Difference between revisions of "ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-08-31 IRC log"

Latest revision as of 19:04, 16 March 2010

(14:55:55) Das Thema für #oooreleases ist: Release-Stauts-Meeting, every monday at 15:00 Hamburg Time (13:00 UTC in summer)
(15:00:03) ml1: hi
(15:00:03) ja_: Moin
(15:00:46) mdamboldt: Hi
(15:01:11) rtimm [n=Ruediger@nat/sun/x-dpgpvtigkbxbbjvp] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:01:14) of_sun: Hi
(15:02:01) mdamboldt: The 3.1.1 release is done.
(15:02:15) mdamboldt: Download pages have some trouble, we are working on it.
(15:02:52) MechtiIde: hello
(15:03:07) mdamboldt: Next in my timeline is the 2.4.3 release
(15:03:24) stefan_b: Hi!
(15:03:27) ml1: the download pages seem to be back
(15:03:41) mdamboldt: No stoppers raised for RC2. But some issues inpoint of view to JRE6u16 and Win98 support.
(15:03:56) MechtiIde: yes
(15:04:20) MechtiIde: it seems to be a problem to run the newest Java version under Win 98
(15:04:35) MechtiIde: but i don't know if it is better under Win 98SE
(15:05:52) mdamboldt: I don't understand details of this issue yet. Not sure if OOo 2.4.3rc2 installs but without JRE6u16 or if JRE6u16 is installed but not used?
(15:06:18) VolkerMe [n=chatzill@77-20-36-185-dynip.superkabel.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:07:29) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-miffhdcinbgnbatw] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:09:13) ***mdamboldt test
(15:09:53) ***VolkerMe can hear mdamboldt ;-)
(15:10:05) kai_a: mdamboldt: test2
(15:10:06) stefan_b: Ah! VolkerMe. We are talking about that Win98/wJRE thingie...
(15:10:25) VolkerMe: Sorry, I was late
(15:11:11) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, IMO the problem is the Java Version under Win 98
(15:11:22) MechtiIde: one solution i think
(15:11:36) mdamboldt: Ok, I think at least of_sun is currentlöy looking at the details of the JRE installation issue on Win98. I would postpone any further decission on this till we know more details so we can decide what the best solution would be.
(15:11:38) MechtiIde: Win 98 user need a Win version without JRE
(15:11:52) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Sure thats one option.
(15:12:34) MechtiIde: I know also installations of Win 98 where you can't use version 2.4.x
(15:12:41) of_sun: I only have a Win 98SE; evaluating
(15:13:03) MechtiIde: of_sun, yes so we have to differ between these two version
(15:13:06) MechtiIde: +s
(15:13:45) VolkerMe: of_sun: André and me also tested it on SE
(15:14:00) of_sun: I would like to, but I can't provide such 98.
(15:18:46) mdamboldt: Past OOo 2.4.x releases included JRE 1.5 not 6
(15:19:02) of_sun: On Win 98 Se the JRE installation was canceled with a message that the data1.cab has an invalid signature.
(15:19:15) mdamboldt: To me it sounds like we made a mistake by simply putting latest JRE not only into 3.1.1 but also into 2.4.3 release.
(15:19:37) of_sun: True
(15:19:52) MechtiIde: An if we use the newest 1.5.x version of Java
(15:20:16) mdamboldt: We should put JRE 1.5 Build 19 into all 2.4.3 install sets instead.
(15:20:32) mdamboldt: I will contact Ingo to do so.
(15:21:43) rtimm: So we'd need another RC, based on a new milestone? :-(
(15:22:40) mdamboldt: Yes. But it would include just a changed JRE.
(15:24:01) rtimm: for all platforms, to stay consistent
(15:24:45) mdamboldt: Yes
(15:25:16) mdamboldt: Most efforts but cleanest solution from my point of view.
(15:30:05) mdamboldt: Anything else about 2.4.3 right now?
(15:30:45) VolkerMe: Timeline for reworking ?
(15:32:12) mdamboldt: I would need to find out some details in point of view to JRE 5 and JRE 6 and their latest releases. In case we switch back to JRE 5, I would think to see a 2.4.3 rc3 earliest next Monday. Probably just before the weekend on Friday.
(15:32:43) mdamboldt: Btw. I just checked. 2.4.2 includes a JRE 6 Update 4.
(15:33:23) MechtiIde: and this version has security problems so we need a newer one
(15:33:41) of_sun: JRE6U4 doesn't have this problem
(15:33:49) ml1: so, jre 6 u4 was working on win98(se) ?
(15:34:12) MechtiIde: of_sun, only newer versions?
(15:34:51) MechtiIde: I can't beleve it
(15:34:54) MechtiIde: believe
(15:35:02) of_sun: It could be installed with the related message box that this platform isn't supported.
(15:35:43) mdamboldt: of_sun: And JRE 6u16 does not install at all?
(15:37:22) of_sun: yes, maybe it's related to the JavaFX feature? Just a guess.
(15:39:55) mdamboldt: I think I need some more to clarify this in detail.
(15:40:31) ***mdamboldt more time
(15:40:48) mdamboldt: Will notify outcomes on the release list
(15:40:55) mdamboldt: 3.2?
(15:41:02) ml1: when u4 was working and u16 no more, then IMHO there is another version inbetween that is the latest running on Win98(se). this version seems to be fitting for us
(15:41:07) _rene_: mdamboldt: don't forget this is win98
(15:41:09) _rene_: err
(15:41:16) _rene_: Mechtilde: don't forget this is win98
(15:41:37) _rene_: MechtiIde: security issues do not really count. becaus eif the user cared abut them they would not use win98 :P
(15:43:05) _rene_: but yes, the JRE should be security fixed if possible, but if that isn't possible on win98, oh well
(15:43:12) mdamboldt: Anything about 3.2 for today?
(15:43:32) mdamboldt: There are only three weeks left till branch date.
(15:44:05) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, when must the translation be finished?
(15:45:54) ja_: Regarding http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease32 October 16th is translation delivery deadline
(15:46:27) MechtiIde: ja_, so this is after the branch?
(15:46:53) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: yes
(15:47:00) MechtiIde: ok
(15:48:07) mdamboldt: All for 3.2?
(15:49:07) VolkerMe: The beta date at the wiki?
(15:49:52) mdamboldt: This would be the first build after the branch.
(15:50:45) ja_: mdamboldt: provided as OOo-Dev build ?
(15:50:46) blauwal: uhmm, we will not allow for one or two bugfix milestones before beta?
(15:51:36) mdamboldt: blauwal: If its not a stopper, no.
(15:51:45) of_sun: Do you fear we need one (or two)?
(15:51:45) Andreas_SunOOoUX [n=andreas_@nat/sun/x-avmekbcfdsyaydso] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:51:53) blauwal: I'm sure
(15:52:22) rtimm: blauwal: all 'standard' bugs are supposed to be fixed before branch date. Only stoppers will get accepted afterwards.
(15:52:27) blauwal: It's a freeze date, iwe always needed one or two milestones to fix the obvious things
(15:52:47) rtimm: :-)
(15:52:53) mdamboldt: ja_: In the past we delivered Beta's as OOo-Dev builds.
(15:52:58) VolkerMe: "first build after the branch" is not really beta
(15:55:52) rtimm: Of course there will be some fixes in "the first build after the branch." If not, why should we do a build?
(15:56:16) rtimm: Freeze build -> branch -> first build = beta
(15:57:02) mdamboldt: Anything else for today?
(15:57:15) msc_sun hat den Raum verlassen
(15:58:20) mdamboldt: bye
(15:58:23) MechtiIde: rtimm, I see no problem to name the first build after branch as Beta if there is no stopper bug
(15:58:33) mdamboldt heißt jetzt mdamboldt_away
(15:58:55) blauwal: how should we know if there is stopper if we didn't do some RC build?
(15:59:27) MechtiIde: blauwal, we can see it in the last build before branch
(15:59:32) blauwal: the last build before would be a DEV300 milestone which doesn't get this kind of attention
(16:00:08) MechtiIde: blauwal, and the first build after branch didn't get any attention it it isn't a beta version
(16:00:35) blauwal: MechtiIde: Well as (a single) beta RC it would ...
(16:00:58) MechtiIde: I doubt it
(16:02:04) mdamboldt_away heißt jetzt mdamboldt
(16:02:15) VolkerMe: In the past we only named it beta when we put it to a wider audience. But this did not happen directly after the branch
(16:02:44) of_sun: So we should do it now.
(16:02:49) blauwal: well the problem is not the branch but the freeze. We had unsuable milestones after each freeze for a long time. The Beta should be usable
(16:03:04) MechtiIde: VolkerMe, in the past time we have only Beta versions for major rel?eases
(16:03:15) MechtiIde: now we want to do it for minor release
(16:03:15) blauwal: Two milestones after thefreeze and than brnach would be fine as well
(16:03:50) MechtiIde: blauwal, the freeze of what
(16:04:06) blauwal: feature freeze, code freeze
(16:04:09) rtimm: blauwal: but do we need more than one build to get it usable again? We'll see
(16:04:23) MechtiIde: as I know both are passed, aren't they?
(16:04:43) blauwal: no. The branch date is the freeze date this time
(16:05:32) rtimm: For me it's not yet clear how 'big' this beta shall be. Is it just a normal build with some more marketing noise, or is it a beta as we had in the past - with all languages, extra bitmaps, etc
(16:06:22) rtimm: I'd be fine with some marketing noise, but a 'big beta' in my opinion is too expensive for a minor release
(16:06:35) MechtiIde: rtimm, the beta is only in English because we wouldn't have the translation integrated
(16:06:46) blauwal: rtimm: I think it should be something in between, a "settled" build with marketing noise
(16:07:18) blauwal: rtimm: it should be reviewable for the press etc
(16:07:52) blauwal: rtimm: but certainly not as big as a release
(16:12:11) VolkerMe: IMHO _we_ should test before and the translation should be complete
(16:12:29) ja_: from my POV it is a developer build with some more marketing noise. It does not include localization changes. On the other way it is an important milestone because it's the first build on a new release branch.
(16:13:04) blauwal: VolkerMe: The translation can't be complete at taht time
(16:13:16) blauwal: s/taht/that/
(16:13:31) ml1: yes, it didn't seem to get a real beta (what we know from the past) but just a kind of
(16:13:35) rtimm: VolkerMe: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease32 is based on the assumption that 'beta' will be before translation
(16:14:28) rtimm: Purpose of this beta just would be to get some more attention in an early state
(16:15:07) rtimm: in order to find show stoppers before the real RC
(16:15:12) VolkerMe: "developer build with some more marketing noise" shouldn't be called "Beta"
(16:15:58) ***rtimm regrets having started this discussion. It's a deja vu ...
(16:17:05) rtimm: Should be think a bit about this and continue our discussion next week?
(16:17:27) rtimm: s/be/we/
(16:17:41) VolkerMe: Ok. I will talk to the marketing guys as well
(16:17:43) blauwal: ok
(16:18:05) ja_: rtimm: +1
(16:18:07) ml1: good idea
(16:19:23) MechtiIde: VolkerMe, we discussed it already
(16:20:15) rtimm heißt jetzt rtimm_away
(16:21:28) ja_: OK this meeting seems to have finished now. Bye