branch 4.1.7?

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

branch 4.1.7?

Jim Jagielski
Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: branch 4.1.7?

Rory O'Farrell
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?

No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0, then on to 5.0

4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.

--
Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: branch 4.1.7?

Jim Jagielski
Gotcha. I was just thinking that if we had a 4.1.7 branch in a ready-to-go stage, if we needed to do another 4.1.x release it would be already there.

But agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0

> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?
>
> No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0, then on to 5.0
>
> 4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <[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: branch 4.1.7?

Patricia Shanahan
I agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0. However, I strongly favor
having a ready-to-go 4.1.7. Any day, we could encounter a really
serious, must-fix-immediately, security bug. Having as much as possible
done ahead of time will reduce the delay from knowing the fix to end
users having the fix.

On 1/21/2019 8:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Gotcha. I was just thinking that if we had a 4.1.7 branch in a ready-to-go stage, if we needed to do another 4.1.x release it would be already there.
>
> But agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0
>
>> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
>> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?
>>
>> No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0, then on to 5.0
>>
>> 4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.
>>
>> --
>> Rory O'Farrell <[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]
>

---
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: branch 4.1.7?

F C. Costero
One "regression" that merits immediate attention is crashing on Windows
when trying to edit a macro embedded in a Writer or Calc document ( I
haven't checked Impress or Base yet). If  I open a new document and try to
make an embedded macro (menus Tools -> Macros -> Organize Macros ->
OpenOffice Basic) OpenOffice crashes immediately after I accept the default
module name of Module1. Going through the recovery process, I am asked to
Enable or Disable macros, so the module is created but I cannot get at it.
I can edit the Standard library in My Macros but it is unstable. For
example, if I select two lines of code and press backspace, the program
crashes. This problem started after a Windows update last summer. I thought
a  subsequent update fixed it, but I was wrong.  I have checked 4.1.5,
4.1.6 and 4.2.0 and it affects all of them. It is not really a regression,
since 4.1.5 worked fine until the Windows update, but Windows users cannot
use macros. I looked for a bug report and did not find one but my Bugzilla
skills are poor. Are the devs aware of this problem?

best regards,
Francis

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0. However, I strongly favor
> having a ready-to-go 4.1.7. Any day, we could encounter a really
> serious, must-fix-immediately, security bug. Having as much as possible
> done ahead of time will reduce the delay from knowing the fix to end
> users having the fix.
>
> On 1/21/2019 8:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Gotcha. I was just thinking that if we had a 4.1.7 branch in a
> ready-to-go stage, if we needed to do another 4.1.x release it would be
> already there.
> >
> > But agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0
> >
> >> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
> >> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?
> >>
> >> No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0,
> then on to 5.0
> >>
> >> 4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no
> illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress
> presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause
> crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rory O'Farrell <[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]
> >
>
> ---
> 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: branch 4.1.7?

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Patricia Shanahan
I'll just go ahead and create a branch. They are cheap. And, at least, we'll have a branch ready in case we need it. If not, no big deal.

> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0. However, I strongly favor having a ready-to-go 4.1.7. Any day, we could encounter a really serious, must-fix-immediately, security bug. Having as much as possible done ahead of time will reduce the delay from knowing the fix to end users having the fix.
>
> On 1/21/2019 8:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Gotcha. I was just thinking that if we had a 4.1.7 branch in a ready-to-go stage, if we needed to do another 4.1.x release it would be already there.
>> But agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0
>>> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
>>> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?
>>>
>>> No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0, then on to 5.0
>>>
>>> 4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rory O'Farrell <[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]
>
> ---
> 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]
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: branch 4.1.7?

Matthias Seidel
Hi Jim,

Am 21.01.19 um 19:25 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I'll just go ahead and create a branch. They are cheap. And, at least, we'll have a branch ready in case we need it. If not, no big deal.
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1844683

and

https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1846349

would be two candidates for 4.1.7.

And of course the version number and copyright should be updated before
we forget it...

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0. However, I strongly favor having a ready-to-go 4.1.7. Any day, we could encounter a really serious, must-fix-immediately, security bug. Having as much as possible done ahead of time will reduce the delay from knowing the fix to end users having the fix.
>>
>> On 1/21/2019 8:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Gotcha. I was just thinking that if we had a 4.1.7 branch in a ready-to-go stage, if we needed to do another 4.1.x release it would be already there.
>>> But agree that the focus should be on 4.2.0
>>>> On Jan 21, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:12:12 -0500
>>>> Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does it make sense to create a branch of 4.1.7 from 4.1.6...?
>>>> No, unless for some urgent fix.  I think better to continue with 4.2.0, then on to 5.0
>>>>
>>>> 4.2.0 editing OK in Writer (60k word file, book format, no illustrations/tables).  A simple spreadsheet working OK; existing Impress presentations displaying, apart from two where slide backgrounds cause crash. Multimedia in new presentations not yet checked.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rory O'Farrell <[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]
>> ---
>> 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]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
|

BUILD number

Jim Jagielski
I am trying to understand the various numberings we have and where they count and what they mean.

Of course, the X.Y.Z numbers make sense... but then we have a "BUILD" number and a 'mX' number

What are they for? Can a 4.2.0 have a build of say 9810 and a 4.17 of 9812?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUILD number

Dave Fisher
I may be wrong, but I think the update service may use the build number to determine which updates to offer. So I think build numbers for 4.1.7 should be less than 4.2.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:12 AM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am trying to understand the various numberings we have and where they count and what they mean.
>
> Of course, the X.Y.Z numbers make sense... but then we have a "BUILD" number and a 'mX' number
>
> What are they for? Can a 4.2.0 have a build of say 9810 and a 4.17 of 9812?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: BUILD number

Mechtilde Stehmann-2
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Hello Jim

Am 22.01.19 um 19:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I am trying to understand the various numberings we have and where they count and what they mean.
>
> Of course, the X.Y.Z numbers make sense... but then we have a "BUILD" number and a 'mX' number
>
> What are they for? Can a 4.2.0 have a build of say 9810 and a 4.17 of 9812?

As I know from former times the numbers like 9810 was a serial number of
any build done by Sun/Oracle. so this was unique for a build. There were
two kind of builds ooo-dev and the releasable ooo-builds. The release
candicates werde normal ooo-builds marked eg. as 4.2.0m1 for the first
release candidate of version 4.2.0. So you could see in the build
inforamtion how many release candidates are needed.

Maybe Marcus can add some more informations

Kind regards

--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BUILD number

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Am 22.01.19 um 19:12 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I am trying to understand the various numberings we have and where they count and what they mean.
>
> Of course, the X.Y.Z numbers make sense... but then we have a "BUILD" number and a 'mX' number

uhh OK, digging a bit in old Sun times. ;-)

- The x.y.z is the official and public number space.

- The build ID - at least in former Sun-times - was used to create a
difference for every build that was started; regardless how small the
change was compared to the previous build.

- The m number (m means milestone) was used as "container" to make
visible which changes belong together [1]. These changes were committed
/ merged into the same CWS / branch [2]

For specific reasons (bugfixes, incompatible changes, etc.) this m
number was increased. It was often used for indexing beta versions or
release candidates.

> What are they for? Can a 4.2.0 have a build of say 9810 and a 4.17 of 9812?

Yes, the following was possible (just an example, I don't know if this
really existed in the past):

3.4.1 m1 9001
3.2.1 m3 9010
3.3.0 m2 9020

I don't know if we want to (should ?) continue these numbering rules or
simplify this a bit. ;-)

[1] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseMilestone
[2] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS

HTH

Marcus

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: branch 4.1.7?

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
On 21/01/2019 Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'll just go ahead and create a branch. They are cheap. And, at least, we'll have a branch ready in case we need it.

Good choice. It is quite possible we'll need a 4.1.7 before we can
officially release 4.2.0.

(and yes, we should also reserve 20 or so build numbers after 4.1.6 for
any possible 4.1.x release, including release candidates).

Regards,
   Andrea.

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