On 10/11/12 4:59 PM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: > 2012/10/10 Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> > >> Am 10/09/2012 03:58 AM, schrieb Shenfeng Liu: >> >> 2012/10/9 Ariel Constenla-Haile<arielch@**apache.org <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> Hi Jürgen, * >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:58:03PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>>>> The build bots are still not build the same as we do for the binary >>>>> releases (please correct me if I am wrong). Means as long as we don't >>>>> have build bots which are building with the same configuration we should >>>>> provide the builds manually in the same way we did it for the release. >>>>> >>>>> @Ariel, would that be ok for you fro now until we have a better >>>>> solution? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I will apply the set up described in >>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=119385<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119385>, >>>> that is, >>>> decreasing Linux system requirements to glibc 2.5 >>>> >>>> Any one is welcome to take any of the two architectures (building on >>>> Linux is multiplied by 4: rpm/deb, 32 and 64 bits; this counts on >>>> building time and uploading the packages); if not, I will take care of >>>> both. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I will take care of Windows and MacOS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (2) How many language support can we get for this milestone build? >>>>>> Not >>>>>> necessary to be 100% translated, but can be a base for volunteers to >>>>>> >>>>> verify >>>> >>>>> the translation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We should include the languages that we have released and add all >>>>> languages where we notice active volunteers who help us to support these >>>>> further languages (eg. Polish, Danish, Scots Gaelic, ...) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (3) The current development snapshot naming [a] is a little confusing >>>>>> >>>>> to >>>> >>>>> me. I wonder if we can change the naming to reflect the date of the >>>>>> >>>>> build? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure if understand you correct. The revision is a unique >>>>> identifier and makes it clear what went in the snapshot. We probably >>>>> upload the builds not all on the same day. Means I am not sure how a >>>>> date can help here. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I guess that besides the revision, milestone builds can be identified by >>>> their milestone number, which should be increased in every milestone >>>> build: AOO350m1 AOO350m2 etc >>>> >>>> just like in OOo times there was DEV300m105 DEV300m106 etc >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**development/releases/** >>>> DEV300m106_snapshot.html<http://www.openoffice.org/development/releases/DEV300m106_snapshot.html> >>>> it could start now from DEV350m1 >>>> >>>> >>>> OK, I understand the revision now, and let's forget the "date". >>> And I agree with Ariel that a milestone number like AOO350m1 will be >>> better >>> when we promote it. >>> I personally do not think we need to use mirror. But a download page that >>> Marcus suggested will be good. >>> >> >> Sure, the download page can point to the builds on the mirror system or >> the ASF people's directories (when the paths are unified then automatism is >> much easier). >> >> But when using the mirrors we could: >> - stear the timeframe how long a milestone should be online, >> - when to release the next dev build, >> - a simple point of downloadable dev builds, >> - and of course we can see how often which file was downloaded. To see if >> it's worth the efforts at all. >> >> So, I think we should try to distribute the dev builds via the mirror >> system. If we laster think that it doesn't make sense anymore then we can >> stop it. >> >> Marcus >> > > You persuaded me, Marcus. :) I agree mirrors will be good for the milestone > build. As far as we can contain the effort. > > I went through all the implemented features and enhancements for 3.5.0, > added/removed the Target Milestone value to some of the records. > And I created a query *TargetTo350FEATURE_Fixed* that can be easier for us > to write release notes: > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=TargetTo350FEATURE_Fixed&sharer_id=249089 > I hope people can check the query and confirm the features/enhancements. As > Arial pointed out in another mail, my reading from the issue history may > not be consistent with the code. > > I will continue to check the defects, which may take more time... Currently > there are 175 per TargetTo350AllFixed . > > Juergen & Arial, can I know where we are with the builds?
we don't have started yet because we haven't finally agreed on a version. I will check the build bots tomorrow morning and will propose a revision for the next dev snapshot. We can build and upload them over the weekend and should have them on Monday ready. Juergen > > Thanks very much for you all's support! > > - Simon >
