A 4.1.6 Release

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
Considering the # of macOS related downloads, and the fact that pretty much every module that is ported to the gbuild system breaks the macOS build (currently trying to resolve the lingucomponent issues), could I suggest that we hold off on the dmake->gbuild migration for awhile?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
Back to the topic:

If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process described here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release

That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion). We have
to get 4.2.0 releasable!

Regards,

   Matthias


Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:

> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>
>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we decided
>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was,
>>>> if they
>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing sympathy
>>>> for a
>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years until
>>>> they
>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer
>>>> Topic can
>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have
>>>> pointed
>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I
>>>> think we
>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my fault
>>>> that I
>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for me.
>>>>
>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one topic
>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that
>>>> anyone
>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance. Some
>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search
>>>> someone for
>>>> this.
>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>
>>> PS:
>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5
>>> years.
>>>
>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta release.
>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building
>>>> without
>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in
>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
>>>> back port
>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of CentOS6.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something
>>> newer.
>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>
>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>
>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS
>>> version we
>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
>>> bigger
>>> impact for our users.
>>
>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the 32-bit
>> Linux
>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving away
>> from
>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>> impact this
>> will have overall though.
>
> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats
> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>
> BTW:
> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not the
> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>
> OS        %
> -----------------------
> Windows        86,1165
> Macintosh     7,8424
> Unknown         4,9012
> Linux         1,0621
> Android         0,0762
> BSD         0,0011
> Solaris         0,0006
>
> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
> be for 64-bit.
>
> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with Java 8.
>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response from
>>>>> other
>>>>> members!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported plus
>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>> may be
>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July. Even
>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can use
>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with AOO
>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>      Matthias
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


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

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-2
I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but failed on this.
Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity is conning Wednesday.

I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after 4.1.6 I agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least one maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In the beta phase.


Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>:

>Back to the topic:
>
>If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process described
>here:
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>
>That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion). We have
>to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>
>Regards,
>
>   Matthias
>
>
>Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>decided
>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was,
>>>>> if they
>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>sympathy
>>>>> for a
>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>until
>>>>> they
>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer
>>>>> Topic can
>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have
>>>>> pointed
>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I
>>>>> think we
>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>fault
>>>>> that I
>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for
>me.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one
>topic
>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance.
>Some
>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search
>>>>> someone for
>>>>> this.
>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>>
>>>> PS:
>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta
>release.
>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building
>>>>> without
>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in
>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
>>>>> back port
>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
>CentOS6.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something
>>>> newer.
>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>
>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>
>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS
>>>> version we
>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
>>>> bigger
>>>> impact for our users.
>>>
>>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>32-bit
>>> Linux
>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving
>away
>>> from
>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>> impact this
>>> will have overall though.
>>
>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats
>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>
>> BTW:
>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not
>the
>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>
>> OS        %
>> -----------------------
>> Windows        86,1165
>> Macintosh     7,8424
>> Unknown         4,9012
>> Linux         1,0621
>> Android         0,0762
>> BSD         0,0011
>> Solaris         0,0006
>>
>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>> be for 64-bit.
>>
>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>Java 8.
>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>from
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>plus
>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>Even
>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>use
>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with
>AOO
>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>      Matthias
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [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: A 4.1.6 Release

Patricia Shanahan
I don't think the decision of whether to do a 4.1.7 is something the PMC
can decide, and it won't be until 4.2 is the established field release.
If you get hit with security bugs, you have to fix the field release,
whether you like it or not. When 4.2 is established in the field, you
will have a choice between fixing 4.1.x or withdrawing support for 4.1.x.

On 7/20/2018 11:28 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but failed on this.
> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity is conning Wednesday.
>
> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after 4.1.6 I agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least one maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In the beta phase.
>
>
> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>:
>> Back to the topic:
>>
>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process described
>> here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release
>>
>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion). We have
>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>     Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>> decided
>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was,
>>>>>> if they
>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>> sympathy
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>> until
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer
>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have
>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I
>>>>>> think we
>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>> fault
>>>>>> that I
>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for
>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one
>> topic
>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance.
>> Some
>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search
>>>>>> someone for
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS:
>>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta
>> release.
>>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in
>>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
>>>>>> back port
>>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
>> CentOS6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something
>>>>> newer.
>>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS
>>>>> version we
>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
>>>>> bigger
>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>
>>>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>> 32-bit
>>>> Linux
>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving
>> away
>>>> from
>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>> impact this
>>>> will have overall though.
>>>
>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats
>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>
>>> BTW:
>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not
>> the
>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>
>>> OS        %
>>> -----------------------
>>> Windows        86,1165
>>> Macintosh     7,8424
>>> Unknown         4,9012
>>> Linux         1,0621
>>> Android         0,0762
>>> BSD         0,0011
>>> Solaris         0,0006
>>>
>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>
>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>> Java 8.
>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>> from
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>> plus
>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>> use
>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with
>> AOO
>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>       Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Marcus (OOo)
Am 21.07.2018 um 08:34 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> I don't think the decision of whether to do a 4.1.7 is something the PMC
> can decide, and it won't be until 4.2 is the established field release.
> If you get hit with security bugs, you have to fix the field release,
> whether you like it or not. When 4.2 is established in the field, you
> will have a choice between fixing 4.1.x or withdrawing support for 4.1.x.

absolutely right.

Marcus



> On 7/20/2018 11:28 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I hope i have time on Sunday. I wanted to proceed last Sunday but
>> failed on this.
>> Currently my calendar is kind of full. Next possible opportunity is
>> conning Wednesday.
>>
>> I am undecided if the 4.1.6 will be the last release. But after 4.1.6
>> I agree 4.2.0 beta should get priority. I can imagine that at least
>> one maintenance release could be possible while we stabilize 4.2.0. In
>> the beta phase.
>>
>>
>> Am 19. Juli 2018 19:49:46 MESZ schrieb Matthias Seidel
>> <[hidden email]>:
>>> Back to the topic:
>>>
>>> If we want to release 4.1.6, we should start the process described
>>> here:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/How+to+Cook+a+Release 
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, 4.1.6 should really be the last 4.1.x. (my opinion). We have
>>> to get 4.2.0 releasable!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>     Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 23:45 schrieb Marcus:
>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 22:46 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.07.2018 um 08:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Jim is referring to the gstreamer situation, where we
>>> decided
>>>>>>> that we skip CentOS6 more or less for 4.2.0.And one argument was,
>>>>>>> if they
>>>>>>> want something they should support us. This is not showing
>>> sympathy
>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> small user group that uses very old software for 2 more years
>>> until
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> have to move to CentOS 7. I personally think that the gstreamer
>>>>>>> Topic can
>>>>>>> be solved after we have released a beta version. Damjan and I have
>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>> out a lot of possible ways to deal with the issue. Just for now I
>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>> have other problems then gstreamer in 4.2.0. I think it is my
>>> fault
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>> put that argument so much in the front line, but that stuck for
>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the last months we had a drop in activity. And more then one
>>> topic
>>>>>>> received not the attention it deserved. I would not conclude that
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> has stopped caring at this point in time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let us conclude for now:
>>>>>>> 4.1.x is still in maintenance. And in my opinion we could think of
>>>>>>> maintaining it until 2020 when CentOS6 drops out of maintenance.
>>> Some
>>>>>>> support from CentOS6 side would be nice. But we need to search
>>>>>>> someone for
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> I have that on my todo list, but did not manage to follow it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> incl. gstreamer 0.1.0 that is now within the 4.1.x code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS:
>>>>>> CentOS 6 will be supported until Nov 2020; which means another ~2.5
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.2.0 has I think 3 bugs we know about and that blocks a beta
>>> release.
>>>>>>> Current target for building with gstreamer is CentOS7. Building
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> gstreamer could be done on CentOS6. We should keep the code in
>>>>>>> trunc CentOS
>>>>>>> 6 compatible where ever we can for now. That will make it easy to
>>>>>>> back port
>>>>>>> patches to 4.1.x if we decide to maintain 4.1.x until EOL of
>>> CentOS6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 4.2.0 we can still keep gstreamer 0.1.0 or update to something
>>>>>> newer.
>>>>>> To be honest, I don't care *about this special topic*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it is only relevant on Linux, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO more relevant is the baseline: When we increase the CentOS
>>>>>> version we
>>>>>> also raise the sysreq for Linux kernel, glibc, etc. This has a much
>>>>>> bigger
>>>>>> impact for our users.
>>>>>
>>>>> ​You are absolutely correct about this, Marcus. Monitoring the
>>> 32-bit
>>>>> Linux
>>>>> downloads might help here. It does seem like AOO could be moving
>>> away
>>>>> from
>>>>> 32-bit for Linux and other operating systems. I don't know what
>>>>> impact this
>>>>> will have overall though.
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember exactly, does the gstreamer 0.1.0 vs. 1.0.0
>>>> discussion is also connected to the Linux 32-bit builds? If so, a
>>>> solution could be indeed to drop the 32-bit builds. From SF.net stats
>>>> I get the following (2018-01-01 until today).
>>>>
>>>> BTW:
>>>> Very likely it's the used OS the download is started from. And not
>>> the
>>>> OS where OpenOffice should be installed on.
>>>>
>>>> OS        %
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Windows        86,1165
>>>> Macintosh     7,8424
>>>> Unknown         4,9012
>>>> Linux         1,0621
>>>> Android         0,0762
>>>> BSD         0,0011
>>>> Solaris         0,0006
>>>>
>>>> But even then, I'm sure the most downloads from resp. for Linux will
>>>> be for 64-bit.
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody more exact numbers - or an idea how to get them?
>>>>
>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On 03.07.2018 23:50, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What impact has Ant 1.10.x exactly on older machines?
>>>>>>>> It is no problem for me to build the Windows version with Ant
>>>>>>>> 1.9.12. As
>>>>>>>> long as we use Java 8.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But again, I just did a personal build to test AOO 4.1.x with
>>> Java 8.
>>>>>>>> Nothing else.
>>>>>>>> To be more precise: I was the only one who cared. No response
>>> from
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> members!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 23:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above made it appear that Ant 1.9.x was no longer supported
>>> plus
>>>>>>>>> had some sort of security related issue making it unsuited for
>>>>>>>>> AOO... ie,
>>>>>>>>> we *needed* to use Ant 1.10 not just that we now *can* use it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about showing some sympathy and understanding for those who
>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>> stuck w/ older machines? After all, let's be real, our continued
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> for "older" systems is the only real thing we have going for
>>>>>>>>> us... It's
>>>>>>>>> these little things that make significant ripples in our
>>>>>>>>> eco-system and we
>>>>>>>>> seem to not really care about that anymore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Matthias Seidel
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.07.2018 um 21:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everbody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring a 4.1.6 Release on the way in July.
>>> Even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>>>>> manage to get 4.2.0 ready it will only be a beta. And we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> some stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get out to the people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthias has created a suggestion for a 4.1.6 release on
>>>>>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Containing some security fixes, plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Java 8 Update 172
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Apache Ant 1.10.3
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong w/ Apache Ant 1.9.12? Why the need for 1.10.x?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is wrong with Ant 1.10.x? If we build with Java 8 we can
>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> it... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>> My test build was just a Proof-of-Concept what can be done with
>>> AOO
>>>>>>>>>> 4.1.x.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But of course we can build with 1.9.x if that is wanted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>       Matthias


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

12