Difference between revisions of "ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-03-23 IRC log"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-03-23 IRC log)
m (Categorizing)
Line 92: Line 92:
(15:31:22) mla hat den Raum verlassen<br>
(15:31:22) mla hat den Raum verlassen<br>
(15:31:25) Stefan___b: With a "reasonable, already adressed set of issues, why should people NOT have a look" - ION, no discussion on that here. Bye!
(15:31:25) Stefan___b: With a "reasonable, already adressed set of issues, why should people NOT have a look" - ION, no discussion on that here. Bye!
[[Category:Release Meeting]]

Latest revision as of 18:55, 16 March 2010

(14:58:24) ja_: Moin
(14:58:56) gibi33 [n=gilles@] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:00:08) Stefan___b: Moin!
(15:00:46) MechtiIde: moin and hello
(15:00:53) sophi: hi all!
(15:01:03) _Nesshof_: moin
(15:01:08) paveljanik: Moin
(15:01:40) _Nesshof_: 3.1 release status:
(15:01:53) _Nesshof_: not yet ready for a release candidate
(15:02:01) xHDE [n=hd93786@nat/sun/x-bf967cfbf455ed7a] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:02:58) ***_Nesshof_ has nothing more to add
(15:03:28) _Nesshof_: sophi: we are still confident with the localization status ?
(15:03:37) MechtiIde: _Nesshof_, I don't know I get m7 today morning
(15:03:56) sophi: _Nesshof_: yes, it's ok, from several groups : no issues
(15:04:10) _Nesshof_: sophi: thanks
(15:04:38) gibi33 hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(15:04:51) _Nesshof_: so I will let m8 start as soon as no more stoppers are reported and all are fixed :-)
(15:04:59) _Nesshof_: hopefully this week
(15:05:08) _Nesshof_: but nobody knows for sure
(15:05:26) _Nesshof_: rtimm: RE duties this week ?
(15:05:51) gibi33 [n=gilles@] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:05:52) CorNouw1 [n=cono@a80-101-151-17.adsl.xs4all.nl] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:06:31) _Nesshof_: do we need to discuss any stopper issues ?
(15:06:42) MechtiIde: and I don't know the reason for the crashes i have found in this time
(15:07:13) MechtiIde: The only thing I can do, is to send crash reports
(15:07:22) blauwal [n=jr93709@sd-socks.staroffice.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:07:36) VolkerMe: _Nesshof_: So we will delay one week?
(15:08:17) CorNouw1: Hi all ... sorry for joining a bit late
(15:08:27) ja_: Heiner just told me Ause will do the DEV300_m45 and Oliver will do the OOO310_m8
(15:08:42) sophi: _Nesshof_: will we have a DEV300_m4x soon available for testing?
(15:09:16) _Nesshof_: MechtiIde: have you already sent them, I do no see them yet in our database ?
(15:09:33) MechtiIde: I send three times yet
(15:09:47) ja_: sophi: just uploaded DEV300_m44 to mirror master
(15:09:50) _Nesshof_: sophi: I think mla will upload as soon as possible
(15:09:51) MechtiIde: but get no report code now
(15:09:52) CorNouw1: VolkerMe: I've seen more issues on the list, already accepted as show stopper
(15:10:07) sophi: ja_: great, thanks :)
(15:10:21) _Nesshof_: VolkerMe: most likely
(15:10:25) sophi: _Nesshof_: ok, thanks
(15:10:48) Stefan___b: MechtiIde: Do you add decscriptions when you send or do you wait for reply and write an issue naming the ID?
(15:10:57) Stefan___b: MechtiIde: Crash reports and reprocucible scenarios make sense when they are "connected". SOME crash reports do not help without a scenario.
(15:11:41) MechtiIde: I want a reply. The scenario is an extension update with the manager
(15:11:49) _Nesshof_: VolkerMe: April 9th is the day before the easter weekend, so release will no before April 15th
(15:12:29) MechtiIde: Stefan___b, I will try to get more information
(15:13:23) rtimm: ja_: http://download.openoffice.org/next/index.html for developer builds still points to DEV300_m41 ...
(15:13:56) ja_: rtimm: DEV300_m44 is not yet distributed...just uploaded
(15:14:15) rtimm: ja_: nothing between m41 and m44?
(15:14:22) ja_: rtimm: no
(15:14:29) rtimm: ah ...
(15:15:05) VolkerMe: _Nesshof_: We then must have release Status Meeting on Tuesday 14th early, if this shall come true.
(15:16:18) CorNouw1: rtimm: ja_: in my experience, openoffice.org/next always shows the older info; hard refrewsh of browser is needed for me
(15:17:11) _Nesshof_: VolkerMe: yes
(15:17:36) mla: CorNouw1: yes, that's the way the caching is working but this shouldn't take longer than a few minutes
(15:17:45) ***_rene_ just wanted to say "why not Monday" but then realized that'd be Easter Monday :)
(15:18:01) ***VolkerMe doesn't remember a release without 3 RCs
(15:18:14) ***_rene_ does
(15:18:31) _Nesshof_: MechtiIde: it can take some hour to process the crash reports
(15:18:38) mla: rene: 2.x releases doesn't count ;-)
(15:18:57) ***ja_ doesn't want 3 RCs
(15:19:52) MechtiIde: I thhink if we have a good RC why won#t we release it also it is RC1?
(15:19:58) _Nesshof_: ja_: do you have download numbers of the last few OOO310 milestones ?
(15:20:48) ja_: _Nesshof_: no I haven't
(15:21:07) ja_: _Nesshof_: neither has Marcus
(15:21:40) MechtiIde: I have the first error code "rmgjxvc"
(15:22:02) MechtiIde: I wait a little bit then I will file an issue
(15:22:09) _rene_: MechtiIde: correct. but the point is "good RC" ;)
(15:22:38) Stefan___b: What is "good" - Let s get philosophical :-)
(15:22:49) Stefan___b: ...later...
(15:22:59) _rene_: fwiw, we also will get real-life testing assuming people will use those:
(15:23:13) _rene_: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/openoffice.org :)
(15:23:29) _rene_: we already found two build breakers....
(15:24:50) Stefan___b: As long as EVERY showstopper blocks the name "RC", we will get slow and late feedback
(15:25:03) _Nesshof_: MechtiIde: got it
(15:25:58) Stefan___b: Still: What is "good" - In terms of "When is it good to name that build RC1".
(15:27:31) _Nesshof_: Stefan___b: do you have a definition at hand ?
(15:27:37) VolkerMe: Stefan___b: When you do not have open showstoppers AFAIR
(15:27:51) Stefan___b: If m8 this week is ALMOST an RC and five minutes before announcement, another stopper rolls in, no RC for yet-another-week?
(15:28:14) Stefan___b: That is the current rule: 1 single showstopper -> No RC, no attention...
(15:28:22) _Nesshof_: VolkerMe: that right
(15:28:42) CorNouw1: Stefan___b: good idea, so for example issue 100424 could just be fixed after RC1 came out ?
(15:28:48) _Nesshof_: Stefan___b: but also, a rc with know issue get also no attention
(15:29:12) Stefan___b: Offise will ALWAYS have issues :-)
(15:29:13) IZBot: timed out - please visit the URL yourself: http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=100424
(15:29:16) CorNouw1: Stefan___b: that issue is obvious, and won't make it impossible for people to work / test the RC
(15:29:30) _Nesshof_: ok, anything else for today to discuss ?
(15:29:59) _Nesshof_: by
(15:30:02) mdamboldt: bye
(15:30:11) Stefan___b: Cor, that is the point. I remember that we had RCs that were THAT bad that this rule (1 showstopper -> No RC) was applied.
(15:30:33) ja_: bye bye
(15:30:45) of_sun: bye
(15:31:20) mla: bye
(15:31:22) mla hat den Raum verlassen
(15:31:25) Stefan___b: With a "reasonable, already adressed set of issues, why should people NOT have a look" - ION, no discussion on that here. Bye!

Personal tools