You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> on 2018/08/17 05:51:31 UTC
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <Pe...@Apache.org>:
>I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>
>do not see a chance.
>
>
>On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>> This release will fix it?
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
>>> À: "OOo Apache" <de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>
>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>
>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>> <pe...@posteo.de>:
>>>>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>>>>> failed on this.
>>>>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
>>>>> is
>>>>> conning Wednesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
>>>>> 4.1.6 I
>>>>> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>>>>> one
>>>>> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>>>>> the
>>>>> beta phase.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>>>>>> Back to the topic:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
>>>>>> described
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
>>>>>> We
>>>>> have
>>>>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
>>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>>>>>> sympathy
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer
>>>>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>>>>>> fault
>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to
>>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>> someone for
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it
>>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS:
>>>>>>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another
>>>>> ~2.5
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7.
>>>>>>>>>> Building
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>>>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it
>>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>>> back port
>>>>>>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
>>>>>> CentOS6.
>>>>>>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> newer.
>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the
>>>>>>>>> CentOS
>>>>>>>>> version we
>>>>>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a
>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>>>>>> 32-bit
>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be
>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>>>>>> impact this
>>>>>>>> will have overall though.
>>>>>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>>>>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so,
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net
>>>>> stats
>>>>>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW:
>>>>>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OS %
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> Windows 86,1165
>>>>>>> Macintosh 7,8424
>>>>>>> Unknown 4,9012
>>>>>>> Linux 1,0621
>>>>>>> Android 0,0762
>>>>>>> BSD 0,0011
>>>>>>> Solaris 0,0006
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with
>>>>>>>>>>> Ant
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No
>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those
>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our
>>>>> continued
>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pe...@Apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July.
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done
>>>>> with
>>>>>> AOO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
Hmpf I think I am banned.
I wrote an email to infra.
On 8/18/18 7:53 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I try my best.
>
> However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my
> password right or do I need to use a passkey?
>
>
> On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>>> for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer
>>> for it.
>>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>>
>> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add
>> your code signing key to
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>>
>> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
>> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
>> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
>>
>>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>>
>> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
>> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into
>> producing the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X
>> VMs for "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build
>> providers, the release is just a matter of coordination.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Peter Kovacs wrote:
> However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password
> right or do I need to use a passkey?
Password authentication is fine. It's unlikely that your user is banned:
often you will be able to reset your password at id.apache.org
The KEYS file is described in detail here:
https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
Note that it is recommended to annotate your key with something like
"(CODE SIGNING KEY)" or "(Release signing key)". If you open
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
you'll see examples.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
I try my best.
However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password
right or do I need to use a passkey?
On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>> for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for
>> it.
>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>
> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
> code signing key to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>
> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
>
>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
> the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for
> "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers,
> the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
Yes, I am up for doing the 4.1.6 Linux?CentOS and macOS builds ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 09/09/2018 Matthias Seidel wrote:
> But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
> enabled the flag at that time.
It worked now: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127712
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
On 9/10/2018 2:56 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Keith N. McKenna <
> keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>>>>>> releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6
>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
>>>>> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
>>>>>> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>>>>>> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone
>> can
>>>>>> always modify the query.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH.
>>>>> Kay;
>>>>>
>>>>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
>>>>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
>>>>> have set it as shared.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly.
>> I'll
>>>> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> <snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You
>> need
>>> to be a registered BZ user to view it.
>>>
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
>>> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
>>>
>>>
>> Kay;
>>
>> The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
>> limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
>> as being there and usable and works perfectly.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
> Keith --
> When I look at the message I originally sent with the link, the line is not
> wrapped. Could a setting with your email client be causing the
> wrapping/truncation?
>
> The query should only return 9 entries.
>
>
>
I meant the link in the message that you had fixed it.
Keith
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Keith N. McKenna <
keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
> >>>> releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6
> --
> >>>>
> >>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
> >>> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
> >>>> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
> >>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
> >>>> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone
> can
> >>>> always modify the query.
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH.
> >>> Kay;
> >>>
> >>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
> >>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
> >>> have set it as shared.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Keith
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly.
> I'll
> >> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>> <snip)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You
> need
> > to be a registered BZ user to view it.
> >
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
> > list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
> >
> >
> Kay;
>
> The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
> limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
> as being there and usable and works perfectly.
>
> Keith
>
Keith --
When I look at the message I originally sent with the link, the line is not
wrapped. Could a setting with your email client be causing the
wrapping/truncation?
The query should only return 9 entries.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Less is MORE."
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
On 9/10/2018 12:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>>>> releases.
>>>>
>>>> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
>>>>
>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
>>> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
>>>> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>>>> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
>>>> always modify the query.
>>>>
>>>> HTH.
>>> Kay;
>>>
>>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
>>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
>>> have set it as shared.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
>> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
>>
>
>>
>>> <snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>
> HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You need
> to be a registered BZ user to view it.
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
>
>
Kay;
The new link is truncated in your message and gives a list that is
limited to 500 entries. However the search know shows in the preferences
as being there and usable and works perfectly.
Keith
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
>> > releases.
>> >
>> > I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
>> >
>> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
>> list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
>> > (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>> >
>> > Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
>> > AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
>> > always modify the query.
>> >
>> > HTH.
>> Kay;
>>
>> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
>> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
>> have set it as shared.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>
> Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
> fix tomorrow and notify the list.
>
>
>> <snip)
>>
>>
>>
HI. Please try the search link again, hopefully it will work now. You need
to be a registered BZ user to view it.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&
list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Less is MORE."
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 15:43 Keith N. McKenna <ke...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
> > releases.
> >
> > I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
> >
> >
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
> > (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
> >
> > Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo
> > AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
> > always modify the query.
> >
> > HTH.
> Kay;
>
> I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
> 4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
> have set it as shared.
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
Dang! I was sure I'd done that but maybe I didn't save it correctly. I'll
fix tomorrow and notify the list.
> <snip)
>
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
<snip>
>
> I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
> releases.
>
> I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
> (I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
>
> Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to https://bz.apache.org/ooo
> AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
> always modify the query.
>
> HTH.
Kay;
I just tried tried your query and it came back as "The search named
4.1.6_blocker_requested does not exist." It does not appear that you
have set it as shared.
Regards
Keith
<snip)
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hi all --
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Matthias Seidel <matthias.seidel@hamburg.de
> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> > Okay I had a look now.
> >
> > I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
> >
> > I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
> >
> > Are these all of them?
>
> I don't know your list, can you post the issue numbers?
> Or just the filter string?
>
> >
> >
> > - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> > note the issue number. :(
> >
> >
> > Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> > still to add from the dev list?
>
> I have a lot of them, but they do not qualify as blocker.
> But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
> enabled the flag at that time.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
I had been constructing release blocker queries for some of the other
releases.
I just put together a query for the release block requests for 4.1.6 --
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=236879&namedcmd=4.1.6_blocker_requested&remaction=run
(I didn't do this for 4.1.5 but for many of the previous releases.)
Hopefully this will work once you are logged in to https://bz.apache.org/ooo
AND hopefully the same ones Peter has referenced. Of course someone can
always modify the query.
HTH.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> >> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
> >> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
> >> And then off we go, I Think.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
> >> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
> >> is moving to 4.2.0.
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
> >> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
> >>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
> >>> whether it really is one or not ;)
> >>>
> >>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
> >>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Jim,
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
> >>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
> >>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
> >>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
> >>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
> >>>> Definitely!
> >>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
> >>>>
> >>>> How to proceed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Matthias
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
> >>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Andrea,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> >>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
> >>>>>>>> How about this one:
> >>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
> >>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
> >>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> >>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
> >>> wouldn't
> >>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
> >>> understand
> >>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
> >>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
> >>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> >>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
> >>> newer
> >>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
> >>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
> >>> finally
> >>>>>> find its way into a release.
> >>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Matthias
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Andrea.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> <ma...@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
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Less is MORE."
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>
> Are these all of them?
I don't know your list, can you post the issue numbers?
Or just the filter string?
>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> still to add from the dev list?
I have a lot of them, but they do not qualify as blocker.
But I know that Andrea wanted to ask for a blocker, but we hadn't
enabled the flag at that time.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>> Definitely!
>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>
>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>> and
>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>> newer
>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>> finally
>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Thats right :)
> On Sep 15, 2018, at 4:07 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>
> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>
> At least this is my understanding...
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>>
>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>
>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>
>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>>>
>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> <ma...@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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
+1
On 9/16/18 10:21 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 16.09.2018 um 22:08 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.
>>
>> should we change milestone now too?
> I did for one issue (already committed)
> But the other one hasn't 4.1.6 in the list.
>
> @Marcus:
> Maybe you can help (again)?
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
>
>>
>> On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
>>>> release blocker?
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>
>>> According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
>>> And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>>>>>> worked them through.
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> You left two requests (from me) open...
>>>>> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>>>>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>>>>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>>>>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>>>>>>> "relman"
>>>>>>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> have sufficient rights...
>>>>>>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>>>>>>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>>>>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RM on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 16.09.2018 um 22:08 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.
>
> should we change milestone now too?
I did for one issue (already committed)
But the other one hasn't 4.1.6 in the list.
@Marcus:
Maybe you can help (again)?
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
>
>
> On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
>>> release blocker?
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>
>> According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
>> And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.
>>
>>> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>>>>> worked them through.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> You left two requests (from me) open...
>>>> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>>>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>>>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>>>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>>>>>> "relman"
>>>>>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> have sufficient rights...
>>>>>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>>>>>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
>>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>>>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> now. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RM on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
Odd they are not on my filter list. yea they are fine.
should we change milestone now too?
On 9/16/18 10:02 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
>> release blocker?
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>
> According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
> And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.
>
>> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>>>
>>>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>>>
>>>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>>>> worked them through.
>>> Thanks!
>>> You left two requests (from me) open...
>>> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>>>>> "relman"
>>>>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> have sufficient rights...
>>>>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>>>>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
>>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> RM on
>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 16.09.2018 um 21:59 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a
> release blocker?
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=74793
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
According to Marcus I could grant them myself.
And I could commit them to 4.1.6, they are really small fixes.
>
> On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>>
>>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>>
>>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>>> worked them through.
>> Thanks!
>> You left two requests (from me) open...
>> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>>>> "relman"
>>>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> have sufficient rights...
>>>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>>>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I
>>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the
>>>>>>>>>>> RM on
>>>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases, it
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <Pe...@Apache.org>.
No Idea. I have 10 issues on the list. Maybe they do not have a release
blocker?
On 9/16/18 9:56 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>>
>> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>>
>> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
>> worked them through.
> Thanks!
> You left two requests (from me) open...
> Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>>> "relman"
>>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>>
>>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>>>> have sufficient rights...
>>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>>
>>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 16.09.2018 um 11:29 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Awesome! thanks a lot.
>
> + I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
>
> And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
> worked them through.
Thanks!
You left two requests (from me) open...
Maybe because they are already fixed (in trunk)?
Regards,
Matthias
>
> On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>>
>>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>>> "relman"
>>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>>
>>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>>> have sufficient rights...
>>
>> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
>> with the correct user names. ;-)
>>
>> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many
>>>>>>>>> patches and
>>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
Awesome! thanks a lot.
+ I managed to switch my user account to the committer email, yay.
And I managed to query for the flag, and chgecked all suggestions and
worked them through.
On 9/16/18 11:12 AM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> At least this is my understanding...
>>
>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>
>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>> have sufficient rights...
>
> I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
> with the correct user names. ;-)
>
> Please check for yourself if it's working now.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>>>>>> reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>>>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 15.09.2018 um 10:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>
>> At least this is my understanding...
>
> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
> in our Bugzilla?!
>
> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
> have sufficient rights...
I've added Matthias and Peter to the "relman" group in BZ. Hopefully
with the correct user names. ;-)
Please check for yourself if it's working now.
Marcus
>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 15.09.2018 um 20:25 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I do not have those rights. Probably because my bugzilla user is an account. I tried to switch to my apache address but I failed.
> The account name is an leginee account at Google mail service.
Your account must be added to the appropriate groups. See:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
I don't have the rights, so someone else has to do it.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Am 15. September 2018 10:34:31 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> At least this is my understanding...
>> That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>> "relman"
>> in our Bugzilla?!
>>
>> I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>> have sufficient rights...
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>> reports.
>>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have
>> to
>>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>> wants
>>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>> forward.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want
>> to
>>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>> else
>>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM
>> on
>>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>> that
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>> for
>>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>> make
>>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches
>> and
>>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases,
>> it
>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>> zero-risk
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>> compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>> or a
>>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>> would
>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>>> <ma...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
I do not have those rights. Probably because my bugzilla user is an account. I tried to switch to my apache address but I failed.
The account name is an leginee account at Google mail service.
Am 15. September 2018 10:34:31 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
>> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
>> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>>
>> At least this is my understanding...
>
>That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group
>"relman"
>in our Bugzilla?!
>
>I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
>have sufficient rights...
>
>Matthias
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6
>reports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have
>to
>>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone
>wants
>>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move
>forward.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want
>to
>>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one
>else
>>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM
>on
>>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO
>that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build
>for
>>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to
>make
>>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches
>and
>>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases,
>it
>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is
>zero-risk
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new
>compiler)
>>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE,
>or a
>>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that
>would
>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>>> <ma...@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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 15.09.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
> No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
> And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
>
> At least this is my understanding...
That said, can someone please ensure that Peter is in the group "relman"
in our Bugzilla?!
I would have a look myself but as I wrote several times before I don't
have sufficient rights...
Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>>
>>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>>
>>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>>>
>>>> Are these all of them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>>> still to add from the dev list?
>>> There are more to come... ;-)
>>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>> <ma...@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
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 15.09.2018 um 07:47 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
No, you change to "+" if you think this should be in 4.1.6.
And you change to "-" if you think it shouldn't.
At least this is my understanding...
Regards,
Matthias
>
> On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Okay I had a look now.
>>>
>>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>>
>>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>>
>>> Are these all of them?
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>>> note the issue number. :(
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>>> still to add from the dev list?
>> There are more to come... ;-)
>> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>>>> newer
>>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> <ma...@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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
Okay for granting I switch from '?' to none?
On 9/14/18 7:37 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Okay I had a look now.
>>
>> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>>
>> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>>
>> Are these all of them?
>>
>>
>> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
>> note the issue number. :(
>>
>>
>> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
>> still to add from the dev list?
> There are more to come... ;-)
> If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>> All the best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>>
>>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>>> Definitely!
>>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>>
>>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>>> newer
>>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>>> finally
>>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> <ma...@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
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 09.09.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Okay I had a look now.
>
> I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
>
> I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
>
> Are these all of them?
>
>
> - The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to
> note the issue number. :(
>
>
> Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
> still to add from the dev list?
There are more to come... ;-)
If you are OK with a blocker, just grant it, so we can move forward.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
> On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to
>> add one patch concerning mailmerge.
>> And then off we go, I Think.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x
>> series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else
>> is moving to 4.2.0.
>>
>>
>> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski
>> <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>> Definitely!
>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>
>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>>> and
>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>>> understand
>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>>> newer
>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>>> finally
>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> <ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@posteo.de>.
Okay I had a look now.
I have a bit of an issue in filtering on the blocker flag.
I filtered now on the Version 4.1.6-dev and 4.1.6 and found 6 reports.
Are these all of them?
- The Patch I had in mind i did not find again. Next time I have to note
the issue number. :(
Thus I am fine with the Blockers so far. Anything that anyone wants
still to add from the dev list?
All the best
Peter
On 9/6/18 5:10 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to add one patch concerning mailmerge.
> And then off we go, I Think.
>
>
> I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else is moving to 4.2.0.
>
>
> Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>> whether it really is one or not ;)
>>
>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>> can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>> older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>> 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>> fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>> Definitely!
>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>
>>> How to proceed?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
>> <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>> wouldn't
>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>> and
>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>> understand
>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>> newer
>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>> finally
>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> <ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@posteo.de>.
I plan to have a look on the weekend, what we have now. I want to add one patch concerning mailmerge.
And then off we go, I Think.
I agree with Jim in general. I see a possibility that the 4.1.x series gets maintenance till 2020, for centOS6 while every one else is moving to 4.2.0.
Am 6. September 2018 15:25:19 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on
>whether it really is one or not ;)
>
>BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel
><ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they
>can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for
>older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make
>4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and
>fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel
><ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it
>wouldn't
>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk
>and
>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I
>understand
>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a
>newer
>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would
>finally
>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
><ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
><ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 07.09.2018 um 14:53 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I am going to hold off until we have some stuff in AOO416, other than external lib upgrades, which are different from AOO415
I just wanted to do test builds to see if it builds again after some
patches broke the build process...
No problems at the moment.
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it really is one or not ;)
>>>
>>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>> Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/
>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>>> Definitely!
>>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>>
>>>> How to proceed?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I am going to hold off until we have some stuff in AOO416, other than external lib upgrades, which are different from AOO415
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it really is one or not ;)
>>
>> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
>
> Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/
>
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
>>> Definitely!
>>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>>
>>> How to proceed?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 06.09.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it really is one or not ;)
>
> BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
Windows builds (based on r1839814) are up:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-416-Test/
>
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
>> Definitely!
>> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>>
>> How to proceed?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>
>>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>>>> find its way into a release.
>>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Anyone can propose something as a blocker... it's up to the RM on whether it really is one or not ;)
BTW: I'm ready to go w/ Linux and macOS builds!
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
>
> Definitely!
> We already have some release blocker asked for.
>
> How to proceed?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>>
>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>
>>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>> How about this one:
>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>>
>>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>>> Windows release... just an example)
>>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>>
>>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>>> find its way into a release.
>>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Jim,
Am 03.09.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
Definitely!
We already have some release blocker asked for.
How to proceed?
Regards,
Matthias
>
>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>> How about this one:
>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>>
>>> In general, release blockers should be:
>>> - important bugfixes for users
>>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>>> Windows release... just an example)
>> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>>
>> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
>> find its way into a release.
>> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
For some users, AOO 4.1.6 will be the "last" version of OO that they can use, since AOO 4.2.x will not provide some community build for older platforms (eg: CentOS5,...). As such, I think we need to make 4.1.6 as good and as stable and as useful, with as many patches and fixes, as feasible for those users.
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> How about this one:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>>
>> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
>> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
>> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
>> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
>> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>>
>> In general, release blockers should be:
>> - important bugfixes for users
>> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
>> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
>> Windows release... just an example)
>
> This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
>
> It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
> find its way into a release.
> There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
> Windows release... just an example)
This is why I didn't ask for release blocker. ;-)
It is just "nice to have" and another resolved issue that would finally
find its way into a release.
There are a lot of them, that do not qualify as "blocker"...
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 03.09.2018 um 22:37 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> How about this one:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
>> It fixes a typo in the build process.
>
> This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a
> maintenance release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't
> make sense to include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and
> (unfortunately) 4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand
> if we try to backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
My idea would be to create another flag in Bugzilla for patches that do
not qualify as "blocker" but would be "nice to have"...
Regards,
Matthias
>
> In general, release blockers should be:
> - important bugfixes for users
> - important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
> - important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
> Windows release... just an example)
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> How about this one:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
> It fixes a typo in the build process.
This one has zero impact for users and, if 4.1.6 was just a maintenance
release and we had regular 4.x major releases, it wouldn't make sense to
include fixes like this one. Still, it is zero-risk and (unfortunately)
4.2.0 is taking longer than expected, so I understand if we try to
backport some fixes to 4.1.6. No objection.
In general, release blockers should be:
- important bugfixes for users
- important build fixes (e.g., don't break with a new compiler)
- important infrastructure fixes (e.g., support newer JRE, or a newer
Windows release... just an example)
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 01.09.2018 um 12:03 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Sorry. I thought I send the answer. Yes Please.
Done!
How about this one:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126736
It fixes a typo in the build process.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Am 1. September 2018 10:07:38 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> any opinion on this one?
>> Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that
>> purpose?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in
>> adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
>>>> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another
>> time and context.
>>>> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And
>> since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I
>> think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
>>> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit
>> to
>>> 4.1.6.
>>>
>>> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>>>
>>> My first suggestion would be:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1830998
>>>
>>> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by
>> default
>>> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti
>> <pe...@apache.org>:
>>>>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>>>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>>>>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion.
>> The
>>>>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
>>>>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for
>> bugfixes,
>>>>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already
>> now.
>>>>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>>>>> comes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@posteo.de>.
Sorry. I thought I send the answer. Yes Please.
Am 1. September 2018 10:07:38 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>Hi Peter,
>
>any opinion on this one?
>Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that
>purpose?
>
>Regards,
>
> Matthias
>
>
>Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in
>adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
>>> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another
>time and context.
>>>
>>> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And
>since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I
>think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
>> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit
>to
>> 4.1.6.
>>
>> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>>
>> My first suggestion would be:
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1830998
>>
>> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by
>default
>> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti
><pe...@apache.org>:
>>>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>>>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion.
>The
>>>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
>>>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for
>bugfixes,
>>>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>>>
>>>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already
>now.
>>>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>>>> comes.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
any opinion on this one?
Or should I set the "release blocker" flag in bugzilla for that purpose?
Regards,
Matthias
Am 29.08.2018 um 18:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
>> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and context.
>>
>> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
> +1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit to
> 4.1.6.
>
> But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
>
> My first suggestion would be:
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1830998
>
> This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by default
> on Windows (like on all other platforms).
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
>>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The
>>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
>>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes,
>>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>>
>>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now.
>>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>>> comes.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 29.08.2018 um 09:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
> However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and context.
>
> I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
+1 for testing it in trunk. We should be careful about what we commit to
4.1.6.
But let's talk about the commits we want to backport from trunk.
My first suggestion would be:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1830998
This is just a small patch that installs XSLT Sample Filters by default
on Windows (like on all other platforms).
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The
>> patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
>> shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes,
>> and actually only for important bugfixes.
>>
>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now.
>> We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>> comes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@posteo.de>.
This is a configuration thing. In general I do not have an issue in adding configuration changes to bugfix releases.
However this one is 16 years old and has been requested in another time and context.
I think we should ask the community if they like it or not. And since we want to have some interaction with the community in 4.2.0, I think this is more suited in 4.2.0 release then in 4.1.6.
Am 28. August 2018 23:12:35 MESZ schrieb Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
>On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>
>I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The
>patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
>shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes,
>and actually only for important bugfixes.
>
>But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now.
>We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time
>comes.
>
>Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Jim,
Am 29.08.2018 um 13:29 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Agreed. Maybe it's a topic of discussion for 4.2.0 but not really suited for a patch release (ie: 4.1.6)
>
>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, and actually only for important bugfixes.
Our first priority now should be to make 4.1.6 buildable again.
It breaks on Windows and Linux due to patches in libxslt. See my mail
from yesterday.
That should be fixed as soon as possible.
Regards,
Matthias
>>
>> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Agreed. Maybe it's a topic of discussion for 4.2.0 but not really suited for a patch release (ie: 4.1.6)
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
>> This patch could be embedded in this release?
>
> I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes, and actually only for important bugfixes.
>
> But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now. We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 28/08/2018 FR web forum wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
> This patch could be embedded in this release?
I'm not the release manager, so this is just a personal opinion. The
patch swaps the behaviour of two keys (Backspace and Del) and thus
shouldn't be applied to a 4.1.x release since it is only for bugfixes,
and actually only for important bugfixes.
But it can be added to trunk (for the next 4.2.0 release) already now.
We may want to note it in the Release Notes for 4.2.0 when the time comes.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=9392
This patch could be embedded in this release?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 28.08.2018 um 00:05 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.
>
> Sure, no problem.
>
>> But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)
>
> Here it is:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127639
Thanks, worked like a charm!
Only one thing:
I had to manually change PREVIOUS_VERSION in openoffice.lst to 4.1.5.
>
> And its destination if of course somewhere under devtools.
Uploaded to devtools/updateVersion.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.
Sure, no problem.
> But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)
Here it is:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127639
And its destination if of course somewhere under devtools.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 27.08.2018 um 22:07 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Yes please bumb version number.
> If there is not much complication we could also update the English dictionary.
Dictionary updates are no problem and done routinely in every release.
But I have yet to find the script that updates the version number. ;-)
Regards,
Matthias
>
>
>
> Am 27. August 2018 19:18:26 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> Thanks Matthias!
>> You're welcome!
>>
>>> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>> <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>>>> Done!
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>> We should now bump up the version number.
>>
>> I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> svn copy
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>>>> "Branch
>>>>>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>>>> Yes, that should work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter Kovacs <pe...@posteo.de>.
Yes please bumb version number.
If there is not much complication we could also update the English dictionary.
Am 27. August 2018 19:18:26 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>Hi Peter,
>
>Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>> Thanks Matthias!
>
>You're welcome!
>
>>
>> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
><ma...@hamburg.de>:
>>> Done!
>>>
>>> Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>
>We should now bump up the version number.
>
>I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?
>
>Regards,
> Matthias
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>>>>
>>>>> svn copy
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>>> "Branch
>>>>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>>>>
>>>>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>>> Yes, that should work.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 27.08.2018 um 08:35 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> Thanks Matthias!
You're welcome!
>
> Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>> Done!
>>
>> Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
We should now bump up the version number.
I would like to update the English dictionary if you don't mind?
Regards,
Matthias
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>>>
>>>> svn copy
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>> "Branch
>>>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>>>
>>>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>> Yes, that should work.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
Thanks Matthias!
Am 26. August 2018 23:34:25 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>Done!
>
>Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
>
>Regards,
>
> Matthias
>
>
>Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>>
>>> svn copy
>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m
>"Branch
>>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>>
>>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>>
>> Yes, that should work.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Done!
Not sure about the script... Is it in devtools?
Regards,
Matthias
Am 26.08.2018 um 23:21 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>>
>> svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
>> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>>
>> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
>
> Yes, that should work.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
>
> svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
> off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
>
> is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
Yes, that should work.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 26.08.2018 um 22:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
>>> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
>>> script locally to update constants and other settings.
>> Is there a planned date to create the branch?
>> Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
>
> The earlier the better. Now is a good moment. Without the branch we
> can't move on; if Peter has temporary SVN issues anybody can create it
> and set it up as described above.
I could try to create the branch. Just to make sure:
svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO416/ -m "Branch
off 4.1.6 from HEAD of 4.1.5"
is enough? Or is -r HEAD needed?
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
>> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
>> script locally to update constants and other settings.
> Is there a planned date to create the branch?
> Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
The earlier the better. Now is a good moment. Without the branch we
can't move on; if Peter has temporary SVN issues anybody can create it
and set it up as described above.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
I would have done already. But the last time I had tried i could not check-in anything.
So the Idea is asap.
I wrote that I have dissifultiea to progress.
:(
Am 25. August 2018 17:33:09 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Just for better understanding:
>>> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do
>we
>>> have to branch first and then run the script?
>>
>> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
>> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
>> script locally to update constants and other settings.
>
>Is there a planned date to create the branch?
>Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
>
>Regards,
> Matthias
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 19.08.2018 um 15:13 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Just for better understanding:
>> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
>> have to branch first and then run the script?
>
> It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
> AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
> script locally to update constants and other settings.
Is there a planned date to create the branch?
Or do we need to discuss it first on dev@?
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Just for better understanding:
> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
> have to branch first and then run the script?
It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
script locally to update constants and other settings.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Andrea,
Am 18.08.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>> for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for
>> it.
>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>
> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
> code signing key to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>
> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
As soon as we have a branch AOO416 I will also switch the buildbots over.
Just for better understanding:
Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
have to branch first and then run the script?
Regards,
Matthias
>
>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
> the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for
> "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers,
> the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
code signing key to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can cherry-pick
patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have scripts to do it
automatically, so just ask in case.
> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just
one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, the
release is just a matter of coordination.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Hi Peter,
Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
Great!
If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
Regards,
Matthias
>
> Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <Pe...@Apache.org>:
>> I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>>
>> do not see a chance.
>>
>>
>> On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>>> This release will fix it?
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
>>>> À: "OOo Apache" <de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>>
>>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>>> <pe...@posteo.de>:
>>>>>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>>>>>> failed on this.
>>>>>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> conning Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after
>>>>>> 4.1.6 I
>>>>>> agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> beta phase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de>:
>>>>>>> Back to the topic:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process
>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>>>>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion).
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument
>>>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>>>>>>> sympathy
>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the
>>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer
>>>>>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for
>>>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>>>>>>> fault
>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance.
>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to
>>>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>>>> someone for
>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it
>>>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS:
>>>>>>>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another
>>>>>> ~2.5
>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7.
>>>>>>>>>>> Building
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>>>>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it
>>>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>>>> back port
>>>>>>>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
>>>>>>> CentOS6.
>>>>>>>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> newer.
>>>>>>>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the
>>>>>>>>>> CentOS
>>>>>>>>>> version we
>>>>>>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a
>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>>>>>>> 32-bit
>>>>>>>>> Linux
>>>>>>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be
>>>>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>>>>>>> impact this
>>>>>>>>> will have overall though.
>>>>>>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>>>>>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so,
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net
>>>>>> stats
>>>>>>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW:
>>>>>>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OS %
>>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>>> Windows 86,1165
>>>>>>>> Macintosh 7,8424
>>>>>>>> Unknown 4,9012
>>>>>>>> Linux 1,0621
>>>>>>>> Android 0,0762
>>>>>>>> BSD 0,0011
>>>>>>>> Solaris 0,0006
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ant
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Java 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No
>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our
>>>>>> continued
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ma...@hamburg.de>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pe...@Apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> July.
>>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> AOO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
Hi,
I submit a patch from Github:
https://github.com/apache/openoffice/commit/27c0241d4ef1b2cd62c0327e22f48381ff0ce40f.patch
Is it possible to commit in 4.1.6?
----- Mail original -----
> De: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Envoyé: Lundi 20 Août 2018 15:38:20
> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>
> A good place to start is:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6+Release+Planning
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
A good place to start is:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.5
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6+Release+Planning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A 4.1.6 Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager. Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>
Great news! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ping me. I believe that as I went thru the last few releases, I updated the wiki as I did so with additional information, etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org