4.1.4 RC4: synchronize labels don't work on MacOS

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
62 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Andrea Pescetti-2
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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Roberto Galoppini-2
2017-10-10 21:19 GMT+02:00 Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]>:

> 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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep calm and don't over-react Was: Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Jörg Schmidt-2
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)

> From: Marcus [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:17 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Keep calm and don't over-react Was: Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!
>
> Reply to all, not only Jim:
>
>
>
> Wow, I just had a day off and now my inbox is exploding.
>
> Honestly, was it necessary to act within a few hours? Wouldn't it be
> better to wait more time?
>
> There is no BZ issue, no blocker request, just mails. The
> builds aren't
> yet public, no communication was gone to the world until now. So, I
> don't see a reason to hurry up here.
>
> Really, please let us follow our own processes. Otherwise we
> cannot be
> sure not to forget something.
>
> Marcus


I support what Marcus has said.

imho:
Better to spend more time on a qualitatively good release than to release a less good release overhasty.

Please don't forget: the quality of AOO is the main argument for many users to choose AOO, especially compared to LO.
(Yes, bugfixing improves quality, but only if the technical and organizational processes follow the agreed procedures.)



greetings.
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> The reason is that we have *TAGGED* 4.1.4. :(
>
> sad but true, also here we have big bug in our cook book. So, no blame to you. ;-)
>
> Creating the SVN tag must not happen as long as the release is not public on servers and communicated to the world.
>

++1.

> I'll fix this in the Wiki.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:56 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why the need to bump the release number, rather than kill RC4 and build RC5?
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2017 5:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> Thx again!
>>>> Considering this issue, this means that 4.1.4 is also DOA. I will wait for
>>>> a few more hours, for West Coast to get online but my plan is to
>>>> start the process for AOO-415
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The attached patch fixes this, as well as the business card case.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/10/2017 2:59 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>> Even on Linux.
>>>>>> Problem: linked sections will not be updated if the original section is changed.
>>>>>> The button [Synchronise Labels] do nothing other than Tools… → Update → Links (or Tools… → Update → Update All).
>>>>>> Simply
>>>>>> 1. create a new text document
>>>>>> 2. insert a section with content
>>>>>> 3. insert a section as link to the first section
>>>>>> 4. change the content of the first section
>>>>>> 5. Tools… → Update → Links
>>>>>> or Tools… → Update → Update All
>>>>>> => Nothing happens. :-(
>>>>>> Regards, Mathias
>>>>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>>>> Thanks for the report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have reproduced the problem in my Windows 8.1 debug environment, based on trunk but with some 4.1.4 changes added. I need to get some more sleep before serious debug (it is 2:08 a.m. here). Could someone check whether it happens in the unmodified trunk? That would narrow it down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/10/2017 12:49 AM, FR web forum wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello dev,
>>>>>>>> FYI a french user reports this on MacBook Pro SSD OS X 10.12.6 Sierra
>>>>>>>> Run File - New - Business Cards
>>>>>>>> Choose how your business cards will look
>>>>>>>> Click on New document
>>>>>>>> Modifiy the first label
>>>>>>>> When you click on the Synchronize Labels button, the current label is not copied to all others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rollback to 4.1.3: works as expected.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Marcus (OOo)
Am 10.10.2017 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.10.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> The reason is that we have *TAGGED* 4.1.4. :(
>>
>> sad but true, also here we have big bug in our cook book. So, no blame to you. ;-)
>>
>> Creating the SVN tag must not happen as long as the release is not public on servers and communicated to the world.
>>
>
> ++1.
>
>> I'll fix this in the Wiki.

done in the meantime. Please review:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release

Thanks

Marcus



>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:56 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why the need to bump the release number, rather than kill RC4 and build RC5?
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2017 5:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> Thx again!
>>>>> Considering this issue, this means that 4.1.4 is also DOA. I will wait for
>>>>> a few more hours, for West Coast to get online but my plan is to
>>>>> start the process for AOO-415
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:16 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attached patch fixes this, as well as the business card case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/10/2017 2:59 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>> Even on Linux.
>>>>>>> Problem: linked sections will not be updated if the original section is changed.
>>>>>>> The button [Synchronise Labels] do nothing other than Tools… → Update → Links (or Tools… → Update → Update All).
>>>>>>> Simply
>>>>>>> 1. create a new text document
>>>>>>> 2. insert a section with content
>>>>>>> 3. insert a section as link to the first section
>>>>>>> 4. change the content of the first section
>>>>>>> 5. Tools… → Update → Links
>>>>>>> or Tools… → Update → Update All
>>>>>>> => Nothing happens. :-(
>>>>>>> Regards, Mathias
>>>>>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the report.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have reproduced the problem in my Windows 8.1 debug environment, based on trunk but with some 4.1.4 changes added. I need to get some more sleep before serious debug (it is 2:08 a.m. here). Could someone check whether it happens in the unmodified trunk? That would narrow it down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2017 12:49 AM, FR web forum wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello dev,
>>>>>>>>> FYI a french user reports this on MacBook Pro SSD OS X 10.12.6 Sierra
>>>>>>>>> Run File - New - Business Cards
>>>>>>>>> Choose how your business cards will look
>>>>>>>>> Click on New document
>>>>>>>>> Modifiy the first label
>>>>>>>>> When you click on the Synchronize Labels button, the current label is not copied to all others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rollback to 4.1.3: works as expected.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Pedro Lino-3
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Pedro Lino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Andrea, all
>
> > Remember that the amount of code changes needed to produce something
> >     named 4.1.5 is quite significant and very much error-prone. Take a
> look
> >     at the relevant issues in case, but for a "quick fix" I would
> definitely
> >     stick to 4.1.4, produce 4.1.4-RC5 and vote on RC5, while undoing
> what we
> >     did for 4.1.4-RC4.
> >
>
> +1
>
> > I have
> >     still to understand the importance of this bug too - I assume this
> >     affects potentially many users, otherwise we can go the slippery way
> of
> >     "fix just another small bug" for ages.
> >
>
>
> This is not a fix for a small bug. It is a regression introduced since
> 4.1.3
>
> I believe all regressions from 4.1.3 should be fixed before release. After
> all 4.1.4 is a bug fix release, so regressions are not expected (or
> acceptable IMO)
>
>
> Pedro
>

I agree with Pedro's assessment of regressions.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
                         -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
Hi -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Patricia Shanahan
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> The attached patch fixes this, as well as the business card case.

Confirmed. I've just built 4.1.4RC4+patch and the bug was fixed, while
4.1.4RC4 had it. I haven't had the time to check whether this breaks
something else yet.

To be honest, I don't recall ever using linked sections in many years as
an OpenOffice users... but we all know that the "important features" are
different for everybody.

> On 10/10/2017 2:59 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
>> 1. create a new text document
>> 2. insert a section with content
>> 3. insert a section as link to the first section
>> 4. change the content of the first section
>> 5. Tools… → Update → Links
>> or Tools… → Update → Update All
>> => Nothing happens. :-(

This is a very good description. Mathias, have you already copied it to
Bugzilla? (I've also tested with business cards, but this one looks more
generic).

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher
Am 10.10.2017 um 22:56 schrieb Dave Fisher:

> Hi -
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Don Lewis-2
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
On 10 Oct, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Thx again!
>
> Considering this issue, this means that 4.1.4 is also DOA. I will wait for
> a few more hours, for West Coast to get online but my plan is to
> start the process for AOO-415

Not releasing RC4 will considerably delay releasing a version that has
the other important and much delayed fixes for other issues.  My
preference would be to release RC4 as-is with an errata notice about
this issue and do a 4.1.5 release as quickly as possible afterwards.

The fact that it took this long for the problem to be identified in the
4.1.4 RC series would seem to indicate that the number of users who
would have to stick with 4.1.3 until 4.1.5 is released would be fairly
small.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Don Lewis-2
In reply to this post by Rory O'Farrell
On 10 Oct, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:54:54 -0400
> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Resigning as RM for 4.1.x

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
Hi

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10.10.2017 um 22:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> On Oct 10, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep calm and don't over-react Was: Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Pedro Lino-3
In reply to this post by Jörg Schmidt-2
Hi all

> On October 10, 2017 at 8:47 PM Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> imho:
> Better to spend more time on a qualitatively good release than to release a less good release overhasty.

+1

> Please don't forget: the quality of AOO is the main argument for many users to choose AOO, especially compared to LO.

+1

> (Yes, bugfixing improves quality, but only if the technical and organizational processes follow the agreed procedures.)

+1

Is the ASF process really so strict that it will force to release 4.1.4 with a known regression? That would be a shot in the foot for AOO. And remember, this is a public mailing list, so the news are already out.

4.1.4 RC4 was never released to the the public. It is Staged in Sourceforge. Is it not possible to go back one step and add the patch to RC5 and still release 4.1.4?

Just my 2 cents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Keep calm and don't over-react Was: Re: 4.1.4 show stopper!

Jim Jagielski
As noted, the issue is that AOO414 is tagged.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

issue 127553 (was: 4.1.4 show stopper!)

Mathias Röllig
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
> This is a very good description. Mathias, have you already copied it to
> Bugzilla? (I've also tested with business cards, but this one looks more
> generic).

Done.

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127553

But 4.1.4 isn't available for version in bugzilla. Neither as »Version«
nor as »Latest Confirmation in«.


Regards, Mathias

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: issue 127553

Matthias Seidel
We can always change that later...

@Marcus:

Can you re-add 4.1.4 (also for Target Milestone)?

Thanks, Matthias


Am 11.10.2017 um 14:24 schrieb Mathias Röllig:

>> This is a very good description. Mathias, have you already copied it
>> to Bugzilla? (I've also tested with business cards, but this one
>> looks more generic).
>
> Done.
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127553
>
> But 4.1.4 isn't available for version in bugzilla. Neither as
> »Version« nor as »Latest Confirmation in«.
>
>
> Regards, Mathias
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
1234