You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2017/10/10 15:04:14 UTC
Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
Linux 32/64 bit builds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11.10.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> Hi -
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
>>>>> I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
>>>>> say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
>>>>
>>>> sounds good.
>>> We will need to make sure that people know how to get 4.1.3 if they run into the issue.
>>
>> I think when people can download 4.1.4, then they can also downlaod 4.1.3 to do a downgrade install. Or do you mean to write 1-2 sentences into the release notes?
>
> Yes. A little text about how to downgrade.
with Jim's recent decision to this is now obsolete.
Marcus
>>>> Then we can still decide if the amount of issues is high enough to put effort into a 4.1.5 release. Or move on to 4.2.0.
>>> How stable is trunk?
>>
>> I don't remember many tests and reports about these dev builds. So, I would call it: undefined.
>>
>> Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi -
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
>>>> I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
>>>> say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
>>>
>>> sounds good.
>> We will need to make sure that people know how to get 4.1.3 if they run into the issue.
>
> I think when people can download 4.1.4, then they can also downlaod 4.1.3 to do a downgrade install. Or do you mean to write 1-2 sentences into the release notes?
Yes. A little text about how to downgrade.
Regards,
Dave
>
>>> Then we can still decide if the amount of issues is high enough to put effort into a 4.1.5 release. Or move on to 4.2.0.
>> How stable is trunk?
>
> I don't remember many tests and reports about these dev builds. So, I would call it: undefined.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi -
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
>>> I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
>>> say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
>>
>> sounds good.
>
> We will need to make sure that people know how to get 4.1.3 if they run into the issue.
I think when people can download 4.1.4, then they can also downlaod
4.1.3 to do a downgrade install. Or do you mean to write 1-2 sentences
into the release notes?
>> Then we can still decide if the amount of issues is high enough to put effort into a 4.1.5 release. Or move on to 4.2.0.
>
> How stable is trunk?
I don't remember many tests and reports about these dev builds. So, I
would call it: undefined.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
>> I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
>> say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
>
> sounds good.
We will need to make sure that people know how to get 4.1.3 if they run into the issue.
>
> Then we can still decide if the amount of issues is high enough to put effort into a 4.1.5 release. Or move on to 4.2.0.
How stable is trunk?
Regards,
Dave
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
>
> I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
> say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
sounds good.
Then we can still decide if the amount of issues is high enough to put
effort into a 4.1.5 release. Or move on to 4.2.0.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
I am 100% fine w/ this. It is a known regression however, but we can
say that w/ the release of 4.1.4 we are committing ourselves to a 4.1.5 in 30-60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10.10.2017 um 19:40 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve together.
I also want that Jim continous as RM.
@Jim:
Please remember that it's allowed to ask for help when you see much work
and less time on your side. ;-)
Marcus
> Am 10. Oktober 2017 19:21:25 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>:
>> I hope you will stay on. I am not sure I would have made the same
>> decision as you about the release number, but in my opinion part of the
>>
>> RM role is bike-shedding prevention by making decisions.
>>
>> I hope that the need to test the patch ASAP does not get lost in the
>> discussion of what to call it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/2017 9:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't
>> want
>>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which
>>> is very, very tiring).
>>>
>>> As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would
>>> be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT same
>>> as the AOO414 tag w/ the exception related to the version numbering.
>>>
>>> But I want/need feedback from the group if I should stay or if
>> someone
>>> is willing to take up semi-immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
I support Jim as release manager. I see no big issues, that we can not solve together.
I can take over at 4.1.5, if needed, but not before. I am sorry. Because currently I am not up to date about the release and have time restraints until 20th.
For 4.1.5 we need to communicate, explain the situation. And we should think also more about timelines.
All the best
Peter
Am 10. Oktober 2017 19:21:25 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>:
>I hope you will stay on. I am not sure I would have made the same
>decision as you about the release number, but in my opinion part of the
>
>RM role is bike-shedding prevention by making decisions.
>
>I hope that the need to test the patch ASAP does not get lost in the
>discussion of what to call it.
>
>
>
>On 10/10/2017 9:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't
>want
>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which
>> is very, very tiring).
>>
>> As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would
>> be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT same
>> as the AOO414 tag w/ the exception related to the version numbering.
>>
>> But I want/need feedback from the group if I should stay or if
>someone
>> is willing to take up semi-immediately.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
I hope you will stay on. I am not sure I would have made the same
decision as you about the release number, but in my opinion part of the
RM role is bike-shedding prevention by making decisions.
I hope that the need to test the patch ASAP does not get lost in the
discussion of what to call it.
On 10/10/2017 9:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which
> is very, very tiring).
>
> As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would
> be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT same
> as the AOO414 tag w/ the exception related to the version numbering.
>
> But I want/need feedback from the group if I should stay or if someone
> is willing to take up semi-immediately.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> To us a release is/was simply the distributed source package, not a tag in SVN. But this is a side discussion.
>
Agreed. But it is a serious discussion since such policy is NOT part
of the standard release expectations. Their must be a 1-1 match between
released source-code AND a SVN tag (or a specific SVN revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 10.10.2017 um 21:19 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
>
> Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
>
> But I'll still send this "modest proposal", based on experience:
>
> 1) We just go ahead and release 4.1.4 as scheduled (i.e., we release
> RC4), at some point within the next 7 days. The "synchronize labels"
> bug becomes a "Known Issue" in the release notes.
>
> 2) Starting today, we incorporate fixes on the AOO415 branch and aim
> at releasing it in, say, early November; AOO415 is only meant to fix
> 4.1.4 regressions and we try to be reasonably strict about this (i.e.,
> we try to avoid the never-ending "just another small fix" syndrome).
>
> 3) We still wait until, say, end of October before producing RCs for
> 4.1.5 since this gives us the time to receive reports of other
> possible bugs/regressions to be fixed in 4.1.5.
>
> Can this work? This covers the case where someone finds a bug the day
> after release; this way we have a window for fixing it in a short term.
>
> My suggestion to keep 4.1.4 was simply pragmatic: those who never
> updated the metadata might believe that 4.1.4->4.1.5 is only a
> one-line change, while the change affects dozens of files and hundreds
> of XML files related to updates and living on another domain. Not
> something that can be done in 10 minutes. Deleting the tag was bad,
> but we never relied on tags: 4.1.3 was tagged several months after it
> was released. To us a release is/was simply the distributed source
> package, not a tag in SVN. But this is a side discussion.
>
> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with
> this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible
> regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and
> I still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word.
> But I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
I think this is a reasonable way...
Another (minor) regression is the Polish dictionary (shame on me!).
Already fixed in trunk and committed to 4.1.5 by Jim.
I may have found another regression, but I need some time to test it and
put it in words...
And then it needs some time fixing it.
So +1 for the timeline.
Matthias
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2017-10-10 21:19 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
>> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
>>
>
> Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
>
> But I'll still send this "modest proposal", based on experience:
>
> 1) We just go ahead and release 4.1.4 as scheduled (i.e., we release RC4),
> at some point within the next 7 days. The "synchronize labels" bug becomes
> a "Known Issue" in the release notes.
>
> 2) Starting today, we incorporate fixes on the AOO415 branch and aim at
> releasing it in, say, early November; AOO415 is only meant to fix 4.1.4
> regressions and we try to be reasonably strict about this (i.e., we try to
> avoid the never-ending "just another small fix" syndrome).
>
> 3) We still wait until, say, end of October before producing RCs for 4.1.5
> since this gives us the time to receive reports of other possible
> bugs/regressions to be fixed in 4.1.5.
>
> Can this work? This covers the case where someone finds a bug the day
> after release; this way we have a window for fixing it in a short term.
>
Makes sense to me.
+1
Roberto
>
> My suggestion to keep 4.1.4 was simply pragmatic: those who never updated
> the metadata might believe that 4.1.4->4.1.5 is only a one-line change,
> while the change affects dozens of files and hundreds of XML files related
> to updates and living on another domain. Not something that can be done in
> 10 minutes. Deleting the tag was bad, but we never relied on tags: 4.1.3
> was tagged several months after it was released. To us a release is/was
> simply the distributed source package, not a tag in SVN. But this is a side
> discussion.
>
> Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with this
> "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible regressions in
> 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I still consider
> Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But I'd say everybody
> is welcome to comment.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
> us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama
Yes, let's avoid drama, really.
But I'll still send this "modest proposal", based on experience:
1) We just go ahead and release 4.1.4 as scheduled (i.e., we release
RC4), at some point within the next 7 days. The "synchronize labels" bug
becomes a "Known Issue" in the release notes.
2) Starting today, we incorporate fixes on the AOO415 branch and aim at
releasing it in, say, early November; AOO415 is only meant to fix 4.1.4
regressions and we try to be reasonably strict about this (i.e., we try
to avoid the never-ending "just another small fix" syndrome).
3) We still wait until, say, end of October before producing RCs for
4.1.5 since this gives us the time to receive reports of other possible
bugs/regressions to be fixed in 4.1.5.
Can this work? This covers the case where someone finds a bug the day
after release; this way we have a window for fixing it in a short term.
My suggestion to keep 4.1.4 was simply pragmatic: those who never
updated the metadata might believe that 4.1.4->4.1.5 is only a one-line
change, while the change affects dozens of files and hundreds of XML
files related to updates and living on another domain. Not something
that can be done in 10 minutes. Deleting the tag was bad, but we never
relied on tags: 4.1.3 was tagged several months after it was released.
To us a release is/was simply the distributed source package, not a tag
in SVN. But this is a side discussion.
Now the question is, is it OK for us to go ahead, release 4.1.4 with
this "known issue" and commit to fixing this and other possible
regressions in 4.1.5 next month? Technically, the Release Manager (and I
still consider Jim to be in charge, of course!) has the last word. But
I'd say everybody is welcome to comment.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I feel bad leaving RM at this stage... we are so close, and I don't want
us to lose momentum. But I also don't want there to be drama (which
is very, very tiring).
As I said, if I stay on, and am still "picked" as RM, my plan would
be to simply move on to 4.1.5 which is, at this state, the EXACT same
as the AOO414 tag w/ the exception related to the version numbering.
But I want/need feedback from the group if I should stay or if someone
is willing to take up semi-immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Rest assured that I am on standby for the Windows builds!
Whatever version it will be...
Am 10.10.2017 um 17:04 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
> to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
> being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
>
> Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
> Linux 32/64 bit builds.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
AOO415 branch created
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO415/>
exists. It was copied directly from AOO414 HEAD which was/is
tags/414
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hi all --
It's true that changing from 4.1.4 to 4.1.5 requires a bit of work, but
really not all that much. It would be better to have Jim continue as RM
regardless IMO and others can pitch in. Once the branch is copied to
4.1.5, others can pitch in to do version updates. Non-committers can
submit patches toward this endeavor.
I will still help with collecting bugs and resolutions toward this.
On 10/10/2017 09:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> That's sad news. :(
>>
>> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
>> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
>>
>
> IMO, it would be better to have someone step up asap... if no one does, or
> can, I may be able to move some things around...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
------------------------------------------
MzK
"Only the truth will save you now."
-- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That's sad news. :(
>
> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
>
IMO, it would be better to have someone step up asap... if no one does, or
can, I may be able to move some things around...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Either way we would have to update the metadata:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127168
It would be quite risky to introduce a fourth digit without testing at
this stage...
Matthias
Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia:
> On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>>
>> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
>> 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
>> Or call it 4.1.4.1
>>
>> Rory
> +1
>
> FC
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 10.10.2017 um 18:01 schrieb Fernando Cassia:
> On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>>
>>
>> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
>> 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
>> Or call it 4.1.4.1
>>
>> Rory
>
> +1
-1
Every version numbering else than x.y.z is not working with our download
script.
And no, it doesn't make sense to invest hours to adjust it only to
support this one-time-thing. ;-)
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On 10/10/17, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the
> 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
> Or call it 4.1.4.1
>
> Rory
+1
FC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com <ma...@jaguNET.com>> wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
> Or call it 4.1.4.1
>
I'm confused. How does calling it 4.1.4.1 or 4.1.4a or even 4.1.4buffalo help?
What exactly does it make easier? We still need to rebuild. And it
doesn't even help w/ the Wiki pages that would need to be renamed.
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Don Lewis <tr...@apache.org>.
On 10 Oct, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
>
>
> Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
> Or call it 4.1.4.1
Figuring out how to do a 4.1.4a or 4.1.4.1 release is probably harder
than adjusting all the knobs to change the release to 4.1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
Does it matter? There is a first time for everything. Why throw all the 4.1.4 work away and start again with 4.1.5?
Or call it 4.1.4.1
Rory
>
> > On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200
> > Peter kovacs <petko@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >> That's sad news. :(
> >>
> >> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
> >> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
> >>
> >> If that's fine for all.
> >>
> >> One sidenote for all. We need to explain the situation somehow if we do not sneak the patch in. ( it seems to be a small thing )
> >>
> >> All the best
> >> peter
> >
> >
> > Put the patch in and call the release 4.1.4a. Delete existing 4.1.4 versions.
> >
> > Rory
> >
> >>
> >> Am 10. Oktober 2017 17:04:14 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
> >>> To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
> >>> to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
> >>> being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
> >>>
> >>> Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
> >>> Linux 32/64 bit builds.
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie <ma...@iol.ie>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Have we ever released a X.Y.Za?
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200
> Peter kovacs <petko@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>> That's sad news. :(
>>
>> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
>> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
>>
>> If that's fine for all.
>>
>> One sidenote for all. We need to explain the situation somehow if we do not sneak the patch in. ( it seems to be a small thing )
>>
>> All the best
>> peter
>
>
> Put the patch in and call the release 4.1.4a. Delete existing 4.1.4 versions.
>
> Rory
>
>>
>> Am 10. Oktober 2017 17:04:14 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>>> To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
>>> to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
>>> being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
>>>
>>> Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
>>> Linux 32/64 bit builds.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie <ma...@iol.ie>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org <ma...@openoffice.apache.org>
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:25:43 +0200
Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> That's sad news. :(
>
> I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
> However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
>
> If that's fine for all.
>
> One sidenote for all. We need to explain the situation somehow if we do not sneak the patch in. ( it seems to be a small thing )
>
> All the best
> peter
Put the patch in and call the release 4.1.4a. Delete existing 4.1.4 versions.
Rory
>
> Am 10. Oktober 2017 17:04:14 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
> >To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
> >to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
> >being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
> >
> >Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
> >Linux 32/64 bit builds.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x
Posted by Peter kovacs <pe...@apache.org>.
That's sad news. :(
I have no time until 20th. I would sign up for RM for 4.2.0. (And optional 4.1.5 if we decide for this approach.)
However I would not do any building only the organisational part of collecting bugs and tracking / triggering the advancement.
If that's fine for all.
One sidenote for all. We need to explain the situation somehow if we do not sneak the patch in. ( it seems to be a small thing )
All the best
peter
Am 10. Oktober 2017 17:04:14 MESZ schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>To be honest, I really don't think I have the time or energy at present
>to continue on as RM for the 4.1.x stuff, no matter what we do. After
>being away at confs for ~3weeks, I have quite a bit of a backlog.
>
>Who wants to take over. I still am signing up to do the macOS and
>Linux 32/64 bit builds.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org