Difference between revisions of "ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-01-19 IRC log"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-01-19 IRC log)
m (Categorizing)
Line 156: Line 156:
(15:44:45) ja_: bye<br>
(15:44:45) ja_: bye<br>
(15:44:51) mla: bye<br>
(15:44:51) mla: bye<br>
[[Category:Release Meeting]]

Latest revision as of 18:52, 16 March 2010

(14:57:15) mla [n=ml93712@] hat den Raum betreten.
(14:57:21) mla: hi
(14:57:58) _Nesshof_ [n=_Nesshof@] hat den Raum betreten.
(14:58:31) ja_: Moin
(14:59:36) mba [n=chatzill@nat/sun/x-8cbb31cf2d67f41a] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:00:18) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-12d35258f9f11a06] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:00:52) Stefan___b: Hi!
(15:01:09) mdamboldt: Hi
(15:01:12) volkerme: MMoinmoin
(15:02:08) _Nesshof_: moin
(15:02:29) ***_Nesshof_ is looking for the agenda
(15:02:41) ***_Nesshof_ has forgotten all during vacation
(15:02:48) UweL [n=chatzill@nat/sun/x-6fd33ffb61db9021] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:02:50) _Nesshof_: what release we are at :-)
(15:03:25) rtimm: _Nesshof_: OpenOffice.org ;-)
(15:03:54) _Nesshof_: ok, lets start with 3.0.1
(15:03:55) mdamboldt: So let's start with the OOo 3.0.1 status...
(15:04:16) _Nesshof_: I guess we have a final rc ?
(15:04:31) _Nesshof_: no more open or known stoppers for the release ?
(15:04:38) blauwal [n=jr93709@sd-socks-197.staroffice.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:04:49) _rene_: well, except on how we version the SRB, yes :-P
(15:05:08) _rene_: but I wouldn't necessarily call that a stopper :)
(15:05:20) _Nesshof_: do we have a new rev of the SRB but no new 1.0.6 ?
(15:05:36) _rene_: yes, that's what andre pointed out on releases :)
(15:05:45) _rene_: changes in SRB, still 1.0.5.
(15:06:29) _Nesshof_: is the report builder already releases on eso ?
(15:06:39) _Nesshof_: do we have release notes for it ?
(15:07:18) _Nesshof_: or do we have just new source code without release ?
(15:07:23) _rene_: _Nesshof_: what?! it's long time there.
(15:07:37) _rene_: _Nesshof_: http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/reportdesign
(15:07:57) _Nesshof_: ah, ok, I thought I missed something
(15:08:00) _rene_: _Nesshof_: we have a 1.0.5 on e.s.o.o, we have changes in 3.0.1, but the built oxt sstill is versioned 1.0.5
(15:08:29) _rene_: _Nesshof_: means: not coherent version numbers. a 1.0.5 is not a 1.0.5.
(15:09:08) _Nesshof_: _rene_: ok, noted, we will take care of this independent of the 3.0.1 release asap
(15:09:12) _rene_: (and this causes all kinds of problems)
(15:09:23) _Nesshof_: any other issues around 3.0.1 ?
(15:09:33) _rene_: _Nesshof_: I think the same happened with the Presenter Console, not sure, ask Thaliopn72
(15:09:50) _rene_: _Nesshof_: we need a general solution for this problem, not just for this time :)
(15:10:14) _rene_: _Nesshof_: btw, the URE is also affected by this. every change in one UNO module should have a version-bump.
(15:10:15) chris-j [n=chris-j@d061028.adsl.hansenet.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:10:16) _Nesshof_: _rene_: yes, agreed, rtimm and me should come with a proposal until next week
(15:10:22) ***rtimm ducks ...
(15:10:27) _rene_: it's not just about extensions
(15:10:37) rtimm: _rene_: what else?
(15:10:43) _rene_: rtimm: ure
(15:10:48) _rene_: but also about the URE. various releases now have 1.4
(15:11:00) _rene_: and there were changes in sal etc afair :-)
(15:11:45) _rene_: now you could argue that you didn't provide the interim builds, but...
(15:11:55) _Nesshof_: so we are ready for release of 3.0.1 targeting January 22nd ?
(15:12:00) _rene_: see http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ure for the interesting effect :)
(15:12:19) _rene_: 2.4.x to 3.0.1: URE 1.4. didn't we have the 3-layer-OOo inbetween? :)
(15:12:37) _Nesshof_: _rene_: that's just the reason for being blind on that eye :-)
(15:12:38) _rene_: _Nesshof_: from my POV, yes
(15:13:09) Stefan_W [n=stefan@p5491D776.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:13:43) _Nesshof_: ok, then we can come to 3.1 release status
(15:13:44) UweL: yes, for the release :-)
(15:14:18) _Nesshof_: quite a few (62) cws left for 3.1 release
(15:14:27) ja_: I don't know about stoppers for 3.0.1
(15:14:29) _Nesshof_: feature freeze has been passed
(15:14:45) _Nesshof_: all strings are now in translation process
(15:15:28) _Nesshof_: from my persective the schedule looks a little bit ambitious with the remaing cws
(15:15:55) _rene_: jup
(15:16:11) _Nesshof_: I expect that some people will request the integration after the freeze dates
(15:16:24) _Nesshof_: but I wouldnt like to slip the whole schedule
(15:16:36) _Nesshof_: this would open the door for too many new cws
(15:17:27) _Nesshof_: my proposal is to stay with the current code freeze but to calculate with some more time to the actual release
(15:17:27) mdamboldt: Last week in this meeting Max Odendahl already requested a shift, too.
(15:17:41) _Nesshof_: mdamboldt: do you know for which cws ?
(15:17:55) _rene_: iirc generally.
(15:18:18) mdamboldt: _nesshof_: unfortunatly I don't remember a specific cws..
(15:18:21) MechtiIde: because he was waiting for m39
(15:18:36) MechtiIde: which wasn't available timm last monday
(15:18:39) _Nesshof_: I'm fine with shifting the schedule a bit, but I hesitate to open the door for alll
(15:19:05) rtimm: generally, yes. And we decided to postpone the decision until m39 is finished
(15:19:57) ja_: we wanted to have a look at the quality of m39 and then decide on a shift. From my POV this version really has stoppers like issue 98174
(15:19:58) _Nesshof_: how did max argue ?
(15:20:03) IZBot: Spreadsheet DEFECT NEW P2 range names display "#NAME?" in formula bar http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98174
(15:20:25) mdamboldt: The time between feature freeze build available vs. code freeze date
(15:21:00) _Nesshof_: code freeze is the date for regular bugfixes
(15:21:44) _rene_: yes, but that *might* be too early
(15:21:45) _Nesshof_: did he need more feedbacktime for m38/m39 ? or does he know already the issues and they're just too much ?
(15:21:48) _rene_: it's only 10 days from now
(15:22:11) _rene_: given how much cwses still *need* to go in. or for blockers like ja mentioned...
(15:22:46) _Nesshof_: for blockers we have the last cws integration date, not code freeze
(15:23:42) _Nesshof_: so I would be fine with moving last cws integration date a bit
(15:24:05) _rene_: _Nesshof_: and you are *sure* we get important bugs, but nnot blockers fixed in time?
(15:24:14) _rene_: _Nesshof_: sorry, I don't :)
(15:24:51) _rene_: _Nesshof_: in 10 days? including QA?
(15:24:58) _Nesshof_: given on the single case I would make an exception
(15:25:44) mba: I think what Martin wants to express is that we should close the shop for all "standard" bug fixing as planned ("code freeze") but we agree that fixing of bugs with showstopper "quality" we need more time than expected and so the "last CWS integration" needs to be moved a bit
(15:26:20) _Nesshof_: mba: yes
(15:26:50) mba: _rene_: I think that should address your concerns
(15:26:53) _rene_: mba: and that's where I disagree. what about important fixes but not stoppers?
(15:27:17) _rene_: mba: (my best example these times: hunspell4thesaurus. fixing crahes in the spellcheck...)
(15:27:37) _Nesshof_: _rene_: lets have a look on them when there are raised and decide on them on case to case basis
(15:27:41) _rene_: mba: but there might be others, too
(15:27:52) mba: What is "important"? BTW: hunspell4thesaurus is one of the CWS I would like to see integrated
(15:28:09) mba: That's the reason why I flagges it with "urgent" priority
(15:28:42) Stefan___b: mba: +1 :-)
(15:29:31) _Nesshof_: I propose a new deadline Feb 12th, exceptional cws approved by release team
(15:29:49) _Nesshof_: new estimated last cws integration: March 5th
(15:29:57) mba: _rene_: To address you concerns a bit more: we can make a list of CWS that already exist and should be integrated. If integrating all of them might result in a small shift of the code freeze: so be it. But don't let us make the door open for everything.
(15:30:23) _rene_: mba: yes, I didn't want to open the door for everyone either .)
(15:30:44) _Nesshof_: ok, then we are almost in agreement ?
(15:31:04) mdamboldt: I'm fine with the proposal.
(15:31:07) ja_: +1
(15:31:10) blauwal: +1
(15:31:21) UweL: +1
(15:31:27) mla: +1
(15:31:40) _Nesshof_: does anybody already know about exceptions we need ?
(15:31:51) _rene_: rptfix04 :)
(15:32:01) _Nesshof_: _rene_: ok :-)
(15:32:47) _rene_: note that I didn't yet build m39, so I don't know what bubildbugs got introduced there and not masterfixed (yet)
(15:33:58) _Nesshof_: _rene_: yes, but these are blockers anyhow
(15:34:27) _rene_: if that always was the case I'd be happy... experience shows otherwise
(15:34:47) mdamboldt: Another one I want to raise in this case:
(15:34:47) mdamboldt: integration of Usage Tracking into 3.1 release
(15:35:15) _Nesshof_: _rene_: we will try to continously improve our habbits ! (with your help)
(15:35:23) chris-j hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)).
(15:35:29) _rene_: mdamboldt: as it (correct me if I am wrong) doesn't affect community bbuilds, I am indifferent to that :)
(15:35:52) chris-j [n=chris-j@d061028.adsl.hansenet.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:36:22) mdamboldt: The Usage Tracking can provide essential base informations for redesign of the user interface.
(15:36:23) mdamboldt: From my point it would be key item to proceed.
(15:36:25) _Nesshof_: _rene_: what do you mean by community build ?
(15:36:41) _rene_: if I do a debian build for example :)
(15:37:13) _rene_: (-> builds outside Sun)
(15:37:20) _Nesshof_: afaik it is switch off in the configuation by default
(15:37:22) blauwal: _rene_: It's a "BUILD_SPEZIAL" item, which are not normally enabled
(15:37:32) _rene_: ok, that's what I guessed.
(15:37:41) _rene_: just wanted to confirm that :)
(15:37:55) _rene_: then, as said, I am pretty indifferent to it :)
(15:39:11) _Nesshof_: ok, then we seem not to have a problem with this
(15:39:26) _Nesshof_: any other cws ?
(15:40:11) _Nesshof_: rtimm: RE duties ?
(15:40:25) blauwal: _Nesshof_: VG for DEV300
(15:41:03) blauwal: _Nesshof_: *if* there is something for OOo-3.0.1 (OOO300) than it obo will do it
(15:41:09) _rene_: blauwal: tell him that he should only integrate configuretoplevel after it#s resynced with m39 (what I am currently fighting with) and that he should watch out for config_office stuff he manually needs to merge
(15:41:22) blauwal: _rene_: yup
(15:41:26) mba: Wrt. the other 60+ CWS: we try to integrate all CWS with priority "critical" or "urgent", others only if resources allow?
(15:41:46) _Nesshof_: mba: yes
(15:42:07) mba: Currently we have approx. 30 CWS of that kind
(15:42:15) _Nesshof_: mba: I already got some priorization from the teams
(15:42:51) chris-j_ [n=chris-j@d061028.adsl.hansenet.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:42:56) _Nesshof_: I will try to make this transparent in EIS
(15:43:03) chris-j hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
(15:43:24) _Nesshof_: anything else for today ?
(15:44:11) _Nesshof_: ok, by
(15:44:22) Stefan___b: bye
(15:44:24) bettina-h: bye
(15:44:25) rtimm: bye
(15:44:28) UweL: bye
(15:44:31) chris-j_: bye
(15:44:35) mba: bye
(15:44:38) mba hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008120122]").
(15:44:38) mdamboldt: bye
(15:44:45) ja_: bye
(15:44:51) mla: bye

Personal tools