ReleaseStatus Minutes 2008-04-28 IRC log

(14:58:53) ja_: Moin
(15:00:33) _Nesshof_: tach
(15:01:21) _Nesshof_: 3.0 Beta status
(15:01:48) ***rtimm would prefer IZBot to OOoStatsBot here ...
(15:04:15) _Nesshof_: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/showdependencytree.cgi?id=87736
(15:04:31) volkerme: IZBot: ping
(15:04:32) IZBot: pong
(15:05:32) ja_: issue 87736
(15:05:51) IZBot: tools TASK NEW P3 track potential OOo 3.0 Beta blockers http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=87736
(15:05:53) mdamboldt [n=md97092@sd-socks-197.staroffice.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:07:01) _Nesshof_: as far as I see all of the register issues are fixed and the cws are also approved or nominated
(15:08:09) mod__ [n=mod@dslb-084-063-227-045.pools.arcor-ip.net] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:08:13) _Nesshof_: UweL: do you know if all requests on release for blocker for 3.0 have been answered ?
(15:08:53) UweL: I'am not 100% sure, but I think so
(15:09:07) _Nesshof_: rtimm: who will do m2 ?
(15:09:25) rtimm: _Nesshof_: Oliver (obo)
(15:09:42) _Nesshof_: has he already started his engines ?
(15:10:10) rtimm: _Nesshof_: Kurt (kz) will do next DEV300, I'll do OOH680 m14
(15:10:24) _Nesshof_: rtimm: thanks
(15:10:36) rtimm: _Nesshof_: Probably not yet. Nominations took place just recently ;-)
(15:11:00) _Nesshof_: I updated the wiki page for targeting the beta release for May 7th
(15:11:45) _Nesshof_: we should have in the release notes and/or announcement a feedback path defined
(15:12:24) _Nesshof_: maybe we also should mention that we would have another time slot availabe for a refresh of the beta
(15:12:56) _Nesshof_: so IMHO we should call for feedback until end of May and may then provide a refresh of the beta in June
(15:13:15) _Nesshof_: this may also give some extra time for l10n review
(15:14:05) _Nesshof_: at that time we also would have all the extensions which are in the queue available in the extensions repository
(15:14:09) ja_: _Nesshof_: where should feedback point to ? releases@, dev@qa, ... ?
(15:14:58) _Nesshof_: releases: no
(15:15:46) _Nesshof_: maybe we should set up a separate list
(15:15:58) _Nesshof_: or is the qa project fine with using the dev list ?
(15:16:55) Fridrich [n=fridrich@59-41.1-85.cust.bluewin.ch] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:17:35) _Nesshof_: hi Fridrich
(15:18:12) ja_: I don't know if the QA project is able to handle the whole feedback for the Beta for all native lang communities
(15:18:22) thorstenziehm: _Nesshof_ : I'm fine with the QA list. Then it is easier, when we add [30Beta] at the begin of the summary to scan easier the input
(15:18:30) _Nesshof_: or do we want to introduce something like betafeedback@openoffice.org ?
(15:19:00) Fridrich: hi, sorry was out of the house since morning
(15:19:11) thorstenziehm: ja_ : you are right, the L10N project could be a problem, but they could use their own list (dev@l10n) with the same start at the summary
(15:19:24) ja_: _Nesshof_: this sounds like a plan
(15:20:19) MechtiIde: I see no problem using dev@qa
(15:20:33) ja_: _Nesshof_: should I handle the m2 like every other RC ? (../contrib/rc for en-US and the rest to ../extended ?)
(15:21:48) _rene_: _Nesshof_: "refresh of the beta" aka beta2?
(15:22:04) _Nesshof_: ja_: we will decide once m2 is complete
(15:22:09) thorstenziehm: _Nesshof_ : I'm fine with a special list. Who will be responsible for the list and their announcement on the lists?
(15:22:20) _Nesshof_: _rene_: you may call it beta2, yes
(15:22:43) _rene_: that's the queston, I just ask how it will officially be called :-)
(15:23:14) _Nesshof_: _rene_: Feel free to suggest names for the baby ;-)
(15:23:31) _Nesshof_: I'd be fine with Beta2
(15:23:41) ja_: how about "3.0 Beta Refresh"
(15:24:03) thorstenziehm: _rene_ : what is with marketing? when we want and need a refresh, they should identify a cool name ;-)
(15:24:11) _Nesshof_: ja_: and next "3.0 Beta another refresh" in case we want to do one more ?
(15:24:22) _rene_: yeah, 1:2.4.0~betarefresh-1. cool version. (NOT)
(15:24:36) _Nesshof_: thorstenziehm: announcement of such list would also be marketing task
(15:24:36) _rene_: eh
(15:24:45) _rene_: 1:3.0.0~betarefresh-1 ;)
(15:25:49) Fridrich: let us just name it by milestone
(15:26:08) _Nesshof_: ok, I will talk to the marketing list and will suggest Beta2 as name for a second beta
(15:26:26) ja_: beta-1, beta-2 better fits into filename structure
(15:26:29) Fridrich: I don't see why the whole release/showstopper thing should be done around betas. They should be just more publicized milestones to get someone use them and report issue
(15:26:33) _Nesshof_: Fridrich: no than you have no clear separation for the Developer snapshot builds
(15:26:33) _rene_: but imho, a beta2 only makes sense if we keep some of the DEV300 fixes done inbetween
(15:26:41) _rene_: s/keep/add/
(15:27:08) _Nesshof_: Fridrich: agreed, it should be done out of real life and that's it
(15:27:17) _rene_: so we get a real change compared to beta(1) and not test something old.
(15:27:22) _Nesshof_: that why the branch phase is quite short for this release
(15:27:40) _Nesshof_: Fridrich: but we should be sure, that all areas a testable at all
(15:28:17) Fridrich: _Nesshof_: I agree that it should build and run as a precondition to testing :-)
(15:28:27) _Nesshof_: Fridrich: and since we are expecting some review by press and other the beta should have a minimal quality
(15:29:32) _Nesshof_: ok, thats all for beta release for today ?
(15:29:52) _Nesshof_: i think we will give th go for the beta on next mondays meeting
(15:30:04) rtimm: _Nesshof_: that means Oliver may start now?
(15:30:34) _Nesshof_: rtimm: yes
(15:31:06) _Nesshof_: 2.4.1 bug status : ?
(15:31:14) UweL: I would like that everybody takes a look at the 2.4.1 meta issue
(15:31:31) UweL: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/showdependencytree.cgi?id=88258
(15:31:46) ja_: issue 88258
(15:31:54) UweL: and tell us if we should disagree to take a single issue for 2.4.1
(15:31:58) IZBot: tools TASK NEW P3 track potential 2.4.1 blockers http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88258
(15:32:30) UweL: In my opinion it doesn't make sense to discuss every single issue
(15:33:24) _rene_: yhttp://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88634
(15:33:28) _Nesshof_: are all issues raised on releases registered to this task ?
(15:33:38) _rene_: why do we need to bump the version of the cli assemblies when we don't change them?
(15:33:38) IZBot: issue 88634: udk TASK STARTED P3 increase versions for cli assemblies
(15:34:03) UweL: I_Nesshof_: I think so
(15:37:47) _Nesshof_: _rene_: I have no idea why it is a must, we did it with every release
(15:39:42) _rene_: that's no sufficient answer ;-) (Note that I am not objecting per se, but I don't see the need yet either)
(15:39:46) _Nesshof_: UweL: I'm fint with that list
(15:40:11) _rene_: can we get a explanation why this is needed?
(15:40:15) _Nesshof_: _rene_: I cannot reach jl at this moment, butt I will ask him to write the answer in the issue
(15:41:03) UweL: _Nesshof_: Yes,I would like, again, to take the list as a whole
(15:41:33) UweL: agreed?
(15:41:57) rtimm: UweL: +1
(15:42:22) _rene_: -1 from me (at least until we get some clarification why the version bump is needed)
(15:43:23) rtimm: _rene_: and if we'd ask for "whole list except issue 88634"?
(15:43:31) IZBot: udk TASK STARTED P3 increase versions for cli assemblies http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88634
(15:43:59) _rene_: +1 :)
(15:44:57) _Nesshof_: ok, +1
(15:45:14) ja_: +1
(15:46:02) _Nesshof_: anything else for today ?
(15:46:12) ja_: not from my side
(15:46:32) _Nesshof_: by
(15:46:32) UweL: no
(15:46:39) UweL: bye
(15:46:44) ja_: bye bye
(15:46:49) mod__ hat den Raum verlassen
(15:47:02) UweL hat den Raum verlassen