You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> on 2012/11/21 13:07:45 UTC
[RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Hi,
first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
next release if it's ok for our community.
Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
4.0 version as our next release.
We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
fit in a major release.
I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
and 3.4.1.
If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
an open and transparent way.
Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
available as soon as possible.
One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
Any opinions or feedback?
Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by em...@globmail.com.br.
My dear dev team,
I am an user, so there is only an user opinion: a new UI? great!
+1
Emanuel Almeida
IT Analist
jan iversen <ja...@apache.org> wrote on 21/11/2012 11:34:41:
> +1 for 4.0, graduation is a very good argument.
>
> And thanks for volunteering, you have a big job ahead of you.
>
> Jan.
>
>
> On 21 November 2012 14:24, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for 4.0.
> > We really should have a big release after graduation.
> >
> > - Shenfeng (Simon)
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/21 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> > > next release if it's ok for our community.
> > >
> > > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> > > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> > > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> > > 4.0 version as our next release.
> > >
> > > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> > > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> > > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> > > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> > > fit in a major release.
> > >
> > > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> > > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
> > >
> > > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> > > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> > > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> > > and 3.4.1.
> > >
> > > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> > > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> > > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> > > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> > > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> > > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> > > an open and transparent way.
> > >
> > > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> > > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> > > available as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> > > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> > > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> > > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
> > >
> > > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> > > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> > > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
> > >
> > > Any opinions or feedback?
> > >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> >
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@apache.org>.
+1 for 4.0, graduation is a very good argument.
And thanks for volunteering, you have a big job ahead of you.
Jan.
On 21 November 2012 14:24, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 4.0.
> We really should have a big release after graduation.
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
> 2012/11/21 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> > next release if it's ok for our community.
> >
> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> > 4.0 version as our next release.
> >
> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> > fit in a major release.
> >
> > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
> >
> > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> > and 3.4.1.
> >
> > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> > an open and transparent way.
> >
> > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> > available as soon as possible.
> >
> > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
> >
> > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
> >
> > Any opinions or feedback?
> >
> > Juergen
> >
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 4.0.
We really should have a big release after graduation.
- Shenfeng (Simon)
2012/11/21 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> fit in a major release.
>
> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>
> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> and 3.4.1.
>
> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> an open and transparent way.
>
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
>
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>
> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>
> Any opinions or feedback?
>
> Juergen
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Albino B Neto <bi...@apache.org>.
Hi.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> fit in a major release.
>
> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>
> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> and 3.4.1.
>
> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> an open and transparent way.
>
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
>
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>
> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0.
+1
--
Albino
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 12/6/12 11:00 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> What was the outcome of this thread? Is trunk in 4.0 mode?
>> Andrea update to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/f8KoAQ
>> suggests so (I may have missed some mail telling so).
>
> No formal mail was sent, but there was large consensus on 4.0, so we can
> assume the trunk to be in 4.0 mode. All recently integrated changes into
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/ go in this direction too.
>
that is my understanding as well, let us concentrate on AOO 4.0
Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 04/12/2012 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> What was the outcome of this thread? Is trunk in 4.0 mode?
> Andrea update to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/f8KoAQ
> suggests so (I may have missed some mail telling so).
No formal mail was sent, but there was large consensus on 4.0, so we can
assume the trunk to be in 4.0 mode. All recently integrated changes into
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/ go in this direction too.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
2012/12/5 Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:07:45PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> > next release if it's ok for our community.
> >
> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> > 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> What was the outcome of this thread? Is trunk in 4.0 mode?
> Andrea update to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/f8KoAQ
> suggests so (I may have missed some mail telling so).
>
> Ariel,
My understanding from the discussion is that we are going to release 4.0
as the next release.
I volunteer to help Juergen to consolidate the contents from previous
project planning wiki of 3.5 as well as 4.0.
- Shenfeng (Simon)
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 01:07:45PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
What was the outcome of this thread? Is trunk in 4.0 mode?
Andrea update to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/f8KoAQ
suggests so (I may have missed some mail telling so).
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/21/2012 01:07 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
Sure, I would support this.
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> fit in a major release.
>
> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>
> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> and 3.4.1.
>
> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> an open and transparent way.
A new major release like 4.0 is indeed the best sign we can send out
into the world; especially after our graduation. If we would do it in
the beginning of 2013, then even better.
However, I also think we don't have enough time for developing all the
features *and* testing them deeply.
So, IMHO it depends on what you had in mind with regard to the date for
a 4.0? I see the problems others have mentioned already but I don't want
to reject you plan in general without an answer for the question. ;-)
Maybe doing the release together with a bigger event like CeBIT (March
5-9) is feasible?
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
Yes, that seems to be a good alternative compared to make a complete new
release "just" for new languages.
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>
> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
What do you mean with resources? Testing that these languages are shown
correct in AOO? Or also other efforts?
> Any opinions or feedback?
My 2 ct.
Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2012 04:00 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>
>> Am 11/23/2012 12:24 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>> On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>>> I would propose the following:
>>>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>>>> December 2 is very close ...
>>>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>>>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic.
>>>
>>> I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we
>>> reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least
>>> for the 3.4.x series), then we can "respin" 3.4.1 even on a monthly
>>> basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to
>>> solve.
>>>
>>> Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would
>>> perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better;
>>> but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages
>>> soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much
>>> overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for
>>> months.
>>>
>>>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>> When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
>>>
>>> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English,
>>> German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary
>>> complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1.
>>
>> OK, but then as real 3.4.1, not 3.4.1b or something else.
>
> We'll have a new source release or supplement and it must not be confused with the prior 3.4.1 source release.
OK, let me say it different: ;-)
Please avoid naming the new binary files with a different version number
than the old binaries. Otherwise this would bring back unnecessary
complexity into the DL scripts as a single version number is used for
all files.
For the source files, OK, here we should indeed differentiate when we
have released what. Juergen made the perfectly fitting suggestion with
using the SVN rev.
BTW:
Putting a "b" at the end of a version number can be seen very easily as
Beta release. I think we want to avoid this.
OK, stopping here and going further in the new thread.
Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 22, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 11/23/2012 12:24 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>> On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>> I would propose the following:
>>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>>> December 2 is very close ...
>>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic.
>>
>> I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we
>> reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least
>> for the 3.4.x series), then we can "respin" 3.4.1 even on a monthly
>> basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to
>> solve.
>>
>> Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would
>> perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better;
>> but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages
>> soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much
>> overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for
>> months.
>>
>>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
>>
>> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English,
>> German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary
>> complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1.
>
> OK, but then as real 3.4.1, not 3.4.1b or something else.
We'll have a new source release or supplement and it must not be confused with the prior 3.4.1 source release.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Marcus
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2012 12:24 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>> I would propose the following:
>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>> December 2 is very close ...
>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic.
>
> I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we
> reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least
> for the 3.4.x series), then we can "respin" 3.4.1 even on a monthly
> basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to
> solve.
>
> Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would
> perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better;
> but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages
> soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much
> overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for
> months.
>
>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
>
> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English,
> German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary
> complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1.
OK, but then as real 3.4.1, not 3.4.1b or something else.
Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2012 08:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the
>>> English, German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be
>>> unnecessary complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as
>>> 3.4.1.
>> Yes, but also distinct from the other 3.4.1 source release.
>
> Yes, the source package may be labeled differently (such as 3.4.1b), but
> the few new binaries we make available (e.g., Danish, Polish binary
> versions) should keep the 3.4.1 numbering.
+1 for keeping the version number for the binary files.
Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/23/12 8:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the
>>> English, German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be
>>> unnecessary complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as
>>> 3.4.1.
>> Yes, but also distinct from the other 3.4.1 source release.
>
> Yes, the source package may be labeled differently (such as 3.4.1b), but
> the few new binaries we make available (e.g., Danish, Polish binary
> versions) should keep the 3.4.1 numbering.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
I will start a new thread to discuss the release of new languages where
I will make a proposal as well. This thread should focus on the next
release mainly.
My initial reminder was more a hint that we have to discuss this separately.
Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the
>> English, German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be
>> unnecessary complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as
>> 3.4.1.
> Yes, but also distinct from the other 3.4.1 source release.
Yes, the source package may be labeled differently (such as 3.4.1b), but
the few new binaries we make available (e.g., Danish, Polish binary
versions) should keep the 3.4.1 numbering.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>> I would propose the following:
>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>> December 2 is very close ...
>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic.
>
> I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least for the 3.4.x series), then we can "respin" 3.4.1 even on a monthly basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to solve.
We will still need to VOTE as it will be a source release. That is not automatic.
>
> Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better; but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for months.
>
>> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
>
> No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English, German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1.
Yes, but also distinct from the other 3.4.1 source release.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 22/11/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>> I would propose the following:
>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>> December 2 is very close ...
> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic.
I we have 3 languages ready I wouldn't wait much longer. I mean, if we
reach the point where we can automate it enough (we have to, at least
for the 3.4.x series), then we can "respin" 3.4.1 even on a monthly
basis. If it is too much work then we have an infrastructural problem to
solve.
Of course, since most of this work is on you, Ariel and mirrors I would
perfectly accept to shift the date forward if you believe it's better;
but communicating a clear deadline and releasing a few new languages
soon would prove that we are ready to do these releases without too much
overhead, and that volunteers can test their work without waiting for
months.
> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
No, if we name it 3.4.2 we imply it has something new in the English,
German, Italian, ... version and communicating it would be unnecessary
complex. If it is 3.4.1, it must be distributed as 3.4.1.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
>>>> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
>>>> languages in the same way as the others.
>>>
>>> I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release "3.4.1b".
>>>
>>
>> It depends on what is in the source release. If the tarball contains
>> only the newly added PO translation files, then it could be called
>> 3.4.1 without any confusion. Let's avoid any code changes, since
>> that merely complicates future upgrades.
>
> It would need to be called 3.4.1 supplemental language lack or something like that.
>
>>> It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify.
>>>
>>
>> If the only thing included in the source tarball are PO files then the
>> proof is rather simple, yes? Just include the PO files, the LICENSE
>> and NOTICE and a README that says to unzip these files over the
>> already released full 3.4.1 source tarball. RAT scan of the PO files
>> should be easy enough (assuming it understands PO files). Otherwise
>> we can manually inspect the files for license headers.
>
> Sure - either way it would be a 3.4.1 source artifact.
>
> The README would describe how to put the language pack over the 3.4.1 source release.
>
> I'll leave it up to Jürgen to choose a 3.4.1 source language supplement, a fuil 3.4.1b source release, or a 3.4.2 source release w/ all that implies.
>
> But in general the supplement w/convenience binaries does make the most sense. What I don't want is to see another 3.4.1 source release with the same name, that would be wrong.
>
+1
We certainly need some unique name to call it. But if we're not
updating the source code (the C++ code) then we're probably not
updating the version number in the Help/About box and in other runtime
metadata. This is not a revision of OpenOffice.
I really want to avoid needing to introduce new version fields in
Bugzilla, new update service URL's, new upgrade test paths, new
download paths, etc.
So when we talk about calling this "3.4.1b", we need to be clear in
what systems this new name would exist. We usually rev them all when
we have a functionally new release. Revising none of them, except the
source tarball, would work as well.
Of course, we can always tell that this is "Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1b
(or whatever we call it) based on the language. If it is in Danish,
Polish, etc., then we know it is this 2nd release. (I assuming this
2nd edition includes only the new languages, not a re-release of the
pre-existing ones).
> I suspect that this issue with new Languages coming in after a release will continue until we have covered the whole world.
>
> Perhaps we should have a naming convention for source releases that includes the date or revision number. Then each can continue to be simple to use source releases that are contained and need no supplements.
>
> Choice 1 - new source language packs are supplements to a version. 3.4.1b type naming.
>
> Choice 2 - new source language packs are re-releases of source packages for a version. 3.4.1-20130101 (or svn rev)
>
> Another reason to have supplements or re-releases would be for build fixes or new platform builds.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>> I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 22, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
<snip>
>>> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
>>> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
>>> languages in the same way as the others.
>>
>> I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release "3.4.1b".
>>
>
> It depends on what is in the source release. If the tarball contains
> only the newly added PO translation files, then it could be called
> 3.4.1 without any confusion. Let's avoid any code changes, since
> that merely complicates future upgrades.
It would need to be called 3.4.1 supplemental language lack or something like that.
>> It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify.
>>
>
> If the only thing included in the source tarball are PO files then the
> proof is rather simple, yes? Just include the PO files, the LICENSE
> and NOTICE and a README that says to unzip these files over the
> already released full 3.4.1 source tarball. RAT scan of the PO files
> should be easy enough (assuming it understands PO files). Otherwise
> we can manually inspect the files for license headers.
Sure - either way it would be a 3.4.1 source artifact.
The README would describe how to put the language pack over the 3.4.1 source release.
I'll leave it up to Jürgen to choose a 3.4.1 source language supplement, a fuil 3.4.1b source release, or a 3.4.2 source release w/ all that implies.
But in general the supplement w/convenience binaries does make the most sense. What I don't want is to see another 3.4.1 source release with the same name, that would be wrong.
I suspect that this issue with new Languages coming in after a release will continue until we have covered the whole world.
Perhaps we should have a naming convention for source releases that includes the date or revision number. Then each can continue to be simple to use source releases that are contained and need no supplements.
Choice 1 - new source language packs are supplements to a version. 3.4.1b type naming.
Choice 2 - new source language packs are re-releases of source packages for a version. 3.4.1-20130101 (or svn rev)
Another reason to have supplements or re-releases would be for build fixes or new platform builds.
Regards,
Dave
>
>> I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So do I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the
>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>>>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
>>>>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that
>>>>> suggests we
>>>>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2;
>>>>> otherwise, I
>>>>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of
>>>>> 4.0-beta
>>>>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
>>>>> work. For example, I would propose the following:
>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>>>
>>>> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a
>>>> number
>>>> of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
>>
>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we
>> increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even
>> more.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it
>>>>> (and
>>>>> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>>>>>
>>>> - Native-language teams do some QA
>>>>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
>>>>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>>>>>
>>>> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
>>>> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
>>>> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
>>>
>>> If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks
>>> files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files.
>>
>> both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download
>> mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have
>> the same files as for all other langs.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source
>>> files.
>>
>> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
>> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
>> languages in the same way as the others.
>
> I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release "3.4.1b".
>
It depends on what is in the source release. If the tarball contains
only the newly added PO translation files, then it could be called
3.4.1 without any confusion. Let's avoid any code changes, since
that merely complicates future upgrades.
> It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify.
>
If the only thing included in the source tarball are PO files then the
proof is rather simple, yes? Just include the PO files, the LICENSE
and NOTICE and a README that says to unzip these files over the
already released full 3.4.1 source tarball. RAT scan of the PO files
should be easy enough (assuming it understands PO files). Otherwise
we can manually inspect the files for license headers.
> I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Juergen
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/22/2012 05:36 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So do I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the
>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>>>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
>>>>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that
>>>>> suggests we
>>>>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2;
>>>>> otherwise, I
>>>>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of
>>>>> 4.0-beta
>>>>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
>>>>> work. For example, I would propose the following:
>>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>>>
>>>> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a
>>>> number
>>>> of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
>>
>> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
>> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we
>> increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even
>> more.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it
>>>>> (and
>>>>> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>>>>>
>>>> - Native-language teams do some QA
>>>>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
>>>>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>>>>>
>>>> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
>>>> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
>>>> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
>>>
>>> If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks
>>> files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files.
>>
>> both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download
>> mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have
>> the same files as for all other langs.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source
>>> files.
>>
>> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
>> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
>> languages in the same way as the others.
>
> I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release "3.4.1b".
We have already 3 digits for the version number. I don't think we should
add letters for another position. ;-)
When we release new languages I think it's worth enough to name it 3.4.2.
Marcus
> It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify.
>
> I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 22, 2012, at 3:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So do I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the
>>>> discussion on
>>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate
>>>>> the
>>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a
>>>>> new
>>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
>>>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that
>>>> suggests we
>>>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2;
>>>> otherwise, I
>>>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of
>>>> 4.0-beta
>>>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>>>>
>>>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
>>>> work. For example, I would propose the following:
>>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>>
>>> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a
>>> number
>>> of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
>
> indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
> I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we
> increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even
> more.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it
>>>> (and
>>>> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>>>>
>>> - Native-language teams do some QA
>>>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
>>>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>>>>
>>> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
>>> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
>>> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
>>
>> If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks
>> files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files.
>
> both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download
> mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have
> the same files as for all other langs.
>
>>
>> I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source
>> files.
>
> Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
> new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
> languages in the same way as the others.
I think that we will need a new source release - we could call the source release "3.4.1b".
It would give us good practice at voting on a release based on simple IP scans with RAT and svn diff to prove that the only changes are language files. We trust, but we must verify.
I don't have any strong opinions regarding whether we hurry for a 3.5 or develop a feature rich and well tested 4.0. Once we reach consensus on this issue we should have Marketing publish the plan so the user base will know what to expect with an estimated timeline - emphasis on estimated.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/21/12 10:14 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So do I.
>>>
>>>
>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the
>>> discussion on
>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate
>>>> the
>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a
>>>> new
>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
>>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that
>>> suggests we
>>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2;
>>> otherwise, I
>>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of
>>> 4.0-beta
>>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>>>
>>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
>>> work. For example, I would propose the following:
>>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>>
>> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a
>> number
>> of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
indeed very close and I will be offline for some further days next week.
I count at least 3 languages Danish, Polish, Scots Gaelic. And when we
increase the deadline until the end of the year we potentially get even
more.
>>
>>
>>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it
>>> (and
>>> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>>>
>> - Native-language teams do some QA
>>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
>>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>>>
>> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
>> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
>> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
>
> If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks
> files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files.
both would be possible, I ma flexible here. For using the same download
mechanism and no further special handling it would be helpful to have
the same files as for all other langs.
>
> I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source
> files.
Exactly, we would release the new languages only on base of 3.4.1 and a
new src release. When we do a further 3.4.2 release we can build the new
languages in the same way as the others.
Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/21/2012 09:41 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
> On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>
>>
>> So do I.
>>
>>
>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>> available as soon as possible.
>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>>
>>
>> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
>> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that suggests we
>> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2; otherwise, I
>> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of 4.0-beta
>> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>>
>> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
>> work. For example, I would propose the following:
>> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
>> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>>
> December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a number
> of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
>
>
>> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it (and
>> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>>
> - Native-language teams do some QA
>> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
>> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>>
> Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
> would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
> separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
If I have understood it correct, only new full install and langpacks
files will be distributed - or maybe only langpack files.
I don't think that it's needed to replace files except for the source files.
Marcus
>> - We set a new deadline for new languages, and so on
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@apache.org>.
On 21 November 2012 21:30, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>
>
> So do I.
>
>
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>> available as soon as possible.
>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
>>
>
> Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
> series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that suggests we
> should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2; otherwise, I
> would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a couple of 4.0-beta
> releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than a 3.5 release.
>
> But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
> work. For example, I would propose the following:
> - We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
> integration of new languages in 3.4.1
>
December 2 is very close, when I think of the work in progress on a number
of languages, I would suggest end of the year.
> - We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it (and
> we already have two, Danish and Polish)
>
- Native-language teams do some QA
> - We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
> respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
>
Would it not be more confusing to change the 3.4.1 distribution files ? I
would warmly suggest only to release language packs, since they are
separate and do NOT change the existing distribution.
> - We set a new deadline for new languages, and so on
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
So do I.
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal
Since we have no critical bugs in 3.4.1, I would keep using the 3.4.x
series until 4.0 is available. If a security issue emerges that suggests
we should make a new release, we will fix it and release 3.4.2;
otherwise, I would just keep adding new languages to 3.4.1 and make a
couple of 4.0-beta releases, to get better exposure and QA, rather than
a 3.5 release.
But the 3.4.x series must have some predictable schedule or this won't
work. For example, I would propose the following:
- We announce on ooo-l10n that 2 December is the first deadline for
integration of new languages in 3.4.1
- We integrate and build available new languages in the week after it
(and we already have two, Danish and Polish)
- Native-language teams do some QA
- We approve/publish the new builds and the new source release (a 3.4.1
respin, rather than a 3.4.2, since this would confuse users)
- We set a new deadline for new languages, and so on
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
> +1 on that from me also
>
>>>
>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>
>>
>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>
> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a comfortable
> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak out of
> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>
Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
own testing and release management for 3.5.
-Rob
>
>> We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
>> would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and
>> new languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing
>> releases around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it
>> should not be later either for to get the valuable language work as soon
>> as possible.
>
>
> This proposal makes more sense to me and appears to be a good compromise. It
> builds on the work that has been done to fix bugs and it also gets out much
> needed and judging by the response for translators, much wanted new
> languages.
>
>
>>
>> Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the
>> same time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>>
>
> By releasing a 3.5 it gives us an opportunity to prepare our end users that
> the 3.x series is coming to end of life and that the next release will have
> some exciting changes. Let us not forget that often the success of major
> changes to a mature product such as AOO are as much do to good marketing as
> they are to the hard work of developers and testers.
>
>
>>>
>>> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>>> fit in a major release.
>>
>>
>> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>>
>>>
>>> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>>> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>>
>>> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>>> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>>> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>>> and 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>>> planning into one combined planning later.
>>
>>
>> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
>> dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year.
>> Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I
>> see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
>>
>> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
>> the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>>
>> I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
>> possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning,
>> but release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a
>> version 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
>>
>> I believe it is important
>>>
>>> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>>> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>>> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>>> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>>> an open and transparent way.
>>
>>
>> Setting a feature freeze day?
>>
>>>
>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>>> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>>
>>> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>>> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>>> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>>
>>> Any opinions or feedback?
>>
>>
>> So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5
>> release with bug fixes and further languages in between.
>
>
> +1 to Regina's proposal to do a 3.5 rather than try to jump straight into
> 4.0
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
>>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/22/2012 10:24 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 11/22/2012 12:57 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will
>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would
>>>>>>> support a
>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>> comfortable
>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>> out of
>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>
>>
>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>> March or April we will have more time.
Sorry, I've forgotten to mention that I like this time proposal.
Marcus
> That sounds good. Should be enough time to implement and test new things.
>
> So, back to the question "Next release 4.0 or not? ;-)
>
> Suggestion from me:
>
> - define within the next few weeks what features are for good for a 4.0
> release
> - when we find only big things then implement them for 4.0 in March/April
> - when we see *additionally* enough smaller things, then a 3.5 could be
> done, too. Maybe until end of January?
>
> I assume the following is no problem and already agreed:
>
> - release new languages with 3.4.1 codebase
> - do a 3.4.x when we have serious issues that can/should not wait for
> the next bigger release
>
>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>> next release.
>
> OK
>
> Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/22/2012 12:57 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>> also at
>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>
>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>> comfortable
>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>> out of
>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>
>
> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
> March or April we will have more time.
That sounds good. Should be enough time to implement and test new things.
So, back to the question "Next release 4.0 or not? ;-)
Suggestion from me:
- define within the next few weeks what features are for good for a 4.0
release
- when we find only big things then implement them for 4.0 in March/April
- when we see *additionally* enough smaller things, then a 3.5 could be
done, too. Maybe until end of January?
I assume the following is no problem and already agreed:
- release new languages with 3.4.1 codebase
- do a 3.4.x when we have serious issues that can/should not wait for
the next bigger release
> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
> next release.
OK
Marcus
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will
>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>>>>> comfortable
>>>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>>>>> March or April we will have more time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>>>>> next release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>>>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>>>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to
>>>> spring
>>>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>>>
>> Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make major
>> UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with questions
>> under the best of situations. When you spring them on users unawares you
>> unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change" potentially getting
>> bad publicity for the product.
>>
>
> Actually, I was involved in direct user support for office smart
> suite. For several years I did direct phone support for users of
> Lotus SmartSuite, 40 calls per day. So I have actually done this, as
> a professional, thousands of times. And I was very good at it.
>
Rob;
That is why I asked the question was to get an answer. Since you have
been involved in it you understand the issue and that is good.
> Also note that this was during the transition from DOS to Windows, so
> I know quite a bit about how users handle UI changes. Any changes
> we're proposing for AOO 4.0 are miniscule compared to the DOS to
> Windows transition.
>
>> While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing and
>> communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We cannot
>> loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not just for the
>> techie types.
>>
>
> Yes, marketing needs to accompany any user-visible changes, not just
> UI changes. But the need for marketing should be expressed as helping
> support our current call for marketing volunteers:
> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/call_for_marketing_volunteers. It
> should not (IMHO) be expressed by denigrating the proposed UI changes.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
However I would like you to point me to anything in my post that could
be considered denigrating a new UI. My concern was and still is that we
have enough time to thoroughly test whatever changes are decided to be
made and allow the marketing, ux and other ancillary parts to do there
share also. I will support your call for volunteers in any way that I am
able. I am nt a blogger so that is not an option for me. How ever I do
and will continue to suggest to those I know who have needed skills that
they seriously consider volunteering or the project.
Regards
Keith
>>
>>> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
>>> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
>>> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
>>> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
>>> to Apache either.
>>
>>
>> Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the general
>> user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is familiar and
>> comfortable with is.
>>
>> Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice of
>> caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot (figuratively
>> to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going and the push by you
>> and others for greater marketing presence are all good things and need to be
>> given sufficient time to have a good impact.
>>
>> If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April timeframe is
>> sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am doing is raising some
>> considerations that may not always be thought of.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keth
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will
>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>>>> comfortable
>>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen
>>>>> for
>>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>>>> March or April we will have more time.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>>>> next release.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to
>>> spring
>>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>>>
>>
>> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>>
> Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make major
> UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with questions
> under the best of situations. When you spring them on users unawares you
> unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change" potentially getting
> bad publicity for the product.
>
Actually, I was involved in direct user support for office smart
suite. For several years I did direct phone support for users of
Lotus SmartSuite, 40 calls per day. So I have actually done this, as
a professional, thousands of times. And I was very good at it.
Also note that this was during the transition from DOS to Windows, so
I know quite a bit about how users handle UI changes. Any changes
we're proposing for AOO 4.0 are miniscule compared to the DOS to
Windows transition.
> While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing and
> communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We cannot
> loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not just for the
> techie types.
>
Yes, marketing needs to accompany any user-visible changes, not just
UI changes. But the need for marketing should be expressed as helping
support our current call for marketing volunteers:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/call_for_marketing_volunteers. It
should not (IMHO) be expressed by denigrating the proposed UI changes.
Regards,
-Rob
>
>> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
>> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
>> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
>> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
>> to Apache either.
>
>
> Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the general
> user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is familiar and
> comfortable with is.
>
> Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice of
> caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot (figuratively
> to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going and the push by you
> and others for greater marketing presence are all good things and need to be
> given sufficient time to have a good impact.
>
> If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April timeframe is
> sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am doing is raising some
> considerations that may not always be thought of.
>
> Regards
> Keth
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
2012/11/24 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> On 11/23/12 5:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> > Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> >> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> >>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager
> >>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 on that from me also
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release
> >>>>>>>>> will be.
> >>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
> >>>>>>>>> also at
> >>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would
> >>>>>>>>> support a
> >>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that
> >>>>>>>> they are
> >>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time
> >>>>>>> frame as
> >>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
> >>>>>>> comfortable
> >>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
> >>>>>>> out of
> >>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is
> >>>>>>> expected of
> >>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
> >>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
> >>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
> >>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
> >>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
> >>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Rob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to
> >>>>> Juergen for
> >>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you
> considering
> >>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
> >>>> March or April we will have more time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in
> >>>> the
> >>>> next release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Juergen
> >>>>
> >>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
> >>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that
> we
> >>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to
> >>> spring
> >>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
> >>
> > Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make
> > major UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with
> > questions under the best of situations. When you spring them on users
> > unawares you unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change"
> > potentially getting bad publicity for the product.
> >
> > While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing
> > and communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We
> > cannot loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not
> > just for the techie types.
> >
> >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
> >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
> >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
> >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
> >> to Apache either.
> >
> > Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the
> > general user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is
> > familiar and comfortable with is.
> >
> > Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice
> > of caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot
> > (figuratively to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going
> > and the push by you and others for greater marketing presence are all
> > good things and need to be given sufficient time to have a good impact.
> >
> > If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April
> > timeframe is sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am
> > doing is raising some considerations that may not always be thought of.
> >
>
> Before we go in endless discussion here about UI changes I would
> recommend that people who are interested join the related discussion in
> time, give their input or raise their concerns. What I don't want to see
> is that people speak up when everything is implemented and final ;-)
>
> Now it's not the time to discuss it. We all agree that UI changes have
> to made careful and need intensive testing. We are trying to do our
> best, a good implementation, good testing and a smooth transition to the
> new UI.
>
> We are talking here about the sidebar where the main concept is already
> known from Symphony and where the interface was awarded already. We
> don't talk about something completely new and we will do it step by
> step. The toolbars will be still available and the sidebar can be hidden.
>
> The concept will evolve over time and I am very confident that our users
> will like it.
>
> Furthermore I would like to ask all of you to think about features that
> are not easy to use today but very common for many users. Useful
> features that are not easy to find or where the usage is unintuitive.
> Let us think how we can make it better and easier to use. Let us improve
> what we already have step by step. I learn always new things and I am
> most often impressed what we already can today and where I am not aware
> of these features.
>
+1, the key of the UI change is to improve user experience. No matter
sidebar, new icon or some other changes, they should be a more easy
entrance for user to find the command, or provide a simplified operation
comparing to previous release.
User Experience Improvement, that's the goal of 4.0, IMHO.
BTW, sorry Juergen I forgot to say in my previous response: +1 for your
continuing to be our release manager. :)
- Shenfeng (Simon)
>
> Juergen
>
>
> > Regards
> > Keth
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Keith
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/23/12 5:26 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release
>>>>>>>>> will be.
>>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would
>>>>>>>>> support a
>>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time
>>>>>>> frame as
>>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>>>> comfortable
>>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is
>>>>>>> expected of
>>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to
>>>>> Juergen for
>>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>>>> March or April we will have more time.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in
>>>> the
>>>> next release.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to
>>> spring
>>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>>>
>>
>> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>>
> Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make
> major UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with
> questions under the best of situations. When you spring them on users
> unawares you unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change"
> potentially getting bad publicity for the product.
>
> While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing
> and communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We
> cannot loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not
> just for the techie types.
>
>> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
>> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
>> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
>> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
>> to Apache either.
>
> Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the
> general user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is
> familiar and comfortable with is.
>
> Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice
> of caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot
> (figuratively to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going
> and the push by you and others for greater marketing presence are all
> good things and need to be given sufficient time to have a good impact.
>
> If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April
> timeframe is sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am
> doing is raising some considerations that may not always be thought of.
>
Before we go in endless discussion here about UI changes I would
recommend that people who are interested join the related discussion in
time, give their input or raise their concerns. What I don't want to see
is that people speak up when everything is implemented and final ;-)
Now it's not the time to discuss it. We all agree that UI changes have
to made careful and need intensive testing. We are trying to do our
best, a good implementation, good testing and a smooth transition to the
new UI.
We are talking here about the sidebar where the main concept is already
known from Symphony and where the interface was awarded already. We
don't talk about something completely new and we will do it step by
step. The toolbars will be still available and the sidebar can be hidden.
The concept will evolve over time and I am very confident that our users
will like it.
Furthermore I would like to ask all of you to think about features that
are not easy to use today but very common for many users. Useful
features that are not easy to find or where the usage is unintuitive.
Let us think how we can make it better and easier to use. Let us improve
what we already have step by step. I learn always new things and I am
most often impressed what we already can today and where I am not aware
of these features.
Juergen
> Regards
> Keth
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>>> comfortable
>>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>>> March or April we will have more time.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>>> next release.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
>> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>>
>
> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>
Rob, have you ever been involved in direct user support? When you make
major UI changes your support structure is going to be inundated with
questions under the best of situations. When you spring them on users
unawares you unleash the tirade of "change for the sake of change"
potentially getting bad publicity for the product.
While it is true that an amount of this is inevitable, a good marketing
and communication campaign can go a long way towards minimizing it. We
cannot loose sight of the act that we are an end user project and not
just for the techie types.
> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
> to Apache either.
Whether we have moved to Apache or not is of little concern to the
general user. Changing the look and feel of the product he or she is
familiar and comfortable with is.
Do not get me wrong, I am not against change. I am simply adding a voice
of caution that we not inadvertently shoot ourselves in the foot
(figuratively to be sure). The UX work that Kevin and others are going
and the push by you and others for greater marketing presence are all
good things and need to be given sufficient time to have a good impact.
If in the considered judgement of the community the March/April
timeframe is sufficient that is great and we should do it. All I am
doing is raising some considerations that may not always be thought of.
Regards
Keth
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:21:51 -0500
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500
>> > Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> >> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> >> >>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>> >> >>>>>>> our
>> >> >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> +1
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> +1 on that from me also
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>> >> >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>> >> >>>>>>> also at
>> >> >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> >> >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>> >> >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>> >> >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>> >> >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>> >> >>>>> comfortable
>> >> >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>> >> >>>>> out of
>> >> >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>> >> >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>> >> >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>> >> >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>> >> >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>> >> >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>> >> >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -Rob
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>> >> >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>> >> >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>> >> >> March or April we will have more time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>> >> >> next release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juergen
>> >> >>
>> >> > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>> >> > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>> >> > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
>> >> > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
>> >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
>> >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
>> >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
>> >> to Apache either.
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >>
>> >> > Regards
>> >> > Keith
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> > My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all sorts of horrible frills and colours.
>> >
>>
>> That's rather dismissive of UI changes that you have not seen yet.
>> Some of us believe that the quality of the UI has a direct impact on
>> how easy it is to use the product. Some of us believe that the
>> current UI was not born in a state of absolute grace and perfection.
>> We're not just trying to be "trendy". We're not proposing "horrible
>> frills". We wouldn't waste our time on a fashion statement. If you
>> have concrete concerns, then speak up. But please don't be insulting.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > --
>> > Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>
> Rob, you take me up wrongly. I was only trying to make the point that there is a stratum of Users whose computer is an "entertainment" machine, not a work machine. These often wish change for the sake of change, good bad or indifferent, so long as there is change; often their usual method of change is colour and visual noise.
>
> I certainly didn't insult any new AOO interface - how could I when it doesn't yet exist? Having been on this list for the past year, one can see the considerable thought and debate that does go into changes to OpenOffice; a new interface will not come about lightly or trivially. But the new should not discard the old and the existing users who are used to that; if it is reasonably possible to change an option setting and revert to the older interface, then we have the best of both worlds
>
OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Regards,
-Rob
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:21:51 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500
> > Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> >> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Rob Weir wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> >> >>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
> >> >>>>>>> our
> >> >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> +1 on that from me also
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> >> >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
> >> >>>>>>> also at
> >> >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> >> >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
> >> >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
> >> >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
> >> >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
> >> >>>>> comfortable
> >> >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
> >> >>>>> out of
> >> >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
> >> >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
> >> >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
> >> >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
> >> >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
> >> >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
> >> >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Rob
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
> >> >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
> >> >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
> >> >> March or April we will have more time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
> >> >> next release.
> >> >>
> >> >> Juergen
> >> >>
> >> > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
> >> > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
> >> > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
> >> > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
> >>
> >> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
> >> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
> >> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
> >> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
> >> to Apache either.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > Regards
> >> > Keith
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all sorts of horrible frills and colours.
> >
>
> That's rather dismissive of UI changes that you have not seen yet.
> Some of us believe that the quality of the UI has a direct impact on
> how easy it is to use the product. Some of us believe that the
> current UI was not born in a state of absolute grace and perfection.
> We're not just trying to be "trendy". We're not proposing "horrible
> frills". We wouldn't waste our time on a fashion statement. If you
> have concrete concerns, then speak up. But please don't be insulting.
>
> -Rob
>
> > --
> > Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
Rob, you take me up wrongly. I was only trying to make the point that there is a stratum of Users whose computer is an "entertainment" machine, not a work machine. These often wish change for the sake of change, good bad or indifferent, so long as there is change; often their usual method of change is colour and visual noise.
I certainly didn't insult any new AOO interface - how could I when it doesn't yet exist? Having been on this list for the past year, one can see the considerable thought and debate that does go into changes to OpenOffice; a new interface will not come about lightly or trivially. But the new should not discard the old and the existing users who are used to that; if it is reasonably possible to change an option setting and revert to the older interface, then we have the best of both worlds
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> >>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>> >>>>>>> our
>> >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> +1 on that from me also
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>> >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>> >>>>>>> also at
>> >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>> >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>> >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>> >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>> >>>>> comfortable
>> >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>> >>>>> out of
>> >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>> >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>> >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>> >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>> >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>> >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>> >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Rob
>> >>>>
>> >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>> >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>> >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>> >> March or April we will have more time.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>> >> next release.
>> >>
>> >> Juergen
>> >>
>> > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
>> > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
>> > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
>> > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>> >
>>
>> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>>
>> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
>> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
>> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
>> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
>> to Apache either.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > Regards
>> > Keith
>> >
>>
>
> My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all sorts of horrible frills and colours.
>
That's rather dismissive of UI changes that you have not seen yet.
Some of us believe that the quality of the UI has a direct impact on
how easy it is to use the product. Some of us believe that the
current UI was not born in a state of absolute grace and perfection.
We're not just trying to be "trendy". We're not proposing "horrible
frills". We wouldn't waste our time on a fashion statement. If you
have concrete concerns, then speak up. But please don't be insulting.
-Rob
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:53:38 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> >>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
> >>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> +1 on that from me also
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> >>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
> >>>>>>> also at
> >>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> >>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
> >>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
> >>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
> >>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
> >>>>> comfortable
> >>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
> >>>>> out of
> >>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
> >>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
> >>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
> >>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
> >>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
> >>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
> >>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Rob
> >>>>
> >>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
> >>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
> >>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
> >> March or April we will have more time.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
> >> next release.
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> > This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
> > adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
> > address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
> > possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
> >
>
> Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
>
> IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
> the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
> released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
> users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
> to Apache either.
>
> -Rob
>
> > Regards
> > Keith
> >
>
My preference would be that the User should be able to switch between the traditional interface and the new interface (whatever it mmight be) by setting some form of switch. I have no need or desire to learn a new interface just for the sake of having something trendy; I'm used to what is there and know my way around it. On the other hand, I understand that there is a stratum of Users who must have bells and whistles and skins and all sorts of horrible frills and colours.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Keith N. McKenna
<ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>>> also at
>>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>>> comfortable
>>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>>> out of
>>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>>
>>
>> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
>> March or April we will have more time.
>>
>> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
>> next release.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
> This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
> adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
> address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to spring
> possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
>
Is there something users need to do to prepare for UI changes ? ;-)
IMHO, if the changes are a bad idea we should never do them. But if
the changes are a good idea then let's get them done, tested and
released without delay. Yes, it will be a surprise for many end
users. As far as I can tell most users still don't know we've moved
to Apache either.
-Rob
> Regards
> Keith
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>>> also at
>>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>>
>>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>>> comfortable
>>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>>> out of
>>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
>> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
>> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>>
>
> Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
> March or April we will have more time.
>
> Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
> next release.
>
> Juergen
>
This sounds like a good idea. My concern is that we have enough time to
adequately the changes, especially the potential UI changes, and that we
address the end of life issues with the 3.x.x line. We do not want to
spring possibly major UI changes on end users without adequate warning.
Regards
Keith
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/21/12 5:33 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
>> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>>
>>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for
>>>>> our
>>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>> +1 on that from me also
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and
>>>>> also at
>>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>>
>>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
>>> comfortable
>>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak
>>> out of
>>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
>> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
>> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
>> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
>> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
>> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
> As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
> reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
> for a 4.0 release Juergan?
>
Well I had indeed not February in mind but when we targeting on end of
March or April we will have more time.
Maybe we can take first a look on what others have in mind to put in the
next release.
Juergen
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Keith N. McKenna
> <ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>>
>>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> +1 on that from me also
>>
>>>>
>>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
>>> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
>>> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>>
>> I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
>> feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a comfortable
>> bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that will sneak out of
>> the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release that is expected of
>> OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
>>
>
> Uh, Juergen never suggested January or Feburary as a time frame for
> 4.0. So I don't see how one can dismiss a 4.0 proposal as being
> unfeasible based on dates that he never suggested. Maybe we should
> ask Juergen what timeframe he had in mind for 4.0? Of course, it
> might be possible to do both, provided we have volunteers willing to
> own testing and release management for 3.5.
>
> -Rob
>
As I re-read the post you are correct Rob and I apologize to Juergen for
reading to much between the lines. What timeframe were you considering
for a 4.0 release Juergan?
Regards
Keith
>>
>>> We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
>>> would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and
>>> new languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing
>>> releases around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it
>>> should not be later either for to get the valuable language work as soon
>>> as possible.
>>
>>
>> This proposal makes more sense to me and appears to be a good compromise. It
>> builds on the work that has been done to fix bugs and it also gets out much
>> needed and judging by the response for translators, much wanted new
>> languages.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the
>>> same time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>>>
>>
>> By releasing a 3.5 it gives us an opportunity to prepare our end users that
>> the 3.x series is coming to end of life and that the next release will have
>> some exciting changes. Let us not forget that often the success of major
>> changes to a mature product such as AOO are as much do to good marketing as
>> they are to the hard work of developers and testers.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>>>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>>>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>>>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>>>> fit in a major release.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>>>> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>>>> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>>>> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>>>> and 3.4.1.
>>>>
>>>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>>>> planning into one combined planning later.
>>>
>>>
>>> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
>>> dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year.
>>> Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I
>>> see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
>>>
>>> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
>>> the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>>>
>>> I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
>>> possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning,
>>> but release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a
>>> version 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
>>>
>>> I believe it is important
>>>>
>>>> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>>>> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>>>> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>>>> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>>>> an open and transparent way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Setting a feature freeze day?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>>>> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>>>> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>>>> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>>>
>>>> Any opinions or feedback?
>>>
>>>
>>> So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5
>>> release with bug fixes and further languages in between.
>>
>>
>> +1 to Regina's proposal to do a 3.5 rather than try to jump straight into
>> 4.0
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Regina
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.
Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
> +1
>
+1 on that from me also
>>
>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
> listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
> possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
>
I am with Regina on this one. I do not see a Jan or Feb time frame as
feasible for the design and implementation of a new and still a
comfortable bit of padding to deal with the inevitable gremlins that
will sneak out of the woodwork to assure the kind of quality release
that is expected of OpenOffice and that we expect of ourselves.
> We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
> would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and
> new languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing
> releases around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it
> should not be later either for to get the valuable language work as soon
> as possible.
This proposal makes more sense to me and appears to be a good
compromise. It builds on the work that has been done to fix bugs and it
also gets out much needed and judging by the response for translators,
much wanted new languages.
>
> Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the
> same time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>
By releasing a 3.5 it gives us an opportunity to prepare our end users
that the 3.x series is coming to end of life and that the next release
will have some exciting changes. Let us not forget that often the
success of major changes to a mature product such as AOO are as much do
to good marketing as they are to the hard work of developers and testers.
>>
>> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>> fit in a major release.
>
> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>
>>
>> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>
>> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>> and 3.4.1.
>>
>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>> planning into one combined planning later.
>
> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
> dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year.
> Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I
> see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
>
> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
> the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>
> I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
> possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning,
> but release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a
> version 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
>
> I believe it is important
>> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>> an open and transparent way.
>
> Setting a feature freeze day?
>
>>
>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>> available as soon as possible.
>>
>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>
>> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>
>> Any opinions or feedback?
>
> So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5
> release with bug fixes and further languages in between.
+1 to Regina's proposal to do a 3.5 rather than try to jump straight
into 4.0
Regards
Keith
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:35:56 +0100
Armin Le Grand <Ar...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi Regina,
>
> On 21.11.2012 15:32, Regina Henschel wrote:
> > Hi Jürgen,
> ---snip---
> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> >> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> >> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> >> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> >> fit in a major release.
> >
> > Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
> >
> >>
> >>
> ---snip---
>
> >> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> >> planning into one combined planning later.
> >
> > The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The
> > printing dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last
> > over a year. Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected
> > in Bugzilla, I see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
> >
> > The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
> > the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>
> These will need some more time (1/2 a year I guess roughly), so these
> will not be in a next release in Feb/march 2013. They indeed need deep
> testing, anything else would be too dangerous. Thus, these changeas are
> independent from the name for the next release.
>
> >
> ---snip--
If there is a major User Interface change in AOO 4.0, whether this is User selectable (best option in my view) or installed without offering any option to revert to the traditional interface, it will need much more testing and perhaps even more rigorous testing than for a "normal 0.1" release. Any instability in it will severely prejudice Users' confidence in AOO 4.0.
I prefer therefore an interim 3.4.2 or 3.5 release, adding extra languages and some new functionality, such as the zapper for corrupt User Profiles, targetted for release early in 2013 to maintain a semblance of a six monthly release cycle.
Of course I will accept the group decision, but the above is my thinking based on knowledge of relatively inexperienced posters on the en-Forum. Other Forum Volunteers and Moderators subscribed to this list may have other ideas.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Armin Le Grand <Ar...@me.com>.
Hi Regina,
On 21.11.2012 15:32, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
---snip---
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>> fit in a major release.
>
> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>
>>
>>
---snip---
>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>> planning into one combined planning later.
>
> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The
> printing dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last
> over a year. Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected
> in Bugzilla, I see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
>
> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
> the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
These will need some more time (1/2 a year I guess roughly), so these
will not be in a next release in Feb/march 2013. They indeed need deep
testing, anything else would be too dangerous. Thus, these changeas are
independent from the name for the next release.
>
---snip--
Sincerely,
Armin
--
ALG
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/21/12 4:22 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Regina Henschel
> <rb...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>>
>>
>> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have listed
>> below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are possible in
>> a time frame, I see for the next release.
>>
>> We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
>> would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and new
>> languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing releases
>> around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it should not be
>> later either for to get the valuable language work as soon as possible.
>>
>
> I don't think we have the QA capacity to do a full release in
> February. I'm trying to build up that team with more volunteers, but
> I'd be concerned that with current levels we could not both do a
> February release and do the preparatory work we need to do to write up
> test cases for a bigger 4.0 release.
>
> IMHO the new languages are more critical. We don't have any critical
> bug fixes in the trunk (that I know of). So I wonder if another
> solution is to release additional languages on the 3.4.1 branch? That
> kind of mini-release would not require as much retesting, since the
> code would not change.
that was part of my post. Having the new translations released on base
of 3.4.1.
I don't completely disagree to the argumentation of Regina but I believe
we should skip a 3.5 and should concentrate on the next bigger release.
We can of course change the plan when we get serious bug report and
security fixes. We will keep trunk stable and bigger changes should be
done on a branch anyway.
We have already discussed to drop binfilter and a 4.0 would be the
correct version for this drop.
Juergen
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the same
>> time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>>> fit in a major release.
>>
>>
>> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>>> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>>
>>> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>>> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>>> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>>> and 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>>> planning into one combined planning later.
>>
>>
>> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
>> dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year. Even
>> when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I see eight
>> months "CWS printerpullpages".
>>
>> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect the
>> whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>>
>> I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
>> possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning, but
>> release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a version
>> 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
>>
>>
>> I believe it is important
>>>
>>> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>>> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>>> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>>> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>>> an open and transparent way.
>>
>>
>> Setting a feature freeze day?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>> available as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>>> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>>
>>> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>>> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>>> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>>
>>> Any opinions or feedback?
>>
>>
>> So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5 release
>> with bug fixes and further languages in between.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Regina Henschel
<rb...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
>
> +1
>
>
>>
>> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> 4.0 version as our next release.
>
>
> I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have listed
> below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are possible in
> a time frame, I see for the next release.
>
> We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
> would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and new
> languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing releases
> around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it should not be
> later either for to get the valuable language work as soon as possible.
>
I don't think we have the QA capacity to do a full release in
February. I'm trying to build up that team with more volunteers, but
I'd be concerned that with current levels we could not both do a
February release and do the preparatory work we need to do to write up
test cases for a bigger 4.0 release.
IMHO the new languages are more critical. We don't have any critical
bug fixes in the trunk (that I know of). So I wonder if another
solution is to release additional languages on the 3.4.1 branch? That
kind of mini-release would not require as much retesting, since the
code would not change.
-Rob
> Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the same
> time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>
>
>>
>> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>> fit in a major release.
>
>
> Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>
>
>>
>> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>
>> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>> and 3.4.1.
>>
>> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>> planning into one combined planning later.
>
>
> The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
> dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year. Even
> when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I see eight
> months "CWS printerpullpages".
>
> The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect the
> whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
>
> I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
> possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning, but
> release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a version
> 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
>
>
> I believe it is important
>>
>> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>> an open and transparent way.
>
>
> Setting a feature freeze day?
>
>
>>
>> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>> available as soon as possible.
>>
>> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>
>> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>
>> Any opinions or feedback?
>
>
> So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5 release
> with bug fixes and further languages in between.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Jürgen,
Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
+1
>
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
I'm not in favor of an version 4.0 as next release. The changes have
listed below would justify a version "4.0". But I doubt, that they are
possible in a time frame, I see for the next release.
We have released 3.4.1 in August 2012, so a good time for a next release
would be February 2013. That release would get a lot of bug fixes and
new languages, but no new features. Remembering the difficulties doing
releases around December/January I think, it cannot be earlier. But it
should not be later either for to get the valuable language work as soon
as possible.
Making larger changes which justify a new major release means at the
same time, we have to say something about end of life of the 3.x series.
>
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> fit in a major release.
Not to forget the internal changes in Draw.
>
> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>
> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> and 3.4.1.
>
> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> planning into one combined planning later.
The changes are so large, that they need a lot of testing. The printing
dialog has been the last large UI change and that has last over a year.
Even when I only take the test time, which is reflected in Bugzilla, I
see eight months "CWS printerpullpages".
The internal changes in Draw are not visible, but because they effect
the whole office, they need a lot of testing too.
I do not think, that a good tested release with such changes would be
possible before July. Therefore I argue for not merging the planning,
but release a 3.5 based on the current trunk (approximately) and then a
version 4.0 containing large changes in autumn 2013.
I believe it is important
> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> an open and transparent way.
Setting a feature freeze day?
>
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
>
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>
> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>
> Any opinions or feedback?
So my suggestion is to not make 4.0 the next release but do a 3.5
release with bug fixes and further languages in between.
Kind regards
Regina
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Am Samstag, 24. November 2012 um 00:16 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> > next release if it's ok for our community.
> >
> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> > 4.0 version as our next release.
> >
>
>
> Here is what we currently have on the planning wiki as proposed for 4.0:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning
>
> Is it your/our intention to have these items complete for a proposed
> 4.0 release?
>
>
I don't think so, proposing is one thing but implementing is the other. I for myself have to revert probably the extension manager enhancement. We have to rework this list.
Juergen
>
> >
> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> > fit in a major release.
> >
> > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
> >
> > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> > and 3.4.1.
> >
> > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> > an open and transparent way.
> >
> > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> > available as soon as possible.
> >
> > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
> >
> > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
> >
> > Any opinions or feedback?
> >
> > Juergen
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
> she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
>
> -- Anais Nin
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2012/11/24 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>>> > next release if it's ok for our community.
>>> >
>>> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>>> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>>> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>>> > 4.0 version as our next release.
>>>
>>> Here is what we currently have on the planning wiki as proposed for 4.0:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning
>>>
>>> Is it your/our intention to have these items complete for a proposed
>>> 4.0 release?
>>>
>> Kay,
>> That's the 4.0 planning wiki we should continue to work on. But some
>> items there were input long long ago (when we thought there would be a 3.5
>> in front...). So I suggest we should revisit the contents there.
>>
>> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>>
>>
>
> Simon --
>
> Well yes we should.
>
> FYIW, I looked at the 3.5 planning doc as well. And, I couldn't
> determine really what from the 3.5. had already been implemented in
> "trunk". I need to go over this.
>
> OK, I only bring up the cwiki page because this is what the "public"
> has been seeing and is referenced in the recent "Call for Marketing
> Volunteers" blog. .
>
oops! sorry, meant to delete this partial sentence...please ignore it.
> Also, we might look again at the information that was colelcted via the Google
>>>
>>> >
>>> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>>> > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>>> > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>>> > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>>> > fit in a major release.
>>> >
>>> > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>>> > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>>> >
>>> > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>>> > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>>> > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>>> > and 3.4.1.
>>> >
>>> > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>>> > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
>>> > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>>> > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>>> > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>>> > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>>> > an open and transparent way.
>>> >
>>> > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>>> > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>>> > available as soon as possible.
>>> >
>>> > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>>> > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>>> > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>>> > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>>> >
>>> > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>>> > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>>> > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>>> >
>>> > Any opinions or feedback?
>>> >
>>> > Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
>>> she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
>>>
>>> -- Anais Nin
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
> she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
>
> -- Anais Nin
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
-- Anais Nin
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/11/24 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
>> > next release if it's ok for our community.
>> >
>> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
>> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
>> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
>> > 4.0 version as our next release.
>>
>> Here is what we currently have on the planning wiki as proposed for 4.0:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning
>>
>> Is it your/our intention to have these items complete for a proposed
>> 4.0 release?
>>
> Kay,
> That's the 4.0 planning wiki we should continue to work on. But some
> items there were input long long ago (when we thought there would be a 3.5
> in front...). So I suggest we should revisit the contents there.
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
Simon --
Well yes we should.
FYIW, I looked at the 3.5 planning doc as well. And, I couldn't
determine really what from the 3.5. had already been implemented in
"trunk". I need to go over this.
OK, I only bring up the cwiki page because this is what the "public"
has been seeing and is referenced in the recent "Call for Marketing
Volunteers" blog. .
Also, we might look again at the information that was colelcted via the Google
>>
>> >
>> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
>> > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
>> > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
>> > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
>> > fit in a major release.
>> >
>> > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
>> > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>> >
>> > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
>> > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
>> > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
>> > and 3.4.1.
>> >
>> > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
>> > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
>> > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
>> > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
>> > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
>> > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
>> > an open and transparent way.
>> >
>> > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
>> > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
>> > available as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
>> > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
>> > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
>> > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>> >
>> > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
>> > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
>> > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>> >
>> > Any opinions or feedback?
>> >
>> > Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
>> she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
>>
>> -- Anais Nin
>>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
-- Anais Nin
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
2012/11/24 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> > next release if it's ok for our community.
> >
> > Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> > After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> > the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> > 4.0 version as our next release.
>
> Here is what we currently have on the planning wiki as proposed for 4.0:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning
>
> Is it your/our intention to have these items complete for a proposed
> 4.0 release?
>
Kay,
That's the 4.0 planning wiki we should continue to work on. But some
items there were input long long ago (when we thought there would be a 3.5
in front...). So I suggest we should revisit the contents there.
- Shenfeng (Simon)
>
> >
> > We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> > and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> > to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> > incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> > fit in a major release.
> >
> > I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> > rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
> >
> > I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> > on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> > release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> > and 3.4.1.
> >
> > If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> > planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> > that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> > important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> > want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> > and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> > an open and transparent way.
> >
> > Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> > further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> > available as soon as possible.
> >
> > One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> > new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> > source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> > long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
> >
> > On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> > on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> > we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
> >
> > Any opinions or feedback?
> >
> > Juergen
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
> she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
>
> -- Anais Nin
>
Re: [RELEASE] AOO.next = AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to volunteer again as release manager for our
> next release if it's ok for our community.
>
> Second I would like to define with you what our next release will be.
> After various discussion and activities on the mailing list and also at
> the ApacheCon, I got the impression that the majority would support a
> 4.0 version as our next release.
Here is what we currently have on the planning wiki as proposed for 4.0:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning
Is it your/our intention to have these items complete for a proposed
4.0 release?
>
> We are planning some bigger UI changes for the next release (sidebar)
> and such UI changes are always a good indicator for a new major release
> to signal our users bigger changers. I know Ariel has also some
> incompatible changes regarding add-ons in the pipeline that would also
> fit in a major release.
>
> I noticed some discussion around a new visual design and a bigger
> rebranding and this is a further reason for a major release.
>
> I think it is time to define this more concrete and focus in more detail
> on the work that is needed and required to bring a good and stable
> release on the road. Our goal should be to continue the success of 3.4
> and 3.4.1.
>
> If nobody will complain I will start to merge the started 3.5 and 4.0
> planning into one combined planning later. I believe it is important
> that we concentrate on our next release. If you think a rebranding is
> important and you want to drive it, please start immediately. If you
> want to bring in some new features, please communicate it on the list
> and start working on it. Let us work on the plan for the next release in
> an open and transparent way.
>
> Besides the next major release we should also continue the discussion on
> further language packs based on 3.4.1 to make the latest translations
> available as soon as possible.
>
> One way to make these language packs available would be to integrate the
> new translations on the AOO34 branch, build the language packs and a new
> source release based on this revision. The effort should be minimal as
> long as we don't integrate bugfixes.
>
> On the other hand a release is of course a lot of work and we can focus
> on releasing these new languages together with 4.0. The question is if
> we do have the resources for releasing the new languages?
>
> Any opinions or feedback?
>
> Juergen
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
she wants, rather than to create it herself?”
-- Anais Nin