You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2012/04/28 18:32:50 UTC
After AOO 3.4?
I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
able to speak confidently about a few things:
1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
A) Add some additional translations
B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
-Rob
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>
> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>
> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>
> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>
> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>
> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>
> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
>
> A) Add some additional translations
>
> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
>
> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
>
OK. I've added a page to the wiki for AOO 3.4.1 tasks:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Feature+Planning
So far I only have the Finnish translation on the list. But feel free
to add any other must-have items for this maintenance release. Maybe
some BZ issues that we should fix? Other translations that will be
ready soon?
I'm suggesting a July release timeframe. I don't think we can do it
much sooner. We could take longer, of course, but I think we want to
establish a healthy heartbeat for the project of a release-per-quarter
or similar. This is good for the project as well as the users.
-Rob
> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
>
> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
>
> -Rob
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hello All,
>From a UX perspective, we need a story about how people use our product in
the context of their lives. Features lists are good for planning, but alone
aren't enough to understand how we will deliver a compelling offering that
helps people do the stuff they want to get done.
Who are our target users, what is the value we offer each?
Thoughts?
Kevin
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Zhe Liu <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In addition, QA site is too old and need updated.
>
> 2012/5/2 Yan Ji <ya...@gmail.com>:
> > From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and
> process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon
> for all tester in this project.
> >
> > Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> >> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> >> able to speak confidently about a few things:
> >>
> >> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
> >>
> >> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
> released
> >>
> >> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
> >>
> >> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which
> would:
> >>
> >> A) Add some additional translations
> >>
> >> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
> >>
> >> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
> >>
> >> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> >> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> >> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> >> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> >> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
> >>
> >> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> >> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> From aliuzhe@gmail.com
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Xia Zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I plan:
- QA website update
- QA process update
- QA automation framework build up and related guide publish
- QA case management tool
- QA sample file db
I will propose all these tasks against qa mail list and call for volunteers.
Best regards,
Lily
2012/5/2 Zhe Liu <al...@gmail.com>
> In addition, QA site is too old and need updated.
>
> 2012/5/2 Yan Ji <ya...@gmail.com>:
> > From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and
> process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon
> for all tester in this project.
> >
> > Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> >> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> >> able to speak confidently about a few things:
> >>
> >> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
> >>
> >> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
> released
> >>
> >> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
> >>
> >> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which
> would:
> >>
> >> A) Add some additional translations
> >>
> >> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
> >>
> >> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
> >>
> >> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> >> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> >> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> >> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> >> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
> >>
> >> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> >> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> From aliuzhe@gmail.com
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Zhe Liu <al...@gmail.com>.
In addition, QA site is too old and need updated.
2012/5/2 Yan Ji <ya...@gmail.com>:
> From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon for all tester in this project.
>
> Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji
>
> On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
>> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
>> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>>
>> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>>
>> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>>
>> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>>
>> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>>
>> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>>
>> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
>>
>> A) Add some additional translations
>>
>> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
>>
>> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
>>
>> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
>> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
>> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
>> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
>> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
>>
>> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
>> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
>>
>> -Rob
>
--
Best Regards
>From aliuzhe@gmail.com
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Yan Ji <ya...@gmail.com>.
From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon for all tester in this project.
Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji
On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>
> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>
> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>
> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>
> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>
> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>
> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
>
> A) Add some additional translations
>
> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
>
> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
>
> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
>
> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
>
> -Rob
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Yong Lin Ma <ma...@gmail.com>.
Agree with having a maintenance branch for traslation and critical bug fix.
It is time to unlock the code base to allow contributors to submit
improvments for later release.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> 1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver
>> quick-turnaround releases. ...
>>
>> 2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. Almost anything
>> can go into them. ...
>>
>> 3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. These are similar to #2,
>> only more substantial.
>> Was there a similar distinction made in OOo?
>
>
> Yes, quite similar. For sure here we would need a 3.4.x branch for
> incremental updates (bugfixes only) and one for 4.0 (with a major focus on
> specific new features, say, user interface and usability).
>
> The need for other releases like 3.5, 3.6... will depend on how long it
> takes to reach 4.0. If I recall correctly, OpenOffice.org used to maintain
> one stable branch (bugfixes only, explicitly backported from trunk) and one
> main development trunk.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> 1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver
> quick-turnaround releases. ...
> 2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. Almost anything
> can go into them. ...
> 3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. These are similar to #2,
> only more substantial.
> Was there a similar distinction made in OOo?
Yes, quite similar. For sure here we would need a 3.4.x branch for
incremental updates (bugfixes only) and one for 4.0 (with a major focus
on specific new features, say, user interface and usability).
The need for other releases like 3.5, 3.6... will depend on how long it
takes to reach 4.0. If I recall correctly, OpenOffice.org used to
maintain one stable branch (bugfixes only, explicitly backported from
trunk) and one main development trunk.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by luizheli <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
The Writer can link text frames. This functionality would be greatly
appreciated if it worked also in the Draw.
Luiz Oliveira
Em 28-04-2012 21:30, Rob Weir escreveu:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hello;
>>
>>
>> On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
>>> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
>>> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>>>
>>> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>>>
>>> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
>>> released
>>>
>>> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>>>
>>> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>>>
>>> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>>
>> Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4
>> since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest
>> I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess
>> we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for "later".
>>
>> We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache
>> tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first
>> because working with other Apache projects is key for our
>> graduation. Some other components are important but involve a lot
>> of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would
>> give a hand too.
>>
>> The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX
>> support.
>>
>> Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B
>> software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey
>> just for addressbook support, is a nonsense.
>>
>> All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features.
>>
> So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a 3.4.1.
>
> Here's how I see things, based on my experience with commercial
> software development:
>
> 1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver
> quick-turnaround releases. This would be in case we receive reports
> of a security vulnerability, or a new critical bug, or maybe something
> that breaks in us due to a platform update. In other words, things we
> need to react to quickly.
>
> In order to turn around a maintenance release quickly we need to limit
> changes. We don't have betas for these releases. We might require
> code reviews. We test changes and "test around" changes, but we
> might not have a full test cycle. The documentation does not change.
>
> We might make very limited feature additions, if they can be made
> without requiring core code changes. For example, adding a new
> language is general safe, since the test effort is limited to that
> language. You cannot break existing 3.4 functionality by adding a new
> language.
>
> 2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. Almost anything
> can go into them. They might have beta release. They would have full
> test cycles. They would require all translations to be updated.
> Documentation would need to be updated as well.
>
> 3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. These are similar to #2,
> only more substantial.
>
> Was there a similar distinction made in OOo?
>
> -Rob
>
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Yong Lin Ma <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 04/29/12 23:55, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
>>> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
>>> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
>>> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
>>> lived. (I don't know for sure though).
>>>
>
> One thing here that I should've mentioned is that it's rather
> inconvenient that we will not have the symphony history. It
> would've made it much easier to merge features.
>
This can be discussed when the code is available.
>
>>> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
>>> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
>>> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
>>> and are later merged.
>>
>> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for
>> critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on
>> the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
>>
>
> Well, developing an OS is different than developing an Office
> Suite but direct commits to the stable branch in my favorite
> OSS project are prohibited except for specific cases (like if
> the code disappeared from trunk already) for good reasons.
>
> For one thing we are many committers and it's easy to lose track
> if the change was merged to the trunk so it is a good policy to
> ensure consistency in the different versions. It also keeps
> the SVN merge properties consistent. I am by no means
> a SVN expert but it's likely that using "svn merge", instead of
> "svn commit" in branches is the recommended practice.
>
> Just my $0.02,
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 04/29/12 23:55, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> ...
>>
>> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
>> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
>> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
>> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
>> lived. (I don't know for sure though).
>>
One thing here that I should've mentioned is that it's rather
inconvenient that we will not have the symphony history. It
would've made it much easier to merge features.
>> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
>> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
>> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
>> and are later merged.
> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes
> for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be
> fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
>
Well, developing an OS is different than developing an Office
Suite but direct commits to the stable branch in my favorite
OSS project are prohibited except for specific cases (like if
the code disappeared from trunk already) for good reasons.
For one thing we are many committers and it's easy to lose track
if the change was merged to the trunk so it is a good policy to
ensure consistency in the different versions. It also keeps
the SVN merge properties consistent. I am by no means
a SVN expert but it's likely that using "svn merge", instead of
"svn commit" in branches is the recommended practice.
Just my $0.02,
Pedro.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Armin Le Grand <Ar...@me.com>.
On 30.04.2012 14:35, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Juergen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[..]
>> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
>>
>
> I thought Armin ran into some performance-related issues with merging.
> Do we know what direction that was, and what we need to do to avoid
> this problem in the future?
It happened due to having a branch for aw080 before quite some header
changes and file attribute changes were made, plus some exchange and
movement of binary blobs. This should not happen with working branches
in the future as long as the changes to the source will not get extreme
(as in this case). Anyways, there are two distinct branch usages here:
(1) What I called 'work branch': Something branched from trunk, but with
the medium or long time goal to reintegrate to trunk. This makes
resyncing with trunk necessary; thus may be expensive with big changes
on trunk
(2) Release branches: These are here to 'freeze' a release and to
continue development of a bugfixed version (no features) .e.g. a 3.4.1
from a 3.4. These are from the principle not intended to be merged back
to trunk ever, thus no danger to run in performance issues here.
> -Rob
>
>
>> But we can discuss if we want code reviews for fixes going into the stable branch before they are committed.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>
>
Sincerely,
Armin
--
ALG
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
>> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
+1
> I thought Armin ran into some performance-related issues with merging.
> Do we know what direction that was, and what we need to do to avoid
> this problem in the future?
The performance problem happened when committing a branch that was
rebased to a revision which contained a massive cleanup regarding the
executable flags of the files contained in the AOO repository. To SVN
the commit almost looked like the import of a massive code base since so
many files were touched by the cleanup.
I don't think the approach to do critical fixes on the release branch
and merging them into trunk will ever trigger such a scenario as above.
Herbert
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Juergen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29. April 2012 at 21:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Sab 28/4/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > >
>> > > All in all, I think we should focus on stability and
>> > > not on features.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> What I am meaning here is that our users should not expect
>> false promises like adding an "import Visio documents
>> feature" that simply doesn't work. Of course features
>> from Symphony are considered already pretty stable.
>>
>> > So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a
>> > 3.4.1.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
>> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
>> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
>> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
>> lived. (I don't know for sure though).
>>
>> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
>> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
>> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
>> and are later merged.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
>
I thought Armin ran into some performance-related issues with merging.
Do we know what direction that was, and what we need to do to avoid
this problem in the future?
-Rob
> But we can discuss if we want code reviews for fixes going into the stable branch before they are committed.
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> Pedro.
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Sunday, 29. April 2012 at 21:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- Sab 28/4/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> ...
>
> > >
> > > All in all, I think we should focus on stability and
> > > not on features.
> > >
> >
>
>
> What I am meaning here is that our users should not expect
> false promises like adding an "import Visio documents
> feature" that simply doesn't work. Of course features
> from Symphony are considered already pretty stable.
>
> > So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a
> > 3.4.1.
> >
>
>
> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
> lived. (I don't know for sure though).
>
> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
> and are later merged.
>
>
I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
But we can discuss if we want code reviews for fixes going into the stable branch before they are committed.
Juergen
>
> Pedro.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Sab 28/4/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
...
> >
> > All in all, I think we should focus on stability and
> > not on features.
> >
>
What I am meaning here is that our users should not expect
false promises like adding an "import Visio documents
feature" that simply doesn't work. Of course features
from Symphony are considered already pretty stable.
> So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a
> 3.4.1.
>
I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
lived. (I don't know for sure though).
I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
and are later merged.
Pedro.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
>
> On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
>> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
>> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>>
>> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>>
>> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
>> released
>>
>> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>>
>> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>>
>> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>
>
> Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4
> since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest
> I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess
> we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for "later".
>
> We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache
> tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first
> because working with other Apache projects is key for our
> graduation. Some other components are important but involve a lot
> of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would
> give a hand too.
>
> The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX
> support.
>
> Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B
> software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey
> just for addressbook support, is a nonsense.
>
> All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features.
>
So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a 3.4.1.
Here's how I see things, based on my experience with commercial
software development:
1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver
quick-turnaround releases. This would be in case we receive reports
of a security vulnerability, or a new critical bug, or maybe something
that breaks in us due to a platform update. In other words, things we
need to react to quickly.
In order to turn around a maintenance release quickly we need to limit
changes. We don't have betas for these releases. We might require
code reviews. We test changes and "test around" changes, but we
might not have a full test cycle. The documentation does not change.
We might make very limited feature additions, if they can be made
without requiring core code changes. For example, adding a new
language is general safe, since the test effort is limited to that
language. You cannot break existing 3.4 functionality by adding a new
language.
2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. Almost anything
can go into them. They might have beta release. They would have full
test cycles. They would require all translations to be updated.
Documentation would need to be updated as well.
3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. These are similar to #2,
only more substantial.
Was there a similar distinction made in OOo?
-Rob
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
My IPMC vote will, as with Dave's, have nothing to do with integration with
other ASF projects. Collaboration up and downstream is very important, but
no more or less so for Apache projects. Neither does the project have to
demonstrate success in all areas of potential collaboration, only a
governance style sufficiently open to allow positive collaboration.
Ross
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Apr 28, 2012 10:39 PM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> > Hello;
> >
> > On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> >> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> >> able to speak confidently about a few things:
> >>
> >> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
> >>
> >> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
released
> >>
> >> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> >>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> >>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
> >
> > Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4
> > since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest
> > I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess
> > we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for "later".
> >
> > We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache
> > tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first
> > because working with other Apache projects is key for our
> > graduation.
>
> The amount of "Apache" product consumed will have nothing to do with my
IPMC vote. Our community diversity, IP, and release are the main criteria.
>
> > Some other components are important but involve a lot
> > of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would
> > give a hand too.
> >
> > The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX
> > support.
> >
> > Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B
> > software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey
> > just for addressbook support, is a nonsense.
>
> Category B cleanup and removal of prebuilt packages from SVN would be
good.
>
> >
> > All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features.
>
> Cleaning up the Readme, branding and NOTICE will be helpful.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Sab 28/4/12, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
...
> >
> > We also have to update some components. Anything with
> > an Apache tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene
> > comes first because working with other Apache projects
> > is key for our graduation.
>
> The amount of "Apache" product consumed will have nothing to
> do with my IPMC vote. Our community diversity, IP, and
> release are the main criteria.
>
This was poorly worded on my part. I am actually thinking
on the future of this project: it's important the build
bridges with other Apache projects and having some of
the components so outdated doesn't help. I updated
Tomcat, and FreeBSD's port uses updated apache commons
already. I didn't update Lucene because we carry a Windows
specific patch but it's in my list of TODO things,
independent of graduation.
The vast majority of the project is already "Apache"
of course.
Pedro.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>
> On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
>> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
>> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>>
>> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>>
>> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>>
>> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>>
>> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>>
>> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>
> Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4
> since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest
> I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess
> we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for "later".
>
> We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache
> tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first
> because working with other Apache projects is key for our
> graduation.
The amount of "Apache" product consumed will have nothing to do with my IPMC vote. Our community diversity, IP, and release are the main criteria.
> Some other components are important but involve a lot
> of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would
> give a hand too.
>
> The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX
> support.
>
> Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B
> software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey
> just for addressbook support, is a nonsense.
Category B cleanup and removal of prebuilt packages from SVN would be good.
>
> All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features.
Cleaning up the Readme, branding and NOTICE will be helpful.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
On 04/28/12 11:32, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>
> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>
> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>
> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>
> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>
> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
Well, we have to integrate some CWSs. I am interested in gnumake4
since it might help clean some issues in the BSD port. For the rest
I am not sure what is there or how stable it is so I would guess
we should tackle them slowly and leave most of them for "later".
We also have to update some components. Anything with an Apache
tag on it, like Apache Commons or Apache Lucene comes first
because working with other Apache projects is key for our
graduation. Some other components are important but involve a lot
of hard work: It would be really great if someone from ICU would
give a hand too.
The clang port is also rather important and would help the MacOSX
support.
Finally, I think we should continue cleaning/replacing some Category-B
software. For example, carrying an outdated version of Mozilla SeaMonkey
just for addressbook support, is a nonsense.
All in all, I think we should focus on stability and not on features.
Just my $0.02.
Pedro.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM, RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems
>
If, going forward, AOO team could design an extensible system to interface
AOO writer with different CMS systems -ie xml document defining the target
CMS url and document upload form-, I'd be a dream for me.
For instance to upload a new document to several e-pubs my approach is to
compose rich text (HTML without <head> and <body>), and then copy-paste to
a web form.
It' d be great to have a pluggable, extensive framework allowing for AOO
Writer to interface with such web based CMS systems...
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
Revolucionario
- George Orwell
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>.
Hi.
2012/5/7 Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>
> Understanding who does what with our product is very important to defining
> a product direction that resonates with our users.
>
> The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the
> wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing
> data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior
> shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
>
> Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user
> definitions.
>
Yes!
After the release (or before) we could do a search on "Whats expect from
AOO?", "His outlook", "Whats you see in the next version" and others.
So we have a base.
Best,
Albino
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Paulo de Souza Lima <pa...@varekai.org>.
2012/5/9 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
> 2012/5/9 Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>:
>
> I was thinking on a central wiki page were our "ideal users" are
> defined by "tasks" more than by apps
>
> - Technical writers (scholars, scientific researchers, journalists,
> free lance writers...)
> - Non technical writers (students doing their homework...)
> - Small business (invoices, stock databases...)
> - ...
>
> with each item being a link to a subpage where we define
>
> - ideal user profile (how he/she uses AOO)
> - problems and possible solutions
>
> What do you think? I'll try to put some ideas together later this week.
>
>
Yeap! I was thinking about something like that, but using semantic
mediawiki extension. In order to do that, it would be necessary to build an
ontology (re-define categories, create some properties, install some other
mediawiki extensions, create some predifined pages with builtin searchs,
and some other things that could be useful).
The reason for that is to make easier for users to find the information
they need wasting less time. Is anyone familiar with that technology?
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Rgds
--
Paulo de Souza Lima
Técnico em Eletrônica e Administrador
http://www.pasl.net.br
http://almalivre.wordpress.com
Curitiba - PR
Linux User #432358
Ubuntu User #28729
"Para que as pessoas conquistem a paz em suas relações, a paz espiritual e
a paz entre os povos, é preciso que antes se ganhe a batalha interna das
virtudes sobre os defeitos" - Talal Husseini - Filósofo Acropolitano
"For people to achieve peace in their relationships, spiritual peace and
the peace among people, it's necessary, earlier, to win the internal battle
between virtues and defects" - Talal Husseini - Acropolitan Philosopher
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/9 Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>:
> Paulo,
>
> I have already made a proposal to refresh the UX wiki and could use your help.
>
> Let's quickly inventory the pages, note the last update date, and categorize the content.
>
> I suspect we will want to harvest relevant content, archive outdated reference mayerial and remove irrelevant. These could be the categories.
>
> Let's create a temporary working page in UX wiki to track this refresh.
>
> With interest growing in working on our next iteration, let's try and get the clean up done as soon as possible so we can create new pages to capture our collective ideas for AOO.next.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
I was thinking on a central wiki page were our "ideal users" are
defined by "tasks" more than by apps
- Technical writers (scholars, scientific researchers, journalists,
free lance writers...)
- Non technical writers (students doing their homework...)
- Small business (invoices, stock databases...)
- ...
with each item being a link to a subpage where we define
- ideal user profile (how he/she uses AOO)
- problems and possible solutions
What do you think? I'll try to put some ideas together later this week.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.
Paulo,
I have already made a proposal to refresh the UX wiki and could use your help.
Let's quickly inventory the pages, note the last update date, and categorize the content.
I suspect we will want to harvest relevant content, archive outdated reference mayerial and remove irrelevant. These could be the categories.
Let's create a temporary working page in UX wiki to track this refresh.
With interest growing in working on our next iteration, let's try and get the clean up done as soon as possible so we can create new pages to capture our collective ideas for AOO.next.
Regards,
Kevin
On May 9, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Paulo de Souza Lima <pa...@varekai.org> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to help on this task also.
>
> In fact, I've been "fooling around" the wiki and there are a bunch of
> outdated information and some of them could be "recycled", others simply
> deleted, some of them could be updated. I was wondering if there is someone
> taking care of this issue. Case not, I would like to help on that too.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> 2012/5/8 Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>
>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon.oo@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Understanding who does what with our product is very important to
>> defining
>>> a product direction that resonates with our users.
>>>
>>> The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the
>>> wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing
>>> data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior
>>> shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
>>>
>>> Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user
>>> definitions.
>>>
>>
>> I would. User whose professional success depends on publishing to academic
>> and scientific journals is my nomination.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RGB ES wrote:
>>>>>>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research,
>> created
>>>>>>>> polls, and others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Albino
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set
>> of
>>>>>>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
>>>>>>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
>>>>>>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
>>>>>>> supplies...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using
>> OOo?
>>>>> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were
>> Windows
>>>>> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public
>> sector.
>>>>> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of
>>> date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
>>>>>>> group could be a problem for the others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to
>> work
>>>>> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or
>>> private
>>>>> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to
>> do
>>>>> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting
>>> it
>>>>> to find the developers....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> louis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]
>>>>>
>>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Ricardo
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
>>>>> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
>>>>> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
>>>>> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
>>>>> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
>>>>> conclusions: that's all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
>>>>> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
>>>>> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
>>>>> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
>>>>> be able to find solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Ricardo
>>>>>
>>>> Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we
>> already
>>>> have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
>>>> Louis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo de Souza Lima
> Técnico em Eletrônica e Administrador
> http://www.pasl.net.br
> http://almalivre.wordpress.com
> Curitiba - PR
> Linux User #432358
> Ubuntu User #28729
>
> "Para que as pessoas conquistem a paz em suas relações, a paz espiritual e
> a paz entre os povos, é preciso que antes se ganhe a batalha interna das
> virtudes sobre os defeitos" - Talal Husseini - Filósofo Acropolitano
>
> "For people to achieve peace in their relationships, spiritual peace and
> the peace among people, it's necessary, earlier, to win the internal battle
> between virtues and defects" - Talal Husseini - Acropolitan Philosopher
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Paulo de Souza Lima <pa...@varekai.org>.
Hi.
I would like to help on this task also.
In fact, I've been "fooling around" the wiki and there are a bunch of
outdated information and some of them could be "recycled", others simply
deleted, some of them could be updated. I was wondering if there is someone
taking care of this issue. Case not, I would like to help on that too.
Regards.
2012/5/8 Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon.oo@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Understanding who does what with our product is very important to
> defining
> > a product direction that resonates with our users.
> >
> > The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the
> > wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing
> > data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior
> > shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
> >
> > Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user
> > definitions.
> >
>
> I would. User whose professional success depends on publishing to academic
> and scientific journals is my nomination.
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> RGB ES wrote:
> > >>>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> > >>>>> Hi.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research,
> created
> > >>>>> polls, and others.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> Albino
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set
> of
> > >>>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> > >>>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
> > >>>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
> > >>>> supplies...
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using
> OOo?
> > >> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were
> Windows
> > >> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public
> sector.
> > >> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of
> > date.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
> > >>>> group could be a problem for the others.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to
> work
> > >> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or
> > private
> > >> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to
> do
> > >> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting
> > it
> > >> to find the developers....
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> louis
> > >>>
> > >>> [0]
> > >>
> >
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards
> > >>>> Ricardo
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
> > >> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
> > >> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
> > >> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
> > >> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
> > >> conclusions: that's all.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
> > >> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
> > >> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
> > >> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
> > >> be able to find solutions.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Ricardo
> > >>
> > > Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we
> already
> > > have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
> > > Louis
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from Gmail Mobile
> >
>
--
Paulo de Souza Lima
Técnico em Eletrônica e Administrador
http://www.pasl.net.br
http://almalivre.wordpress.com
Curitiba - PR
Linux User #432358
Ubuntu User #28729
"Para que as pessoas conquistem a paz em suas relações, a paz espiritual e
a paz entre os povos, é preciso que antes se ganhe a batalha interna das
virtudes sobre os defeitos" - Talal Husseini - Filósofo Acropolitano
"For people to achieve peace in their relationships, spiritual peace and
the peace among people, it's necessary, earlier, to win the internal battle
between virtues and defects" - Talal Husseini - Acropolitan Philosopher
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.
Don,
Exactly what we need - who doing what.
At this point there are no wrong answers and a broad inventory of users types and goals is how we begin.
UX is working to clean up the wiki and we create a location to consolidate our user roles and libraries in the upcoming days.
In the interim, perhaps you could capture a few sentences that describes what is important to an academic user, and what the user wants to accomplish in AOO.
Regards,
Kevin
On May 9, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Understanding who does what with our product is very important to defining
>> a product direction that resonates with our users.
>>
>> The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the
>> wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing
>> data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior
>> shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
>>
>> Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user
>> definitions.
>>
>
> I would. User whose professional success depends on publishing to academic
> and scientific journals is my nomination.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> RGB ES wrote:
>>>>>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
>>>>>>> polls, and others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Albino
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
>>>>>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
>>>>>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
>>>>>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
>>>>>> supplies...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo?
>>>> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows
>>>> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector.
>>>> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of
>> date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
>>>>>> group could be a problem for the others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work
>>>> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or
>> private
>>>> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do
>>>> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting
>> it
>>>> to find the developers....
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> louis
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]
>>>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Ricardo
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
>>>> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
>>>> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
>>>> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
>>>> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
>>>> conclusions: that's all.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
>>>> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
>>>> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
>>>> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
>>>> be able to find solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ricardo
>>>>
>>> Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we already
>>> have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Understanding who does what with our product is very important to defining
> a product direction that resonates with our users.
>
> The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the
> wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing
> data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior
> shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
>
> Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user
> definitions.
>
I would. User whose professional success depends on publishing to academic
and scientific journals is my nomination.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On May 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
> >
> >> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> RGB ES wrote:
> >>>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> >>>>> Hi.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
> >>>>> polls, and others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Albino
> >>>>
> >>>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
> >>>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> >>>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
> >>>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
> >>>> supplies...
> >>>
> >>> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo?
> >> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows
> >> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector.
> >> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of
> date.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
> >>>> group could be a problem for the others.
> >>>
> >>> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work
> >> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or
> private
> >> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do
> >> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting
> it
> >> to find the developers....
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> louis
> >>>
> >>> [0]
> >>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Ricardo
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
> >> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
> >> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
> >> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
> >> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
> >> conclusions: that's all.
> >>
> >> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
> >> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
> >> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
> >> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
> >> be able to find solutions.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ricardo
> >>
> > Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we already
> > have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
> > Louis
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/8 Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>:
> Understanding who does what with our product is very important to defining a product direction that resonates with our users.
>
> The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
>
> Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user definitions.
>
Sure! On the next days I'll try to put my ideas together.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.
Understanding who does what with our product is very important to defining a product direction that resonates with our users.
The user experience team is about to refresh the UX work products on the wiki. An updated set of user roles/personas is our first step. Existing data can get us started, then we need to incorporate recent behavior shifts, including integrated social and mobile.
Albino, Louis, Ricardo, would you like to contribute to these user definitions.
Regards,
Kevin
On May 8, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
>
>> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> RGB ES wrote:
>>>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
>>>>> polls, and others.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Albino
>>>>
>>>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
>>>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
>>>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
>>>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
>>>> supplies...
>>>
>>> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo?
>> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows
>> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector.
>> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of date.
>>>
>>>
>>>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
>>>> group could be a problem for the others.
>>>
>>> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work
>> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or private
>> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do
>> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting it
>> to find the developers....
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> louis
>>>
>>> [0]
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ricardo
>>
>> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
>> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
>> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
>> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
>> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
>> conclusions: that's all.
>>
>> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
>> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
>> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
>> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
>> be able to find solutions.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>>
> Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we already
> have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
> Louis
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
On Monday, 7 May 2012, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > RGB ES wrote:
> >> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <biasuttin@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> >>> Hi.
> >>>
> >>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
> >>> polls, and others.
> >>>
> >>> We need to get statistics AOO.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Albino
> >>
> >> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
> >> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> >> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
> >> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
> >> supplies...
> >
> > I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo?
> Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows
> users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector.
> Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of date.
> >
> >
> >> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
> >> group could be a problem for the others.
> >
> > I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work
> with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or private
> needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do
> that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting it
> to find the developers....
> >
> >>
> >
> > louis
> >
> > [0]
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ricardo
>
> Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
> anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
> professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
> ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
> considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
> conclusions: that's all.
>
> Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
> before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
> need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
> "ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
> be able to find solutions.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Well, as a historian I quite agree with you. My point was that we already
have a lot of data, as that URL hints.
Louis
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/8 Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> RGB ES wrote:
>> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
>>> polls, and others.
>>>
>>> We need to get statistics AOO.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Albino
>>
>> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
>> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
>> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
>> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
>> supplies...
>
> I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo? Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector. Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of date.
>
>
>> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
>> group could be a problem for the others.
>
> I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or private needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting it to find the developers....
>
>>
>
> louis
>
> [0] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
Sorry, but I cannot understand your question. I'm not dismissing
anything. I just commented that a home user is not the same than a
professional writer, and that both groups have different needs that
ask for different solutions. Building usage statistics without
considering the differences between users can lead to wrong
conclusions: that's all.
Maybe is for my professional background, but as physicists I know that
before doing research (and analysing user statistics is research) you
need a "model" of what you are looking for: on this case, a set of
"ideal users" with a lists of needs and problems. Only then you will
be able to find solutions.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi.
>>
>> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
>> polls, and others.
>>
>> We need to get statistics AOO.
>>
>> Best,
>> Albino
>
> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
> supplies...
I'm curious... are you dismissing the vast numbers who were using OOo? Briefly, more than 95 percent of downloads from the mirrors were Windows users. But major deployments were almost entirely in the public sector. Some of the more obvious were listed here [0], but the page is out of date.
> All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
> group could be a problem for the others.
I think that, as was suggested, an effective modus operandi is to work with the NL groups. For instance, there might be public sector or private needs for accessibility features. We here may not have the people to do that but we (an extended we at this point) can work with those wanting it to find the developers....
>
louis
[0] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>.
Hi.
2012/5/5 RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>
> 2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi.
> >
> > We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
> > polls, and others.
> >
> > We need to get statistics AOO.
> >
> > Best,
> > Albino
>
> Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
> "ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
> independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
> companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
> supplies...
>
>
Yes.
Replie "We have to focus on end users [...]" :)
Best,
Albino
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/5/5 Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>:
> Hi.
>
> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
> polls, and others.
>
> We need to get statistics AOO.
>
> Best,
> Albino
Before that, we need to define who our end users are. We need a set of
"ideal users" with clear needs: students who do their homework,
independent writers that use on-line publishing systems, small
companies that need to create an invoice or maintain a database of
supplies...
All those groups have different needs, and the right answer for one
group could be a problem for the others.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Clovis Tristão <tc...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
> polls, and others.
>
> We need to get statistics AOO.
>
> Best,
> Albino
>
--
Clóvis Tristão
Net Admin
Home Phone: 55 (19) 3296-4057 / Mobile Phone: 55 (19) 9117-3116
MSN: clovis_tristao33@hotmail.com / Skype: tclovis / GTalk:
tclovis@gmail.com
Facebook: clovis.tristao / Twitter: @tclovis / Identi.ca: tclovis
-------------------;~)----
Be Cool, use GNU/Linux
----------------------------------------
LibreOffice.org --> http://libreoffice.org/
Escritório Livre.org --> http://www.escritoriolivre.org/
LibreOffice.org Brasil --> http://pt-br.libreoffice.org/
Revista LibreOffice Brasil -->
http://pt-br.libreoffice.org/projetos/revista/
Revista Espírito Livre --> http://www.revista.espiritolivre.org/
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@gmail.com>.
Hi.
We have to focus on end users, and seek feedback to research, created
polls, and others.
We need to get statistics AOO.
Best,
Albino
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
+1 ... With some questions:
(1) For 3.4.1
I remember some showstopper candidates early this year that were moved out
of 3.4 finally. I think they should be the candidate of 3.4.1. But I don't
know how we should process... Should we check the query e.g.
All340CriticalOpening and take the resultset as a base? Or just call for
the input in 3.4.1 project wiki from blank?
(2) For 3.5
After Symphony code contribution, I think we may consider some enhancement
from Symphony that is important, being able to migrate quickly and no UI
impact. e.g. some reliability and fidelity improvement.
(3) For 4.0
It may take long time for the formal release. While I hope we can have
milestone builds with accumulated features and relatively stable quality to
recommend regularly (e.g. monthly?). It is a kind of Agile practice. Of
course, it will be better if those milestones will be formal releases as
3.5, 3.6...
Just my thought...
- Simon
2012/4/30 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>
>
> On 04/29/2012 07:16 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > Am 04/28/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> >> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> >> able to speak confidently about a few things:
> >>
> >> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
> >>
> >> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
> >> released
> >>
> >> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >>
> >> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
> >>
> >>
> >> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
> >>
> >> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which
> would:
> >>
> >> A) Add some additional translations
> >>
> >> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
> >>
> >> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
> >>
> >> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> >> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> >> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> >> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> >> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
> >
> > If I can make a wish then it would be the following:
> >
> > In the 3.4 branch we should go on with fixing more bugs and integrate
> > new/improved localizations.
> >
> > Then we can name it AOO 3.4.1. Release would be as soon as we can agree
> > that the needed bugs are fixed and the then supported languages are done.
> >
> > In parallel on trunk we can do more new things like integrate more
> > (feature) CWSs from the old project, cleanup more license things, push
> > the gbuild transition etc.
> >
> > At the end it would be an AOO 3.5.0. Release could be in summer time (in
> > Australia it would be winter, I guess ;-) ).
> >
> > What do others think?
>
> I concur with Marcus's analysis and observation here, as well as
> comments by Rob and Andrea. Bug fixes and additional localizations to
> port to something like 3.4.1, are a given I think. Any changes to the
> code base, library replacements etc, without providing something "new"
> in the UI should be "3.5...."
>
> New UI changes or significant new functionality, etc should go to
> "4.0..." in my opinion.
>
> This being said, I have no direct experience in naming software product
> releases, so others may have a different opinion.
>
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> >> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> >> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> And life has a funny way of helping you out
> Helping you out."
> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>
RE: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 09:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: After AOO 3.4?
[ ... ]
I concur with Marcus's analysis and observation here, as well as
comments by Rob and Andrea. Bug fixes and additional localizations to
port to something like 3.4.1, are a given I think. Any changes to the
code base, library replacements etc, without providing something "new"
in the UI should be "3.5...."
New UI changes or significant new functionality, etc should go to
"4.0..." in my opinion.
This being said, I have no direct experience in naming software product
releases, so others may have a different opinion.
>
> Marcus
>
>> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
>> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 04/29/2012 07:16 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 04/28/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
>> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
>> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>>
>> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>>
>> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is
>> released
>>
>> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>>
>>
>> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>>
>>
>> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>>
>> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
>>
>> A) Add some additional translations
>>
>> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
>>
>> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
>>
>> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
>> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
>> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
>> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
>> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
>
> If I can make a wish then it would be the following:
>
> In the 3.4 branch we should go on with fixing more bugs and integrate
> new/improved localizations.
>
> Then we can name it AOO 3.4.1. Release would be as soon as we can agree
> that the needed bugs are fixed and the then supported languages are done.
>
> In parallel on trunk we can do more new things like integrate more
> (feature) CWSs from the old project, cleanup more license things, push
> the gbuild transition etc.
>
> At the end it would be an AOO 3.5.0. Release could be in summer time (in
> Australia it would be winter, I guess ;-) ).
>
> What do others think?
I concur with Marcus's analysis and observation here, as well as
comments by Rob and Andrea. Bug fixes and additional localizations to
port to something like 3.4.1, are a given I think. Any changes to the
code base, library replacements etc, without providing something "new"
in the UI should be "3.5...."
New UI changes or significant new functionality, etc should go to
"4.0..." in my opinion.
This being said, I have no direct experience in naming software product
releases, so others may have a different opinion.
>
> Marcus
>
>> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
>> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 04/28/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO
> 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm
> able to speak confidently about a few things:
>
> 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project
>
> 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released
>
> 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
>
> 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning
>
> Beyond that, do we have anything to say?
>
> I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would:
>
> A) Add some additional translations
>
> B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4
>
> C) Uncertain if it would have new features?
>
> What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6
> weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release
> Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build
> distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out,
> plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing.
If I can make a wish then it would be the following:
In the 3.4 branch we should go on with fixing more bugs and integrate
new/improved localizations.
Then we can name it AOO 3.4.1. Release would be as soon as we can agree
that the needed bugs are fixed and the then supported languages are done.
In parallel on trunk we can do more new things like integrate more
(feature) CWSs from the old project, cleanup more license things, push
the gbuild transition etc.
At the end it would be an AOO 3.5.0. Release could be in summer time (in
Australia it would be winter, I guess ;-) ).
What do others think?
Marcus
> Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start
> collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release?