A 4.1.6 Release

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
98 messages Options
12345
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]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-2
Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.

Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>:

>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]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Jim Jagielski
No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.

> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>
> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>:
>> 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]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

FR web forum
Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
This release will fix it?

----- Mail original -----

> De: "Jim Jagielski" <[hidden email]>
> À: "OOo Apache" <[hidden email]>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>
> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>
> > On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
> > timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
> >
> > Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
> > <[hidden email]>:
> >> 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]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Yea, whish and reality are still on different parties...

Do we have a template for the cwiki - release tracker? I tried to set
the page up manually and it ended up in something that was not good.
So I guess i did it wrong.

thx
Peter

On 25.07.2018 15:48, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>
>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>
>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>:
>>> 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]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by FR web forum
I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
do not see a chance.


On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:

> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
> This release will fix it?
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <[hidden email]>
>> À: "OOo Apache" <[hidden email]>
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>
>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>
>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>> 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]
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Peter Kovacs-3
I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.

Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>:

>I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>
>do not see a chance.
>
>
>On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>> This release will fix it?
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <[hidden email]>
>>> À: "OOo Apache" <[hidden email]>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>
>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>
>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Hi Peter,

Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.

Great!

If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.

And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.

Regards,
   Matthias

>
> Am 25. Juli 2018 23:29:53 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]>:
>> I do not believe we have a fix for that. so until someone fixes this, I
>>
>> do not see a chance.
>>
>>
>> On 25.07.2018 17:18, FR web forum wrote:
>>> Regression: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127646
>>> This release will fix it?
>>>
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>>> De: "Jim Jagielski" <[hidden email]>
>>>> À: "OOo Apache" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 25 Juillet 2018 15:48:00
>>>> Objet: Re: A 4.1.6 Release
>>>>
>>>> No worries. I have my VMs ready to go.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 12:47 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fyi: To my frustration I failed yesterday to proceed. My next
>>>>> timeslot is on Wednesday. I hope nothing will interfere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 21. Juli 2018 08:28:47 MESZ schrieb Peter Kovacs
>>>>> <[hidden email]>:
>>>>>> 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]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Andrea Pescetti-2
Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for it.
> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.

Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
code signing key to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS

The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can cherry-pick
patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have scripts to do it
automatically, so just ask in case.

> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.

Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just
one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, the
release is just a matter of coordination.

Regards,
   Andrea.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Peter Kovacs-4
I try my best.

However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password
right or do I need to use a passkey?


On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>> for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for
>> it.
>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>
> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
> code signing key to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>
> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
>
>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
> the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for
> "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers,
> the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [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

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Andrea Pescetti-2
Hi Andrea,

Am 18.08.2018 um 17:02 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>> for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer for
>> it.
>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>
> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add your
> code signing key to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>
> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
As soon as we have a branch AOO416 I will also switch the buildbots over.

Just for better understanding:
Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
have to branch first and then run the script?

Regards,
   Matthias

>
>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing
> the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for
> "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers,
> the release is just a matter of coordination.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [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-4
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-4
Hmpf I think I am banned.

I wrote an email to infra.

On 8/18/18 7:53 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

> I try my best.
>
> However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my
> password right or do I need to use a passkey?
>
>
> On 8/18/18 5:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Matthias Seidel ha scritto:
>>> Am 17.08.2018 um 07:51 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>>> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer
>>>> for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>>> If there would be a role as Co-Release Manager, I would volunteer
>>> for it.
>>> That said, I believe we should always have a fallback. We all know what
>>> happened when a Release Manager got unavailable.
>>
>> Good, let's really get 4.1.6 on the radar! Peter: remember to add
>> your code signing key to
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
>>
>> The first step is to create the AOO416 branch so that we can
>> cherry-pick patches that must be ported to it. Remember we now have
>> scripts to do it automatically, so just ask in case.
>>
>>> And again, I would be happy to provide the Windows builds.
>>
>> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and
>> procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into
>> producing the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X
>> VMs for "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build
>> providers, the release is just a matter of coordination.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Matthias Seidel
Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Just for better understanding:
> Does the script create a new branch incl. all needed changes or do we
> have to branch first and then run the script?

It does not create branches. So one would, for example, create the
AOO416 branch with an svn copy operation form AOO415, then run the
script locally to update constants and other settings.

Regards,
   Andrea.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-4
Peter Kovacs wrote:
> However I am not able to access the svn. I can do that with my password
> right or do I need to use a passkey?

Password authentication is fine. It's unlikely that your user is banned:
often you will be able to reset your password at id.apache.org

The KEYS file is described in detail here:
https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html

Note that it is recommended to annotate your key with something like
"(CODE SIGNING KEY)" or "(Release signing key)". If you open
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
you'll see examples.

Regards,
   Andrea.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

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


> On Aug 18, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Andrea Pescetti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, the Release Manager role in itself is mostly paperwork and procedures: for OpenOffice most of the actual work goes into producing the builds. I hope Jim can dust off his CentOS 5 and OS X VMs for "just one last time" once again. Once we are OK with build providers, the release is just a matter of coordination.
>

Yes, I am up for doing the 4.1.6 Linux?CentOS and macOS builds ;)


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A 4.1.6 Release

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3


> On Aug 17, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Peter kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have managed to make time on the next weekend's. So I volunteer for Release Manager.  Hope it helps to get this from the table.
>

Great news! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ping me. I believe that as I went thru the last few releases, I updated the wiki as I did so with additional information, etc...


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

12345