You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2017/12/01 02:41:30 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
(http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>
> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>
> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>
> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>
> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
On 12/1/2017 4:51 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5>
>
> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
> with everyone.
I have added the Release Notes page from the template at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5+Release+Notes.
I believe that you are the best person for RM for this.
Regards
Keith
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
>>> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>>
>>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
>>> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
>>> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
>>> the relationship.
>>>
>>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>>>> fantastic!
>>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>>>
>>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
>>>>>> available
>>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>>>>>>>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>>>>>>>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>>>>>>>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>>>>>>>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>>>>>>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>>>>>>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>>>>>>> towards the final release build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>>>>>>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>>>>>>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>>>>>>> wants to handle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>>>> ## Debian Developer
>>>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>> +1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
>> soon as possible.
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 03.12.2017 um 01:09 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
>> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
>> with everyone.
>
> Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for
> 4.1.4! Note: this includes the fact that Matthias (if available)
> should produce the Windows builds, since we've discovered with 4.1.4
> that build issues are arcane to find at times, and we know that
> Matthias' Windows builds worked well for 4.1.4.
Yes, I am available... ;-)
Regards, Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
> with everyone.
Fine with me, let's keep unchanged everything that worked well for
4.1.4! Note: this includes the fact that Matthias (if available) should
produce the Windows builds, since we've discovered with 4.1.4 that build
issues are arcane to find at times, and we know that Matthias' Windows
builds worked well for 4.1.4.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01.12.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5>
>
> Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up.
thanks for this. In the meantime I've also done some changes.
> I can RM if that's OK with everyone.
Yes, please. :-)
Marcus
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
>>> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>>
>>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
>>> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
>>> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
>>> the relationship.
>>>
>>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>>>> fantastic!
>>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>>>
>>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
>>>>>> available
>>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>>>>>>>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>>>>>>>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>>>>>>>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>>>>>>>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>>>>>>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>>>>>>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>>>>>>> towards the final release build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>>>>>>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>>>>>>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>>>>>>> wants to handle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>>>> ## Debian Developer
>>>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>> +1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
>> soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I went ahead and copied the 4.1.4 page and created:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5 <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5>
Of course, it needs to be further cleaned up. I can RM if that's OK
with everyone.
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
>> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>
>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
>> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
>> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
>> the relationship.
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>>> fantastic!
>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>>
>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
>>>>> available
>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>>>>>>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>>>>>>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>>>>>>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>>>>>>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>>>>>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>>>>>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>>>>>> towards the final release build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>>>>>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>>>>>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>>>>>> wants to handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>>> ## Debian Developer
>>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
> +1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
> soon as possible.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
On 12/1/2017 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
> to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>
> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
> timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
> something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
> the relationship.
>
> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>> fantastic!
>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>
>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mechtilde
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds
>>>> available
>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but
>>>>>> not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>>>>>> team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that
>>>>>> this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to
>>>>>> bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising
>>>>> areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of
>>>>> 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>>>>> towards the final release build.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I
>>>>> would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>>>>> users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody
>>>>> wants to handle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>> ## Debian Developer
>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
+1 to this. We need to get out the corrections for the 4.1.4 regressions
soon as possible.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
+1
Am 1. Dezember 2017 14:42:44 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce
>4.2.0-B1.
>
>Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
>start keeping track there?
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk
>solution to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>
>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what
>the timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There
>is something to be said for a single announcement so that we can
>explain the relationship.
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>fantastic!
>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
>builds available
>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
><http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together
>but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the
>team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this
>would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more
>of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
>advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make
>it visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
>of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality
>towards the final release build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
>I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our
>users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants
>to handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>>> ## Debian Developer
>>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>>
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22, Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he would recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year, rather than early December
>
> I am not sure we should wait that long before 4.1.5-GA.
I agree w/ that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
Switching positions, the last time we discussed release planning, 11/22,
Damjan needed a month or two to finish PostgreSQL driver work before he
would recommend releasing 4.2.0. That seems more like early next year,
rather than early December
I am not sure we should wait that long before 4.1.5-GA.
On a personal note, I will be busy and/or traveling from early January
until mid-March. My AOO activity will be limited.
On 12/1/2017 5:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce 4.2.0-B1.
>
> Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
> start keeping track there?
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>>
>> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain the relationship.
>>
>> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
>>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Mechtilde
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>>> ## Debian Developer
>>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I also like that we announce 4.1.5-GA at the same time we announce 4.2.0-B1.
Should we clone the 4.1.4 release Wiki page (to create a 4.1.5) and
start keeping track there?
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution to some 4.1.4 regressions.
>
> I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain the relationship.
>
> On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Mechtilde
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>>> ## Debian Developer
>>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
Remember we also have the 4.1.5 branch, which is a lower risk solution
to some 4.1.4 regressions.
I think it is time to decide whether to release it, and if so, what the
timing should be relative to the start of the 4.2 beta test. There is
something to be said for a single announcement so that we can explain
the relationship.
On 12/1/2017 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>
> I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mechtilde
>>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>
>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>
>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>> ## Debian Developer
>> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 12/02/2017 04:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is
>> fantastic!
>> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
>> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
>> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
>
> Someone here is forgetting that the biggest chunk of work for 4.2.0 is
> with localization. We need to fix the code -> Pootle -> code process and
> this won't be trivial at all since we have scarce documentation, little
> knowledge and a half-broken situation in Pootle when the last import was
> done at some unspecified time. It is not impossible of course, but it
> does need some serious work.
+1...this is a BIGGIE for 4.2.0 in my mind.
>
> So you can provide all the builds you wish, but I would expect that most
> of them display localization issues and a localization cycle in 40+
> languages usually takes a couple months (once we have fixed the process).
>
> I'm absolutely in favor of a public beta, well publicized and clearly
> marked as beta (with its own splash screen etc). This is not the point.
> Point is, if you want something out in 2017 then English+kid languages
> will be enough, and please call it Alpha or Beta-1 or something that
> makes it clear that there will have to be another Beta in a few months
> with working localized versions.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
------------------------------------------
MzK
"Don't you know that it's worth
every treasure on earth
To be young at heart."
-- song, "Young at Heart"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 01/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
> Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
> and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
> pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
Someone here is forgetting that the biggest chunk of work for 4.2.0 is
with localization. We need to fix the code -> Pootle -> code process and
this won't be trivial at all since we have scarce documentation, little
knowledge and a half-broken situation in Pootle when the last import was
done at some unspecified time. It is not impossible of course, but it
does need some serious work.
So you can provide all the builds you wish, but I would expect that most
of them display localization issues and a localization cycle in 40+
languages usually takes a couple months (once we have fixed the process).
I'm absolutely in favor of a public beta, well publicized and clearly
marked as beta (with its own splash screen etc). This is not the point.
Point is, if you want something out in 2017 then English+kid languages
will be enough, and please call it Alpha or Beta-1 or something that
makes it clear that there will have to be another Beta in a few months
with working localized versions.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I see that Pat has committed the security patches to trunk, which is fantastic!
Maybe we should take the next few business days and go thru Bugz
and see what, if anything, would be low-risk patches to trunk and
pencil in, say, Dec 7th as a "code freeze" date for builds...
I can provide builds for all 4 platforms.
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
>
> Regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>
>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>
>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>
>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>
>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## Apache OpenOffice.org
> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
> ## Debian Developer
> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
> ## PGP encryption welcome
> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.
Hello
I like this idea, too. it makes it visible that we aren't dead.
Regards
Mechtilde
Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899 39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Jim -
Works and fixes both 4.1.4 bugs on both 10.7.5 and 10.12.6.
Seems to require Java 6 for Base to work on 10.7.5.
Regards,
Dave
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>
> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
>
> But these are dmg's not installers.
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>
>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>
>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
>> chance to test it.
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>
>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>
>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 14:44 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>
>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>
>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>> naming/graphics:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>
>>
>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>> filenames for the installation files.
>
> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
oha, the last beta is bloody long ago that I've forgotten that this
build target already exists. ;-)
Marcus
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>>>>
>>>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/
>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
>>>>
>>>> But these are dmg's not installers.
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias
>>>>> Seidel<ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and
>>>>> had no
>>>>> chance to test it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
>>>>>> builds available
>>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together
>>>>>>>> but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what
>>>>>>>> does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I
>>>>>>>> think that this would be an advantage for the project and might
>>>>>>>> serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
>>>>>>> advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to
>>>>>>> make it visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
>>>>>>> of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing
>>>>>>> quality towards the final release build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
>>>>>>> I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to
>>>>>>> our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which
>>>>>>> nobody wants to handle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.
This is my list (only Windows):
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/aoo-build-pack-beta.lst
>
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
>> according to:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
>>
>> Don't know if there is a better way...
>>
>> Maybe you can see more in:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>>>
>>> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>>
>>> Like this?
>>>
>>> build openofficebeta --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>>
>>> Or this?
>>>
>>> build --all openofficebeta -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>>
>>> Or here?
>>>
>>> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n> openofficebeta
>>>
>>> None seem to work :(
>>>
>>> =============
>>> Building module solenv
>>> =============
>>>
>>> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>>>
>>> dmake: Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>>>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>>>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>>>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>>>>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>>>>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>>>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>>>>>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>>>> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>>>>
>>>> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Thx... Look like packager-list is the easiest way.
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
> according to:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
>
> Don't know if there is a better way...
>
> Maybe you can see more in:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>>
>> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>
>> Like this?
>>
>> build openofficebeta --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>
>> Or this?
>>
>> build --all openofficebeta -P<m> -- -P<n>
>>
>> Or here?
>>
>> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n> openofficebeta
>>
>> None seem to work :(
>>
>> =============
>> Building module solenv
>> =============
>>
>> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>>
>> dmake: Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>>>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>>>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>>>>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>>>>
>>>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>>> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>>>
>>> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
I use "--with-packager-list=" in configure and define a pack list
according to:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/pack.lst
Don't know if there is a better way...
Maybe you can see more in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/util/makefile.mk
Regards, Matthias
Am 02.12.2017 um 15:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
>
> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>
> Like this?
>
> build openofficebeta --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
>
> Or this?
>
> build --all openofficebeta -P<m> -- -P<n>
>
> Or here?
>
> build --all -P<m> -- -P<n> openofficebeta
>
> None seem to work :(
>
> =============
> Building module solenv
> =============
>
> Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
>
> dmake: Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
>
>
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>>>
>>>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>>>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>>>
>>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>>
>> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
OK, so where do we specify that? Assuming:
build --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
Like this?
build openofficebeta --all -P<m> -- -P<n>
Or this?
build --all openofficebeta -P<m> -- -P<n>
Or here?
build --all -P<m> -- -P<n> openofficebeta
None seem to work :(
=============
Building module solenv
=============
Entering /Users/jim/src/asf/AOO420/main/solenv
dmake: Error: -- Don't know how to make `openofficebeta'
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>>
>>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>>
>> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
>
> I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
>
> We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 15:16 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>
>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>
>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
>> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>>
> Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
I stumbled upon the beta graphics by accident.
We even have a "Dev" target... ;-)
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>
>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>
>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>> naming/graphics:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>
>>
>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>> filenames for the installation files.
>
> That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
> (sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
>
Wow. I had no idea that existed :)
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>
>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>
>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>> naming/graphics:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>
>
> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
> filenames for the installation files.
That is all handled by building for target "openofficebeta"
(sdkoobeta/ooobetalanguagepack).
I am just uploading a fresh Beta build for Windows:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/
Regards, Matthias
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/
>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
>>>
>>> But these are dmg's not installers.
>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias
>>>> Seidel<ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and
>>>> had no
>>>> chance to test it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev
>>>>> builds available
>>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/
>>>>> <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together
>>>>>>> but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what
>>>>>>> does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I
>>>>>>> think that this would be an advantage for the project and might
>>>>>>> serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test
>>>>>> phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some
>>>>>> advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to
>>>>>> make it visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds
>>>>>> of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing
>>>>>> quality towards the final release build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-)
>>>>>> I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to
>>>>>> our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which
>>>>>> nobody wants to handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
I agree with the flow in the second paragraph.
As an additional note, betas are not releases, and will be described as
being experimental. We can make up any process we like for deciding to
make one available to beta testers.
When we think we have a production-ready beta, and build a release
candidate derived from it, we have to follow the Apache release vote
process, including at least three PMC members doing builds on machines
we control etc.
On 12/3/2017 1:25 PM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
>
> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>
> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>
>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>> not what we had voted for.
>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>> filenames.
>>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 04/12/2017 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then
> release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800,
> 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6.
> Is that BUILD number now 9803?
This is an interesting scenario. The way it has worked so far are:
1. Only one development line is active.
2. For any stable release, the build number is higher than the previous
release.
3. The update system, based on your version (not build number), tells
you the build number and the URL of the latest available version. I am
fairly sure -but can't double-check now- that if the reported build
number is higher than the build number of the version you are currently
using, the update is triggered (so you see the "Updates available"
notification).
Now, can it work if we break assumption 1?
We are not interested in update URLs for Beta releases.
Having to release, say, a 4.1.6 when we already have 4.2.0-RC1 out is
really an edge case. Still, if this happens, I would:
- Just update the build number as you suggest
- Pay attention to the update feeds to avoid that feeds for 4.2.0 report
the existence of 4.1.6.
This would need a lot of care and future maintenance though, so my best
advice is: just keep supporting one development line and once we release
4.2.0-RC1 don't look back. At that point, don't release any 4.1.x
releases any longer.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Pedro Lino <pe...@mailbox.org>.
Hi Jim, all
> I do have a question about the BUILD number...
>
> Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then
> release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800,
> 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6.
> Is that BUILD number now 9803?
>
Wouldn't it be possible for the Build number to make some sense?
It would be much easier if build number was related to the actual version? How about Build 41510 for 4.1.5 RC1, 41520 for RC2, etc? To make sure the build is greater than 9800 I added a 5th digit that could even be used for something else...
This applies also to other version numbers in files
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126603
Just my 2 (non-dev) cents
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 04.12.2017 um 13:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Good to know! Thx.
>
> I do have a question about the BUILD number...
>
> Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then
> release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800,
> 9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6.
> Is that BUILD number now 9803?
in the past we have increased the build ID with every build that was
done; regardless if it was successful at the end or which branch was
build. I was a kind of total general consecutive number.
Of course we can change this behavior in a way that is better suited for
us nowadays.
Marcus
>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
>>> Agreed... Right now we have:
>>> RSCVERSION=420
>>> RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
>>> BUILD=9800
>>> LAST_MINOR=m1
>>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>>> We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
>>> messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
>>> something like
>>> RSCVERSION=420
>>> RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
>>> BUILD=9800
>>> LAST_MINOR=b1
>>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>>> for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.
>>
>> at least the download scripting is knowing a beta release and is prepared. *)
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> // Beta Release: General properties.
>> DL_BETA.VERSION = "4.2.0-Beta1";
>> DL_BETA.NAME = "4.2.0 Beta1";
>> DL_BETA.MILESTONE = "AOO420m1";
>> DL_BETA.BUILD = "1234";
>> DL_BETA.SVN_REV = "r1234567";
>> DL_BETA.REL_DATE = "2017-Dec-XX";
>>
>> So, a typical filename could be:
>> Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0-Beta1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz
>>
>> *)
>> At least the scriping has parts to process to handle special steps and areas fot a beta release. However, of course it need to be tested and likely to be adapted. But don't worry I will take care ot this.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
>>>> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
>>>> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>>>>
>>>> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>>>>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>>>>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>>>>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>>>>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>>>>> not what we had voted for.
>>>>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>>>>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>>>>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>>>>> filenames.
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>>>>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>>>>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>>>>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Good to know! Thx.
I do have a question about the BUILD number...
Say we release 4.1.5 and that build number is 9799. We then
release start doing betas and RCs for 4.2.0 and use 9800,
9801 and 9802. We then find out we need to release a 4.1.6.
Is that BUILD number now 9803?
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
>> Agreed... Right now we have:
>> RSCVERSION=420
>> RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
>> BUILD=9800
>> LAST_MINOR=m1
>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>> We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
>> messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
>> something like
>> RSCVERSION=420
>> RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
>> BUILD=9800
>> LAST_MINOR=b1
>> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>> for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.
>
> at least the download scripting is knowing a beta release and is prepared. *)
>
> Example:
>
> // Beta Release: General properties.
> DL_BETA.VERSION = "4.2.0-Beta1";
> DL_BETA.NAME = "4.2.0 Beta1";
> DL_BETA.MILESTONE = "AOO420m1";
> DL_BETA.BUILD = "1234";
> DL_BETA.SVN_REV = "r1234567";
> DL_BETA.REL_DATE = "2017-Dec-XX";
>
> So, a typical filename could be:
> Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0-Beta1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz
>
> *)
> At least the scriping has parts to process to handle special steps and areas fot a beta release. However, of course it need to be tested and likely to be adapted. But don't worry I will take care ot this.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
>>> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
>>> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>>>
>>> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>>>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>>>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>>>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>>>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>>>> not what we had voted for.
>>>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>>>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>>>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>>>> filenames.
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>>>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>>>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>>>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03.12.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
>
> Agreed... Right now we have:
>
> RSCVERSION=420
> RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
> BUILD=9800
> LAST_MINOR=m1
> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>
> We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
> messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
> something like
>
> RSCVERSION=420
> RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
> BUILD=9800
> LAST_MINOR=b1
> SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
>
> for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.
at least the download scripting is knowing a beta release and is
prepared. *)
Example:
// Beta Release: General properties.
DL_BETA.VERSION = "4.2.0-Beta1";
DL_BETA.NAME = "4.2.0 Beta1";
DL_BETA.MILESTONE = "AOO420m1";
DL_BETA.BUILD = "1234";
DL_BETA.SVN_REV = "r1234567";
DL_BETA.REL_DATE = "2017-Dec-XX";
So, a typical filename could be:
Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0-Beta1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz
*)
At least the scriping has parts to process to handle special steps and
areas fot a beta release. However, of course it need to be tested and
likely to be adapted. But don't worry I will take care ot this.
Marcus
>> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
>> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
>> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>>
>> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>>
>> All the best
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>>> not what we had voted for.
>>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>>> filenames.
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
Agreed... Right now we have:
RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420m1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=m1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
We could bump BUILD and LAST_MINOR for each Beta, which
messes up our release numbering, or maybe we use
something like
RSCVERSION=420
RSCREVISION=420b1(Build:9800)
BUILD=9800
LAST_MINOR=b1
SOURCEVERSION=AOO420
for betas and then switch back to 'm1.. m2...' for the RCs.
>
> If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
> The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
> When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
>
> By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>> 4.2.0RC1
>>>>>
>>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>> which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>> RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>> not what we had voted for.
>>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>> maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>> just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>> filenames.
>>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>> final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>> wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>> and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
How do we then distinguish one beta build from another? By Build number? We need to track build versions.
If the vote is the only bad things we could use following flow:
The last voted RC does not have to be the last beta RC. We have special beta splash screens. Maybe an warning in about.
When the quality of the release is production ready we close the beta, remove all beta specials and build a last production version and that will be voted on.
By this we have simple names, every one can follow, plus we do not break our work process.
All the best
Peter
Am 3. Dezember 2017 18:40:23 MEZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>
>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>4.2.0RC1
>>>>
>>>> If this does not break something of course.
>>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC
>which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a
>RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is
>not what we had voted for.
>>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need
>maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's
>just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct
>filenames.
>>> Marcus
>>
>> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
>final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
>wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>>
>
>FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
>and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1
>>>
>>> If this does not break something of course.
>> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in names and graphics is not what we want.
>> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not what we had voted for.
>> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a new upload with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.
>> Marcus
>
> I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
>
FWIW, I agree. This part of the process works well enough, I think,
and any "improvements" are likely not worth the risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 12/3/2017 6:50 AM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC
>> for for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be
>> 4.2.0RC1
>>
>> If this does not break something of course.
>
> I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which
> get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in
> names and graphics is not what we want.
>
> And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not
> what we had voted for.
>
> The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe
> just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a
> new upload with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.
>
> Marcus
I am opposed even to changing file names. Anything we do between the
final testing and uploading to SourceForge is a risk of something going
wrong with the process at a point where it can affect millions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03.12.2017 um 11:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for
> for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1
>
> If this does not break something of course.
I think this wouldn't be suitable. As soon as we have the last RC which
get approved, it is automatically the final release build. But a RC in
names and graphics is not what we want.
And doing a new build without the RC stuff cannot be done as it is not
what we had voted for.
The max we could do is to use RC in the filenames. Then we need maybe
just a rename and we have the final build. In the worst case it's just a
new upload with the same binary files but then with correct filenames.
Marcus
> On 03.12.2017 10:14, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de
>>>> <ma...@wtnet.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the results on macOS:
>>
>> that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
>> should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash
>> screen.
>>
>> Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Peter Kovacs <Pe...@Apache.org>.
I would put Beta into the Splash screen, but Release I would use RC for
for Release Candidate plus a number. So the first version would be 4.2.0RC1
If this does not break something of course.
All the best
Peter
On 03.12.2017 10:14, Marcus wrote:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de
>>> <ma...@wtnet.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>
>>>
>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>
>>
>> Here are the results on macOS:
>
> that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
> should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash
> screen.
>
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 03.12.2017 um 10:14 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de
>>> <ma...@wtnet.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>>> naming/graphics:
>>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>>>
>>>
>>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>>> filenames for the installation files.
>>>
>>
>> Here are the results on macOS:
>
> that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
> should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash screen.
These are the original graphics from 2014...
Technically seen there is no way to put the "beta" behind the product name:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/default_images/framework/res/beta/backing.png
But I am working on that for a while and I would like to propose a
"redesign" of the Start Center:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127158#c15
Of course this would include a nicer version for beta builds.
Regards, Matthias
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus <marcus.mail@wtnet.de
>> <ma...@wtnet.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't
>>> know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
>>> naming/graphics:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>>
>> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
>> should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
>> filenames for the installation files.
>>
>
> Here are the results on macOS:
that looks great. On the start center it's a bit different. "beta"
should be aligned with the productname/version like for the splash screen.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Dec 2, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate naming/graphics:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
>
> oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different filenames for the installation files.
>
Here are the results on macOS:
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 02.12.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
> where this icon set is visible... ;-)
>
> Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
>
> But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
> naming/graphics:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
oh yes, good hint. IMHO the splash screen and start center graphic
should show clearly that this is a beta release. Plus different
filenames for the installation files.
Marcus
> Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>>
>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
>>
>> But these are dmg's not installers.
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel<ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>>
>>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>>
>>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
>>> chance to test it.
>>>
>>> Regards, Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Despite of the name it could be the icon of the dmg file? I don't know
where this icon set is visible... ;-)
Apart from that: +1 for a public beta.
But we should build "real" beta builds, with the appropriate
naming/graphics:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Beta/About%20OpenOffice%20Beta%204.2.0.png
Regards, Matthias
Am 01.12.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
>
> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
>
> But these are dmg's not installers.
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>>
>> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>>
>> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
>> chance to test it.
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>>
>>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>>
>>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
My latest 4.2.0-dev builds are available at
http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/AOO-4.2.0-dev-r1816768/>
But these are dmg's not installers.
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
>
> I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
>
> I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
> chance to test it.
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
>
> Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
>> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>>
>>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>>
>>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>>
>>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public Beta for 4.2
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Jim,
Did you have the opportunity to install 4.2.0 on macOS?
I would be interested if the new icon does show up:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/setup_native/source/mac/ooo3_installer.icns
I created it on Windows with a program called "iConvertIcons" and had no
chance to test it.
Regards, Matthias
Am 01.12.2017 um 03:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I like it. I already have Linux, Windows and macOS 4.2.0-dev builds available
> (http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ <http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/>) for some langs
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 30.11.2017 um 21:26 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> In light of our current situation with getting builds together but not having a lot of people doing more than simple QA what does the team think about releasing a Public Beta for 4.2.0? I think that this would be an advantage for the project and might serve to bring in more of the community as QA volunteers.
>> I thought it's without discussion that we need a (long) beta test phase for 4.2.0. So, yes for your proposal.
>>
>> We can create a new entry on the download webpage, some advertising areas on the other webpages, and other fine things to make it visible.
>>
>> And - also this should be clear already - we need several builds of 4.2.0 with further included bugfixes; to show an increasing quality towards the final release build.
>>
>> For me the real question is " *When* do we start the beta? ". ;-) I would like to have a specific level of quality that we give to our users. Otherwise we will get spammed by bug reports which nobody wants to handle.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>