing language updates from the builbots"
> would need some discussion, for example integrating the new SDF files in
> the old release branch and switching the buildbots to that branch before
> release.
>
> If I recall correctly, we had two additional languages already ready (UI
> 100%) on release day: traditional Chinese and Khmer. I expect that more
> reach 100% in the next couple of weeks, so we will then have to start
> planning either a language update or a 4.0.1 if we identify bugs that
> deserve early fixes.
sure and I expect a combined lang + bugfix release 4.0.1
Juergen
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> -1 from my side, too much work for me with the current setup
> As long as we can't use builds from build bots for the release I won't
> have time to do a monthly lang update.
Andrew reconfigured the Windows buildbots in this direction, but the
weekly Windows snapshot build after the update was not successful:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
Still, the concept of "releasing language updates from the builbots"
would need some discussion, for example integrating the new SDF files in
the old release branch and switching the buildbots to that branch before
release.
If I recall correctly, we had two additional languages already ready (UI
100%) on release day: traditional Chinese and Khmer. I expect that more
reach 100% in the next couple of weeks, so we will then have to start
planning either a language update or a 4.0.1 if we identify bugs that
deserve early fixes.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/1/13 11:56 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 07/15/2013 09:04 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>>> for AOO 4.1.
>>
>> Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
>> something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
>> may be problematic due to holidays).
>>
>> Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
>>
>> 1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
>> 4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
>>
>> 2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
>> available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
>
> As I haven't seen any objections, IMHO it's safe to assume we have an
> agreement.
-1 from my side, too much work for me with the current setup
As long as we can't use builds from build bots for the release I won't
have time to do a monthly lang update.
Juergen
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/15/2013 09:04 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>> for AOO 4.1.
>
> Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
> something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
> may be problematic due to holidays).
>
> Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
>
> 1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
> 4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
>
> 2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
> available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
As I haven't seen any objections, IMHO it's safe to assume we have an
agreement.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 7/15/2013 12:19 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/15/13 9:04 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>>> for AOO 4.1.
>> Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
>> something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
>> may be problematic due to holidays).
>>
>> Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
>>
>> 1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
>> 4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
>>
>> 2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
>> available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
> People should work on a reliable build bot infra structure that can
> provide builds for all major platforms (Linux, Windows, MacOS). And then
> we can configure more languages on demand.
While there are periodic complaints about the build bots (e.g. when
there are breaking changes made to the source tree), the main bots are
pretty stable. They mainly break when broken. If you look at Windows
Snapshot build <http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-w7snap/> , the Windows
nightly build <http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/> , and the Linux
64bit build <http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/>
, you will notice that they are quite stable (esp. with the fix to the
hanging process issue)
We can ask again at infra for our CentOS linux 32 bot and Mac hardware,
and we have waited long enough on that front. But, are there any issues
we can identify with the current Windows snapshot build that make it
unusable?
We can configure more languages on these bots on demand right now. Is
there a technical reason you don't like them?
A.
>
> I will be not the manual build bot ;-)
>
> Proposing is fine but please think also about the realization.
>
> Juergen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 22/07/2013 Andrew Rist wrote:
> On 7/20/2013 1:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 15/07/2013 Herbert Duerr wrote:
>>> Currently the Windows buildbot of the SNAPSHOT tag does a weekly full
>>> build of all languages:
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
>>> Is any fully translated language missing from that list?
>> Yes, ast.
>>> Should semi-translated languages be built too?
>> The following have less than 20.000 words left (means, 75%+ done, more
>> or less) and should ideally be built too:
>> ca eu he hi id lt pl sv th tr
> ok - I committed this change.
I only see ast there, but likely the weekly build hasn't run yet. Would
it be possible to add "kid" too? It's a special (KeyID) build useful to
translators.
Thanks,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 7/20/2013 1:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 15/07/2013 Herbert Duerr wrote:
>> Currently the Windows buildbot of the SNAPSHOT tag does a weekly full
>> build of all languages:
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
>> Is any fully translated language missing from that list?
>
> Yes, ast.
>
>> Should semi-translated languages be built too?
>
> The following have less than 20.000 words left (means, 75%+ done, more
> or less) and should ideally be built too:
> ca eu he hi id lt pl sv th tr
ok - I committed this change.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 15/07/2013 Herbert Duerr wrote:
> Currently the Windows buildbot of the SNAPSHOT tag does a weekly full
> build of all languages:
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
> Is any fully translated language missing from that list?
Yes, ast.
> Should semi-translated languages be built too?
The following have less than 20.000 words left (means, 75%+ done, more
or less) and should ideally be built too:
ca eu he hi id lt pl sv th tr
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 15.07.2013 09:19, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/15/13 9:04 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>>> for AOO 4.1.
>>
>> Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
>> something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
>> may be problematic due to holidays).
>>
>> Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
>>
>> 1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
>> 4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
>>
>> 2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
>> available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
>
> People should work on a reliable build bot infra structure that can
> provide builds for all major platforms (Linux, Windows, MacOS). And then
> we can configure more languages on demand.
Currently the Windows buildbot of the SNAPSHOT tag does a weekly full
build of all languages:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
Is any fully translated language missing from that list? Should
semi-translated languages be built too?
Yes, we should build all languages on all other platforms too. But we
don't have a Mac buildbot yet and until the build baseline is increased
to XCode4 that will probably have to stay so. On the Linux64 things look
much better but disk space on that buildbot used to be a problem. The
Linux32 buildbot needs to be set up, but from a localization perspective
its build result it is indistinguishable from the Linux64 build.
Also FreeBSD buildbot would be possible, but AFAIK Maho is working on a
tinderbox build there, so setting up a buildbot would probably be wasted
work. Also getting buildbots for OS/2 or Solaris X86 or Sparc just for
the localized snapshot builds is probably wasted work unless there is a
number of translators that only test on these platforms.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/15/13 9:04 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>> for AOO 4.1.
>
> Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
> something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
> may be problematic due to holidays).
>
> Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
>
> 1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
> 4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
>
> 2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
> available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
People should work on a reliable build bot infra structure that can
provide builds for all major platforms (Linux, Windows, MacOS). And then
we can configure more languages on demand.
I will be not the manual build bot ;-)
Proposing is fine but please think also about the realization.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 14/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
> for AOO 4.1.
Releasing a new language should be rather easy and repeatable, so it is
something that we can do once a month (but I can understand that August
may be problematic due to holidays).
Ideally, we should have a monthly update, say around mid-month, where we:
1) Release new languages (of course, based on the same code revision as
4.0, exactly as done for 3.4.1) that have reached 100% UI translation.
2) Formally unrelated to #1, we make (unreleased) dev snapshots
available of languages that have UI at 75-99%.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>> Am 07/14/2013 07:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference here is the old policy:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>>
>>>>> My new suggestion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>>>>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>>>>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>>>>> don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>>>>> better
>>>>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>>>>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>>>>> They
>>>>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>>>>> parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, add your points.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>>>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>>>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>>>
>>>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>>>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>>>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>>>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>>>> then release it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, 90% was just my suggestion to raise the bar from 80%. But to stick
>>> with 100% is much easier as it's all or nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>>>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>>>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>>>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>>>> release.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, if the language is no longer supported actively then we shouldn't
>>> release it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>>>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>>>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>>>
>>>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>>>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>>>
>>>
>>> But then we have to be strict as 99% is also near to 100%. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>>>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>>>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>>>> state and help translate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point, +1.
>>>
>>> Do you think about a L10N release somewhen between releases or as a RC where
>>> it's clear from the beginning that it will not be released?
>>>
>>
>> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
>> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
>> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
>> for AOO 4.1.
>
> I don't disagree with the policy of deadlines, but why September 16th? If some languages are ready sooner (like Traditional Chinese) it ought to be possible to have an earlier set. Perhaps we make it once a month?
>
My impression was that several key people are planning on taking
vacation after AOO 4.0 is released. Nothing magic about the Sept
16th date. But there is something magic about August ;-)
> We also need to understand that there will be a certain length of time from a deadline to a language pack release. Is it one week?
>
Right. I was suggesting that date as a release date. We'd need to
work backwards to set translation deadlines, etc.
>> You ask about an RC where it is not clear whether it will be released?
>> We may run into that issue if we have a beta for AOO 4.1. I don't
>> think all translations are complete for a beta. (Or are they?) If so
>> it is possible for a beta to include a language that never is included
>> in the final release. This would occur if the translators do not
>> finish the translation. This may sound cruel, but we can use this
>> for recruitment. When we publish the beta we can note that the
>> translation is not finished and that volunteers are welcome.
>
> I think that we should be careful to have a UI and Help freeze in advance of releases in order to give plenty of time for language teams to assure that they can meet our high standard of 100%.
>
> If we are going to co-ordinate many small teams then we need to establish schedules and try to commit to them. (As Jürgen has done for this RC.)
>
Exactly.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> local communities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>>>>> we released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>>>>> next train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>>>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>>>>>> 4.0
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>>>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>>>>>>> complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>>>>>>>> participate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 07/14/2013 07:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> For reference here is the old policy:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>
>>>> My new suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>>>
>>>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>>>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>>>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>>>> don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>>>> better
>>>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>>>
>>>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>>>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>>>> They
>>>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>>>> parts.
>>>>
>>>> And now, add your points.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>>
>>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>>> then release it.
>>
>>
>> Sure, 90% was just my suggestion to raise the bar from 80%. But to stick
>> with 100% is much easier as it's all or nothing.
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>>> release.
>>
>>
>> Yes, if the language is no longer supported actively then we shouldn't
>> release it.
>>
>>
>>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>>
>>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>>
>>
>> But then we have to be strict as 99% is also near to 100%. ;-)
>>
>>
>>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>>> state and help translate.
>>
>>
>> Good point, +1.
>>
>> Do you think about a L10N release somewhen between releases or as a RC where
>> it's clear from the beginning that it will not be released?
>>
>
> In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
> additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
> to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
> for AOO 4.1.
I don't disagree with the policy of deadlines, but why September 16th? If some languages are ready sooner (like Traditional Chinese) it ought to be possible to have an earlier set. Perhaps we make it once a month?
We also need to understand that there will be a certain length of time from a deadline to a language pack release. Is it one week?
> You ask about an RC where it is not clear whether it will be released?
> We may run into that issue if we have a beta for AOO 4.1. I don't
> think all translations are complete for a beta. (Or are they?) If so
> it is possible for a beta to include a language that never is included
> in the final release. This would occur if the translators do not
> finish the translation. This may sound cruel, but we can use this
> for recruitment. When we publish the beta we can note that the
> translation is not finished and that volunteers are welcome.
I think that we should be careful to have a UI and Help freeze in advance of releases in order to give plenty of time for language teams to assure that they can meet our high standard of 100%.
If we are going to co-ordinate many small teams then we need to establish schedules and try to commit to them. (As Jürgen has done for this RC.)
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> local communities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>>>> we released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>>>> next train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>>>>> 4.0
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>>
>>>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>>>>> on
>>>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>>>>>>> German
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>>>>>> complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>>>>>>> participate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ciao
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 07/14/2013 07:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> For reference here is the old policy:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>
>>> My new suggestion:
>>>
>>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>>
>>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>>
>>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>>> don't think so.
>>>
>>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
>>> better
>>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>>
>>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
>>> They
>>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>>> parts.
>>>
>>> And now, add your points.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
>> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
>> the bar, not lowering it.
>>
>> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
>> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
>> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
>> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
>> then release it.
>
>
> Sure, 90% was just my suggestion to raise the bar from 80%. But to stick
> with 100% is much easier as it's all or nothing.
>
>
>> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
>> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
>> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
>> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
>> release.
>
>
> Yes, if the language is no longer supported actively then we shouldn't
> release it.
>
>
>> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
>> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
>> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>>
>> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
>> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>
>
> But then we have to be strict as 99% is also near to 100%. ;-)
>
>
>> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
>> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
>> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
>> state and help translate.
>
>
> Good point, +1.
>
> Do you think about a L10N release somewhen between releases or as a RC where
> it's clear from the beginning that it will not be released?
>
In this specific case, for AOO 4.0, I'm suggesting we release any
additional languages that are 100% on September 16th. This is similar
to what we did for AOO 3.4.1. After that date I think we then wait
for AOO 4.1.
You ask about an RC where it is not clear whether it will be released?
We may run into that issue if we have a beta for AOO 4.1. I don't
think all translations are complete for a beta. (Or are they?) If so
it is possible for a beta to include a language that never is included
in the final release. This would occur if the translators do not
finish the translation. This may sound cruel, but we can use this
for recruitment. When we publish the beta we can note that the
translation is not finished and that volunteers are welcome.
Regards,
-Rob
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>>> we
>>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>>> support
>>>>> local communities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>>> we released.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>>> next train.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
>>>> 4.0
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>>
>>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>>
>>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>>> absolutely
>>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
>>>> on
>>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>>
>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>>>>>> German
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>>>>> complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>>>>>> participate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ciao
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/14/2013 07:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
>> thread.
>>
>> For reference here is the old policy:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>
>> My new suggestion:
>>
>> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>>
>> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>>
>> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
>> should be translated much better than 90%.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
>> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
>> don't think so.
>>
>> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or better
>> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>>
>> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
>> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here. They
>> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
>> parts.
>>
>> And now, add your points.
>>
>
>
> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
> the bar, not lowering it.
>
> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
> then release it.
Sure, 90% was just my suggestion to raise the bar from 80%. But to stick
with 100% is much easier as it's all or nothing.
> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
> release.
Yes, if the language is no longer supported actively then we shouldn't
release it.
> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>
> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
But then we have to be strict as 99% is also near to 100%. ;-)
> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
> state and help translate.
Good point, +1.
Do you think about a L10N release somewhen between releases or as a RC
where it's clear from the beginning that it will not be released?
Marcus
>> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>>
>>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>>
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>>
>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>>
>>>> The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>>
>>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>>
>>>> released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>>> we
>>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>>> support
>>>> local communities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>>> to "miss the train".
>>>>
>>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>>> we released.
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>>> next train.
>>>>
>>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>>> Is that enough time?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>>
>>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>>
>>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>>> absolutely
>>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>>
>>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
>>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>>
>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
>>>>
>>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
>>>>
>>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
>>>>
>>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Ciao
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Ricardo Berlasso <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/7/14 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de>
> wrote:
> > I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
> > thread.
> >
> > For reference here is the old policy:
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >
> > My new suggestion:
> >
> > 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
> >
> > 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
> >
> > 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
> > should be translated much better than 90%.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
> > average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
> > don't think so.
> >
> > 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
> better
> > for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
> >
> > 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
> > should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
> They
> > want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
> > parts.
> >
> > And now, add your points.
> >
>
>
> I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
> open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
> the bar, not lowering it.
>
> If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
> there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
> There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
> a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
> then release it.
>
> On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
> active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
> will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
> reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
> release.
>
> In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
> and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
> is better than releasing something only partially done.
>
> Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
> then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
>
> What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
> AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
> release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
> state and help translate.
>
Fully agree with everything you said.
For the UI, any percentage different from 100% is problematic: for the
average user it's not the same a 1% missing on an obscure database feature
than a 1% missing on the sidebar.
Regards
Ricardo
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
> >>>
> >>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> >>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
> >>>
> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> >>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on
> the
> >>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
> >>>
> >>> mailing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> list...").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times
> we
> >>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> >>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature
> is
> >>>>>> incomplete
> >>>
> >>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
> >>>
> >>> The
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
> >>>
> >>> 4.0.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
> >>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
> >>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> >>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> >>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> >>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
> >>>
> >>> released.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
> >>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
> >>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
> >>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is
> not
> >>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
> >>>>> development could not be based on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
> >>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
> >>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
> >>>>>
> >>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
> >>> we
> >>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
> >>> support
> >>> local communities.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
> >>>
> >>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
> >>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
> >>>
> >>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
> >>> to "miss the train".
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
> >>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
> >>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
> >>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
> >>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
> >>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
> >>> we released.
> >>>
> >>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
> >>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
> >>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
> >>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
> >>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
> >>> next train.
> >>>
> >>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
> >>> Is that enough time?
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>
> >> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
> >> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the
> 4.0
> >> release.
> >>
> >> Re the old stated "policy" on :
> >>
> >>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
> >>
> >> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
> >>
> >> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
> >> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
> >> absolutely
> >> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
> >>
> >> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy
> on
> >> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
> >>
> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
> German
> >>>
> >>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
> complete.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
> participate
> >>>
> >>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
> that
> >>>
> >>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
> thread.
>
> For reference here is the old policy:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>
> My new suggestion:
>
> 1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
>
> 2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
>
> 3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar. This
> should be translated much better than 90%.
>
> Why?
>
> 1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
> average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
> don't think so.
>
> 2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or better
> for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
>
> 3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
> should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here. They
> want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not translated
> parts.
>
> And now, add your points.
>
I'd prefer to keep the current rule, 100% UI translation. But I'd be
open to requiring 100% for help as well. IMHO we should be raising
the bar, not lowering it.
If there is a community willing and able to translate to 90% then
there should be community willing and able to translate to 100%.
There is no technical or community reason to stop at 90%. It is only
a question of time. I'd prefer we just wait for 100% translation and
then release it.
On the other hand, if a language is stuck at 90% and there are no
active volunteers, then I don't think we should release it. If it
will not get to 100%, then we're just release something that will
reflect poorly on us and will slowly degenerate from release to
release.
In other words, if it is merely a case of waiting another month or two
and then releasing a high-quality 100% translation, then I think that
is better than releasing something only partially done.
Also, there is the "slippery slope" here. If we allow 90% complete
then someone will beg for 89% complete, or 88% complete.
What I would favor is making builds available, maybe at the level of
AOO 4.0, in all languages that are "close", maybe 80% or 90%. Not for
release or distribution, but to help volunteers evaluate its current
state and help translate.
Regards,
-Rob
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>>>
>>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>>>
>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>>
>>> mailing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> list...").
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>>>>>> incomplete
>>>
>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>>>
>>> The
>>>>>>
>>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>>
>>> 4.0.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>>
>>> released.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>>
>>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>>>
>>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
>>> we
>>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
>>> support
>>> local communities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>>
>>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>>
>>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>>> to "miss the train".
>>>
>>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>>> we released.
>>>
>>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>>> next train.
>>>
>>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>>> Is that enough time?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
>> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
>> release.
>>
>> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>>
>> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>>
>> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
>> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we
>> absolutely
>> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>>
>> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
>> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>>
>> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
>>>
>>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
>>>>
>>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
>>>
>>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
>>>
>>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] New localization requirements policy needed for releases
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
I tie up to Kay's suggestion to discuss a new policy. So, new topic, new
thread.
For reference here is the old policy:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
My new suggestion:
1. Don't make a difference between UI and Help.
2. Accepted translations that are 90% or better.
3. *Except* we have a big or strategic new feature like the Sidebar.
This should be translated much better than 90%.
Why?
1. Do we want to make differences between UI and help translation? Do
average users accept English help topics for translated UI functions? I
don't think so.
2. In the previous OOo project translations were accepted with 80% or
better for a release. IMHO this is too low to offer a high quality release.
3. New features that are also promoted in release note, blog post, etc.
should be fully translated as the attention of our users is high here.
They want to give it a try and shouldn't be disappointed with not
translated parts.
And now, add your points.
Marcus
Am 07/14/2013 05:43 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt<jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
>> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>>>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UI translation is not complete:
>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>>>>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>>>>> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>> mailing
>>>>> list...").
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>>>>>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>>>>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>>>>> incomplete
>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>>>> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>> The
>>>>> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>> 4.0.0
>>>>> RC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>> released.
>>>>
>>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>>> development could not be based on.
>>>>
>>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>>
>>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we
>> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support
>> local communities.
>>>
>>
>> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>>
>> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
>> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>>
>> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
>> to "miss the train".
>>
>> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
>> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
>> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
>> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
>> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
>> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
>> we released.
>>
>> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
>> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
>> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
>> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
>> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
>> next train.
>>
>> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
>> Is that enough time?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
> and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
> release.
>
> Re the old stated "policy" on :
>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
>
> If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
>
> But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
> translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we absolutely
> require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
>
> Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
> the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
>
> http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>
>
>
>>
>>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
>> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
>>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
>> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>>
>>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
>> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>>
>>> Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
> >> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> >> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> >> > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> >> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<
> imacat@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> >> > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> >> > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > UI translation is not complete:
> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> >> > >
> >> > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> >> > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
> >> >
> >> > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
> >> > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
> mailing
> >> > list...").
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> >> > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> >> > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
> >> > incomplete
> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> >> > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
> The
> >> > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
> 4.0.0
> >> > RC.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
> >> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
> >> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
> >>
> >> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> >> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> >> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> >> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
> released.
> >>
> >> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
> >> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
> >> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
> >> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
> >> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
> >> development could not be based on.
> >>
> >> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
> >> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
> >> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
> >>
> > let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we
> can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support
> local communities.
> >
>
> There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
>
> 1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
> can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
>
> 2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
> to "miss the train".
>
> IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
> leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
> we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
> making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
> 4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
> that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
> we released.
>
> From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
> translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
> language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
> need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
> the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
> next train.
>
> So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
> Is that enough time?
>
> -Rob
>
This seems quite reasonable to me. We need a little time for regrouping,
and dealing with perhaps some minor issues that might pop up from the 4.0
release.
Re the old stated "policy" on :
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
If this no longer our policy, we should definitely change this.
But...I think we should first discuss the policy. What levels of
translation do we feel are acceptable if not at 100%. What do we absolutely
require to be translated? Menus vs help files, for example.
Once we determine translation thresholds, we should include the policy on
the "Native Language" page on the project web site:
http://openoffice.apache.org/native-lang.html
>
> > But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
> > Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
> in the project or at least in the translation part.
> >
> > It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
> >
> > Juergen
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> >> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
> >>
> >> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> >> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> >> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> >> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> >> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> >> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
-- Jon Bon Jovi
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>> > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>> > >
>> > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>> > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>> >
>> > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>> > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the mailing
>> > list...").
>> >
>> >
>> > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>> > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>> > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>> > incomplete https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>> > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state? The
>> > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this 4.0.0
>> > RC.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>
>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version released.
>>
>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>> development could not be based on.
>>
>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>
> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible. Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support local communities.
>
There is obviously some tension in our goals here:
1) We want to release the good work that is already done, so users who
can enjoy the new features, bug fixes, interop improvements, etc.
2) We also have some languages that are "almost" done and don't want
to "miss the train".
IMHO the way to resolve this tension is to let the current 4.0 train
leave the station, but announce another train is leaving soon. Maybe
we can set a goal of September 16th for either a 4.0.1 (if we're
making code changes for a new critical bug) or a language update of
4.0.0 (if there are only new translations). Hopefully we all remember
that we did this with AOO 3.4.1 as well, adding more languages after
we released.
>From what I can tell there is a steady stream of interest in
translating AOO to other languages. There will always be another
language that is "almost ready". That is what success looks like. We
need to handle new translations when they are ready. We can't hold up
the train, but we also can't make volunteers wait too long for the
next train.
So how does September 16th sound for releasing additional languages?
Is that enough time?
-Rob
> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate in the project or at least in the translation part.
>
> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>
> Juergen
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>>
>> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
>> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
>> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/14/13 10:05 AM, Michal Hriň wrote:
> Dňa Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:42:03 +0200 Juergen Schmidt
> <jo...@gmail.com> napísal:
>
>> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>>> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM,
>>> imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>> > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>> > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > UI translation is not complete:
>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>> > >
>>> > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>>> > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>>> >
>>> > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>>> > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>>> mailing
>>> > list...").
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>>> > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>>> > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>>> > incomplete
>>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>>> > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a
>>> state? The
>>> > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>>> 4.0.0
>>> > RC.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>>
>>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>>> released.
>>>
>>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>>> development could not be based on.
>>>
>>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>>
>> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
>> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well
>> and we can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of
>> to support local communities.
>>
>> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released
>> German (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not
>> complete.
>> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who
>> participate in the project or at least in the translation part.
>>
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> Yust today German translation is done.
I know this, it was an example only. If not complete I would not have
released it
I and French community made some
> changes
> in translations.
> Did you think about rebuilding some (sk, fr, de maybe cn) binaries ?
>
no, the whole process takes time and these of course useful improvements
will go in the next version.
I recommend to create a new issue for translation updates. Otherwise it
is hard to track that something has changed.
Juergen
> - Michal Hriň
>
>> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but
>> that is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>>
>> Juergen
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
>>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>>>
>>> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
>>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
>>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
>>> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
>>> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>>> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Michal Hriň <mi...@aol.com>.
Dňa Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:42:03 +0200 Juergen Schmidt
<jo...@gmail.com> napísal:
> Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
>> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
>> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM,
>> imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>> > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > UI translation is not complete:
>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>> > >
>> > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>> > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>> >
>> > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
>> > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the
>> mailing
>> > list...").
>> >
>> >
>> > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>> > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>> > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
>> > incomplete
>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
>> > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state?
>> The
>> > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this
>> 4.0.0
>> > RC.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
>> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
>> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>>
>> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
>> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
>> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
>> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version
>> released.
>>
>> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
>> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
>> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
>> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
>> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
>> development could not be based on.
>>
>> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
>> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
>> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>>
> let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible.
> Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and
> we can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to
> support local communities.
>
> But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German
> (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
> Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate
> in the project or at least in the translation part.
>
Hi Juergen,
Yust today German translation is done. I and French community made some
changes
in translations.
Did you think about rebuilding some (sk, fr, de maybe cn) binaries ?
- Michal Hriň
> It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that
> is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
>
> Juergen
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
>> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>>
>> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
>> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
>> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
>> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
>> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>>
>>
>
>
--
Táto správa bola vytvorená poštovým klientom v prehliadači Opera:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Am Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 um 06:35 schrieb imacat:
> On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > > Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> > > > > something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> > >
> > > I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> > > agreement that we need 100% for a release?
> > >
> >
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
> >
> > Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
> > mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the mailing
> > list...").
> >
> >
> > > I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> > > have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> > > [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
> > >
> >
> >
> > For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
> > incomplete https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> > How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state? The
> > same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this 4.0.0
> > RC.
> >
>
>
> Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
> sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
> discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
>
> 1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
> conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
> announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
> would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version released.
>
> 2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
> (6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
> our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
> governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
> available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
> development could not be based on.
>
> I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
> If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
> certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>
let translate the UI First and then we can figure out what's possible. Hopefully some other languages can continue the translation as well and we can think about a language only release where I am a big fan of to support local communities.
But in general we have discussed it and I would have not released German (my mother language) if the UI translation would have been not complete.
Just to make sure that we need active local communities who participate in the project or at least in the translation part.
It would be even better if the help would be translated as well but that is a much higher burden and we are more flexible here.
Juergen
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
On 2013/07/13 20:52, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>>>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>>>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>>>
>>> UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>
>> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
>> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
>
> http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
>
> Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
> mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the mailing
> list...").
>
>
>> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
>> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
>> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
>
> For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
> incomplete https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
> How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state? The
> same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this 4.0.0
> RC.
Hmm... I see the problem with side bar translation. And I'm very
sorry that I was in my research paper and did not notice the previous
discussion. However, there are several issues of concern:
1. I am going to give a talk in our largest local open source
conference (COSCUP 2013, http://coscup.org/) on 8/3, and plan to
announce OpenOffice 4.0. It is the first talk after the key notes. It
would be very embarrassing to announce it without a local version released.
2. There would be a large-scale deployment around August or September
(6000-7000) in a government department, and they are planning to join
our development force in order to fix some Chinese problems in
governmental use. If OpenOffice 4.0 Traditional Chinese version is not
available at that time, we could only give them 3.4.1, which their
development could not be based on.
I've asked our local community to help the translation in urgent.
If we can finish the Traditional Chinese sidebar translation with
certain amount, could it be OK to release it?
>
>
> Regards
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:20:32PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> >On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> >>Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> >>something on the Traditional Chinese version?
> >
> >UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>
> I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an
> agreement that we need 100% for a release?
http://markmail.org/message/pxgvjuw2j3ukqsom
Concerns should have been risen at that time, it was discussed on the
mailing list, and properly tagged ("if it does not happen on the mailing
list...").
> I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
> have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI
> [1]. So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
For this particular case, the translation of the main 4.0.0 feature is
incomplete https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/svx/source/sidebar/
How serious would it be to release this translation in such a state? The
same applies to other languages released in 3.4.* but not in this 4.0.0
RC.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/13/2013 05:14 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat<im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
>> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
>
> UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
I can see that 97% is translated. Not that bad. Do we have an agreement
that we need 100% for a release?
I'm asking because I really don't know it and in former OOo times we
have done releases for languages with at least 80% translated UI [1].
So, maybe a change that I haven't seen in the last weeks.
I don't want to force a release, just asking.
[1]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria#Localization_requirements
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM, imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
> something on the Traditional Chinese version?
UI translation is not complete: https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
Sorry. I did not see Traditional Chinese version. Did I missed
something on the Traditional Chinese version? Thank you.
On 2013/07/12 21:52, Jürgen Schmidt said:
> please don't discuss in a vote thread
>
>
> @Raphael, I disagree we do testing on snapshots since weeks.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 7/12/13 3:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>> Hi at all
>>>
>>> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios. Pleas
>>> give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
>>> enought time to make the final tests.
>>>
>>
>> The previous dev snapshot (rev. 1499347) build was July 5th. That
>> was 8 days ago. So there has been over a week for anyone who was
>> interested in doing more testing or reporting any new release
>> blockers.
>>
>> With the RC I think we can be more focused and verify the fixed bugs
>> and test around any areas that changed since the last dev snapshot.
>>
>> (Think of it this way: If Juergen had labeled the July 5th dev
>> snapshot as "RC 1" and today's build as "RC 2", would any more testing
>> have occurred? Would anything be different?)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Greetings Raphael
>>>
>>> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>>
>>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>>> interoperability issues
>>>>
>>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>>
>>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>>
>>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>>> updated and polished ...
>>>>
>>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>>
>>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>>
>>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>>
>>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>>
>>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>>> members.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
[DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
please don't discuss in a vote thread
@Raphael, I disagree we do testing on snapshots since weeks.
Juergen
On 7/12/13 3:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Hi at all
>>
>> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios. Pleas
>> give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
>> enought time to make the final tests.
>>
>
> The previous dev snapshot (rev. 1499347) build was July 5th. That
> was 8 days ago. So there has been over a week for anyone who was
> interested in doing more testing or reporting any new release
> blockers.
>
> With the RC I think we can be more focused and verify the fixed bugs
> and test around any areas that changed since the last dev snapshot.
>
> (Think of it this way: If Juergen had labeled the July 5th dev
> snapshot as "RC 1" and today's build as "RC 2", would any more testing
> have occurred? Would anything be different?)
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Greetings Raphael
>>
>> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>
>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>> interoperability issues
>>>
>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>
>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>> updated and polished ...
>>>
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>
>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>
>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>
>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On Jul 12, 2013 5:12 PM, "Ariel Constenla-Haile" <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>
wrote:
> > The point is, who has desided to make a RC? I don't find a single
> > discoussion about it. A RC should be discused on the list. I know, there
> > where serios testings, but for my point of view not enoght. IA2 is
> > integrated same days befor, so the QA has no chance to find regressions
to
> > this part of code.
>
> What are you talking about? IA2 has not been integrated, not a single
line.
>
> > I work with 4.0 since same week. It is not bad, but I personaly think
there
> > are still same serios bugs in.
>
> Then you should submit bugs in bugzilla; but this statement
> contradicts the one below: if you think there are serious bugs, you
> don't need to search them, you should already know them.
>
> > Well, I can nothing else do as search same showstoper for RC1. But even
I
> > don't find one, I will vote -1. I'm sorry, I can't put my name under a
> > Release under this condition.
+1 from me, I know there are still ñroblems to be solved, but in a year
from now we will also have problems let get a RC out, and move on.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> Regards
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
> The point is, who has desided to make a RC? I don't find a single
> discoussion about it. A RC should be discused on the list. I know, there
> where serios testings, but for my point of view not enoght. IA2 is
> integrated same days befor, so the QA has no chance to find regressions to
> this part of code.
What are you talking about? IA2 has not been integrated, not a single line.
> I work with 4.0 since same week. It is not bad, but I personaly think there
> are still same serios bugs in.
Then you should submit bugs in bugzilla; but this statement
contradicts the one below: if you think there are serious bugs, you
don't need to search them, you should already know them.
> Well, I can nothing else do as search same showstoper for RC1. But even I
> don't find one, I will vote -1. I'm sorry, I can't put my name under a
> Release under this condition.
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 12.07.13 16:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>> What is not serious that I plan a 72 hr vote that is normal at Apache?
>> We are not loner an incubator project and 72 hr are enough. The RC is
>> not so much different than the snapshot before.
>
> The point is, who has desided to make a RC? I don't find a single
> discoussion about it. A RC should be discused on the list. I know, there
The detailed proposal and discussion was in this thread, from June
19th, three weeks ago:
http://markmail.org/message/4wzawtnxaruvztqm
-Rob
> where serios testings, but for my point of view not enoght. IA2 is
> integrated same days befor, so the QA has no chance to find regressions to
> this part of code.
>
> I work with 4.0 since same week. It is not bad, but I personaly think there
> are still same serios bugs in. You can't find this potential Errors within
> 72 hours.
>
> I find it wrong to annonce a RC without public discoussion if the Version is
> RC ready. And the stabilization phase was far to short.
>
> Well, I can nothing else do as search same showstoper for RC1. But even I
> don't find one, I will vote -1. I'm sorry, I can't put my name under a
> Release under this condition.
>
> Greetings Raphael
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 12.07.13 16:32, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> What is not serious that I plan a 72 hr vote that is normal at Apache?
> We are not loner an incubator project and 72 hr are enough. The RC is
> not so much different than the snapshot before.
The point is, who has desided to make a RC? I don't find a single
discoussion about it. A RC should be discused on the list. I know, there
where serios testings, but for my point of view not enoght. IA2 is
integrated same days befor, so the QA has no chance to find regressions
to this part of code.
I work with 4.0 since same week. It is not bad, but I personaly think
there are still same serios bugs in. You can't find this potential
Errors within 72 hours.
I find it wrong to annonce a RC without public discoussion if the
Version is RC ready. And the stabilization phase was far to short.
Well, I can nothing else do as search same showstoper for RC1. But even
I don't find one, I will vote -1. I'm sorry, I can't put my name under a
Release under this condition.
Greetings Raphael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
What is not serious that I plan a 72 hr vote that is normal at Apache?
We are not loner an incubator project and 72 hr are enough. The RC is
not so much different than the snapshot before.
You can vote -1 if you want but I hope that you take it serious and
don't vote simply and without any real argument. The argument that "you"
would need more time is not valid for me.
It's always interesting to see such comments in the end phase. But what
do you think did we over the past weeks?
We analyzed bugs, problems, fixed all serious ones and continue general
testing. I proposed a release schedule, proposed an update and we
continue to work hard to achieve this date. Some continuity in the
things we propose and announce is not a bad thing. If we detect serious
problems we can always take the necessary actions.
Let us concentrate on the end game ... We still have some things to do
and the polishing and completion of the release notes is one thing.
If you disagree to the proposed schedule you should have raised your
concerns a little bit earlier.
Juergen
On 7/12/13 3:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Hi at all
>>
>> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios. Pleas
>> give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
>> enought time to make the final tests.
>>
>
> The previous dev snapshot (rev. 1499347) build was July 5th. That
> was 8 days ago. So there has been over a week for anyone who was
> interested in doing more testing or reporting any new release
> blockers.
>
> With the RC I think we can be more focused and verify the fixed bugs
> and test around any areas that changed since the last dev snapshot.
>
> (Think of it this way: If Juergen had labeled the July 5th dev
> snapshot as "RC 1" and today's build as "RC 2", would any more testing
> have occurred? Would anything be different?)
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Greetings Raphael
>>
>> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>>
>>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>>> interoperability issues
>>>
>>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>>
>>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>>
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>>> updated and polished ...
>>>
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>>
>>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>>
>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>>
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>>
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>>
>>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Hi at all
>
> Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios. Pleas
> give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is not
> enought time to make the final tests.
>
The previous dev snapshot (rev. 1499347) build was July 5th. That
was 8 days ago. So there has been over a week for anyone who was
interested in doing more testing or reporting any new release
blockers.
With the RC I think we can be more focused and verify the fixed bugs
and test around any areas that changed since the last dev snapshot.
(Think of it this way: If Juergen had labeled the July 5th dev
snapshot as "RC 1" and today's build as "RC 2", would any more testing
have occurred? Would anything be different?)
Regards,
-Rob
> Greetings Raphael
>
> Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
>> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
>> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
>> to former OpenOffice releases:
>>
>> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
>> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
>> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
>> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
>> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>>
>> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
>> interoperability issues
>>
>> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>>
>> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
>> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
>> updated and polished ...
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>
>> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Hi at all
Moment Jürgen. Test a RC and final vote. within 72 houers is unserios.
Pleas give a a full week for this. Else i will vote -1 because there is
not enought time to make the final tests.
Greetings Raphael
Am 12.07.13 11:11, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1502185!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
>
> * [ +1 ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0*
>
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I downloaded the source release candidate, verified the MD5 and SHA256
checksums, and built it on Windows 7. All without problems. Therefore:
+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Regards,
Andre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC)
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi,
Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate as
> Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an important release for Apache
> OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes. It is a key milestone to
> continue the success of OpenOffice.
[..]
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC at noon on Monday, 15 July: 2013-07-15 12:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
There a some errors in the German translations (already fixed on
Pootle), but not so severe to not release German version.
Nobody could reproduce the crash.
So all together my vote:
+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org