ReleaseStatus Minutes 2008-05-19 IRC log

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

(15:01:28) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-e6467d351a7e94b6] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:01:42) cgu_sun [n=cg103521@nat/sun/x-4d2019234702dd7d] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:02:15) _Nesshof1: hi
(15:02:28) mdamboldt: Hi
(15:02:35) ja_: hi
(15:02:39) _Nesshof1: lets begin with 2.4.1 status
(15:02:59) _Nesshof1: all cws are nominated now and build is just starting
(15:03:06) _Nesshof1: only one cws is left
(15:03:15) jsc_ [] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:03:36) LeFrog [n=LeFrog@nat/sun/x-c14bd7d6654ef0f4] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:03:49) MechtiIde: _Nesshof1, Build OOH_m15 is started?
(15:03:55) _Nesshof1: mdamboldt: that something regarding the odfversion update notification
(15:03:57) mdamboldt: I've one to bring up Issue 89096 for 2.4.1 which is not yet ready.
(15:04:04) IZBot: framework TASK STARTED P2 disconnect ODF 1.2 notification from Online-Update
(15:04:05) _Nesshof1: MechtiIde: yes, just in these minutes
(15:04:13) mdamboldt: Some background information on this issue:
(15:04:13) mdamboldt: Starting with OOo 3.0 releases we support ODF 1.2 file format. Since there are new features and changes in ODF 1.2, old releases like OOo 2.x are not 100% able to read the new format. Thus a warning message has been intorduced in OOo 2.4.
(15:04:21) mdamboldt: So when you open an ODF 1.2 document in OOo 2.4, a warning will be displayed containing informations like "This document was created by a newer version of It may contain features not supported by your version." There are two options offered in OOo 2.4, one to update and one to remind later. In the "Later" case the document will be opened and informations may not be displayed correctly. In case the user choose to "update"
(15:04:21) mdamboldt: For details please see the specification at:
(15:04:21) mdamboldt: So back to issue 89096 on target 2.4.1:
(15:04:23) mdamboldt: For OOo 2.4.1 we plan to disconnect the ODF notification dialog from the "nomral" Online Update mechanism. Instead we are going to create a link behind the ODF notification update button, pointing to a web page where more detailed informations can be presented. This can dynamicly beeing changed. Right now we can point interested people to the OOo 3.0 Beta program. Later this year, when the OOo 3.0 final release is done, we can refresh t
(15:04:24) IZBot: framework TASK STARTED P2 disconnect ODF 1.2 notification from Online-Update
(15:04:25) MechtiIde: I only want to clarify the build number
(15:04:29) mdamboldt: This OOo 2.4.1 release is our last chance on the OOo 2.x code line to correct this implementation. Since OOo 2.x and OOo 3.x version may exist in parallel for a long time, I would strongly recommend to integrate 89096 into OOo 2.4.1 release.
(15:04:50) rtimm [] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:04:57) _Nesshof1: mdamboldt: seems to be a fast writer
(15:05:19) mdamboldt: _Nesshat1: just prepared a little bit....
(15:05:51) _Nesshof1: mdamboldt: the fix will be ready until thursday ?
(15:06:08) mdamboldt: Yes.
(15:06:51) _Nesshof1: ok, with a last build end of this week we will keep in time for the 2.4.1 release
(15:07:18) _Nesshof1: anything else regarding 2.4.1 ?
(15:07:43) UweL: Thursday with QA already done?
(15:08:20) _Nesshof1: mdamboldt: ?
(15:08:53) mdamboldt: So my estimation...
(15:08:58) _Nesshof1: ok, fine
(15:09:07) _Nesshof1: 3.0 Beta status:
(15:09:23) _Nesshof1: we collected so far about 150 issues based on beta
(15:09:50) _Nesshof1: there don't seem to be any dramatic issues (beside save as on Vista sp)
(15:10:18) _Nesshof1: we'll collecting feedback until next monday
(15:10:39) _Nesshof1: plan is to have Beta 2 by the end of June
(15:11:03) _Nesshof1: so my plan for branching of for the Beta2 is begin of June
(15:11:14) _rene_: Beta2 inclduing the stuff we had so far?
(15:11:32) _Nesshof1: yes, based on DEV300
(15:11:36) _rene_: *after* beta? Or is this the mysterious "beta refresh"?
(15:11:37) _rene_: ok
(15:11:44) _rene_: that's good
(15:11:48) _Nesshof1: but I think jsc_want to raise an issue with the beta 2
(15:12:21) _Nesshof1: beta refresh or beta2, I thiought we agreed on beta2 the last time
(15:12:49) jsc_: yes, it's about a refreshed and more user friendly extension manager UI
(15:13:08) _rene_: yep. only if it's a branch which included the current dev300 stuff, though, which is the case, so.. ;)
(15:13:21) blauwal [] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:13:56) ***Fridrich agrees with _rene_: if we are to release a beta 2 it should be useful in the path to 3.0 release
(15:14:02) _rene_: jsc_: ooc, will you have jsc21 ready till beta2? I think that beta should already inlcude the new SDK so that gets tested :)
(15:14:14) _Nesshof1: jsc_: you mean blending out the technical details display within the extension manager UI ?
(15:14:45) jsc_: jsc21 is a diffefrent topic but should be ready then
(15:15:17) jsc_: the new UI will be an improvement for our users and will simplify the deployment of ext a lot
(15:15:46) _Nesshof1: jsc_: are there any new strings with that ui change ?
(15:15:50) jsc_: we missed the initil i18n date by two days or so. Means the impl is ready and now tested
(15:16:18) jsc_: yes, of course it is a redesign of the UI and it contains some new UI strings
(15:16:32) _Nesshof1: jsc_: but not too many I hope ?
(15:16:59) jsc_: no not too many, i don' have an exact number
(15:17:00) _rene_: what will the beta2 branch be named as? beb300? ;-)
(15:17:41) _Nesshof1: afaik also documentation is already included in that cws
(15:17:54) jsc_: the point is that we are late with this feature but from my point of view it is an important feature that we should have avilbale in 3.0
(15:18:18) jsc_: especially with the growing popularity of ext
(15:18:29) _Nesshof1: _rene_: my plan would be to continue the release for OOo 3.0 final on that branch
(15:18:51) _Nesshof1: rtimm: : so what would be the name for the 3.0 final branch ?
(15:18:57) _rene_: _Nesshof1: uhm....
(15:19:14) _rene_: _Nesshof1: if we have the branch in end of June, that's a bit early branching, isn't it?
(15:19:40) rtimm: _Nesshof1: still open for discussion. I'd propose OOO300.
(15:19:46) _Nesshof1: _rene_: I will add later a proposal for reducing the bug count on 3.0
(15:20:18) _Nesshof1: I would like to focus just to the issue we realyy need/want to fix for 3.0
(15:20:46) _Nesshof1: _rene_: and I also have the first cws ready for integration into the 3.1 codeline
(15:20:49) rtimm: _Nesshof1: But I also am no friend of branching too early. Is there already demand for an OOO 3.1 code line?
(15:21:45) rtimm: _Nesshof1: ready for integration is not so pressing. Developers needing them integrated in order to open new ones is important.
(15:22:03) _Nesshof1: jsc_: given that we have the approval from rafaella and word count is in the low hundred I would be ok with the integration
(15:22:26) _Nesshof1: rtimm: wait for my proposal in a minute or so
(15:22:41) rtimm: _Nesshof1: OK
(15:22:42) jsc_: _Nesshof1: fine that sounds ok for me
(15:23:58) _Nesshof1: ok, I would like to move all 3.0 issue p3-p5 with no keyword set to 3.x target
(15:24:16) _Nesshof1: more than 1000 issues for 3.0 is much too much to track
(15:25:16) _Nesshof1: I would like to focus on the beta feedback and QA feedback we get for the current version and move all other issues to 3.1 release
(15:25:55) _Nesshof1: so I would like to restrict development towards 3.0 with the beginning of the branch
(15:26:31) _rene_: I am not sure we should do that with p3 bugs given that this is the default afair and important bugs might be p3 in IZ
(15:27:22) _Nesshof1: _rene_: they than should have a keyword like regression, crash or usability or we as release team should know about such important bugs
(15:27:55) _Nesshof1: I'm also fine if 3.x issues get 3.0 target if they get fixed in a cws and verified
(15:28:25) _Nesshof1: I don't want the situation again, that some weeks before release we will start moving the issues again to a later target
(15:28:41) _Nesshof1: so we would be more honest with our users
(15:29:35) _Nesshof1: any other thoughts for this proposal ?
(15:32:16) rtimm: thorstenziehm: Waht about QA, do you have resources to work on two code lines (3.0 and 3.1) in parallel from now on?
(15:32:38) rtimm: and 2.4.1 as a third. I forgot ...
(15:32:58) paveljanik: I'd rather like the email call to "process your 3.0 target resources now" and postpone the decision to next week...
(15:33:41) thorstenziehm: rtimm : we will concentrate on CWS, when more CWS are on 3.0 target we do more on this version
(15:34:04) thorstenziehm: and when 3.0 is stable we will shift automated testing on the new Master for OOo 3.1
(15:34:17) thorstenziehm: OOO 2.4.1 is ready when we are branching, I hope!
(15:34:35) _Nesshof1: paveljanik: this is what I would do anyhow, send out a mail, have look on your 3.0 issue now, we recommend to move your issue to 3.x to reduce the overall count
(15:35:38) paveljanik: _Nesshof1: without the second part ("we recommend ..."), I agree ;-)
(15:36:04) paveljanik: I'd recommend to FIX issues now.
(15:36:10) _Nesshof1: paveljanik: and what we we do if the amount of issues is not reduced after week ?
(15:37:01) _Nesshof1: there are just 7 weeks left until code freeze
(15:37:46) paveljanik: _Nesshof1: we can then recommend to move the target.
(15:37:48) _Nesshof1: so my call for the QA people is also, review the 3.0 issue and see that the important issues have the correct keywords
(15:37:49) paveljanik: but not now.
(15:38:05) rtimm: _Nesshof1: if we retarget issues to 3.0 when they get fixed in a cws and verified, why do we need a code line for 3.1? Only for issues not worked on yet?
(15:38:59) _Nesshof1: paveljanik: I just have the problem that with that huge amount of issues it's almost impossible for us to track the important ones
(15:39:30) _Nesshof1: paveljanik: or do you think that all current open 3.0 issues are really that important to have them in the release ?
(15:41:17) _Nesshof1: ok, AI for me: send out 3.0 issue reminder after this meeting
(15:42:08) _Nesshof1: we are a little bit behind the plan to deliver dictionaries as extension for the Beta2/refresh
(15:42:41) _rene_: _Nesshof1: maybe then you should also get people QAing 3.0-cwses to actually talk to the cws owner about the status and why they don't commit the buildfixes they have for Windows....
(15:42:47) _Nesshof1: there arrived some dictionaries now in the repository but some important languages are still missing
(15:42:59) _rene_: _Nesshof1: (hunspellexternal in this case)
(15:43:18) _Nesshof1: _rene_: point taken
(15:43:31) _rene_: _Nesshof1: that said, you know the status of hunspellexternal? :)
(15:43:54) _Nesshof1: not exactly, but I will know quite after this meeting
(15:44:08) _rene_: please tell me, because no one tells me...
(15:44:22) _Nesshof1: the P1 issue is still assigned to vg ?
(15:44:38) _rene_: and the buildfix tl got on dev@ was not committed :)
(15:45:01) _rene_: _Nesshof1: the system-hyph one? not related to hunspellexternal :) (but masterfixed for m14)
(15:46:16) ***_Nesshof1 will check with tl after the meeting and initate a masterifx
(15:47:07) _rene_: _Nesshof1: uhm, it *is* masterfixed :)
(15:47:21) _Nesshof1: ok
(15:47:27) rtimm: _Nesshof1: why masterfix for a CWS still in QA?
(15:47:38) rtimm: Or did I misunderstand something?
(15:48:00) _rene_: rtimm: yes, you got confused, _Nesshof1 apparently talked about the P1 issue, not about hunspellexternal anymore
(15:48:16) rtimm: OK.
(15:49:50) _Nesshof1: anything else for today ?
(15:50:23) ja_: not from me
(15:50:28) UweL: no
(15:50:36) MechtiIde: ja_, do you have some minutes?
(15:50:38) _Nesshof1: ok, by
(15:50:46) UweL: bye
(15:50:58) UweL hat den Raum verlassen
(15:51:03) jsc_: bye, thanks
(15:51:07) jj944: bye
(15:51:09) ja_: Mechtilde: some...
(15:51:09) jj944 hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "").
(15:51:11) stefan_b: bye
(15:51:13) rtimm: just FYI, RE on OOH680 will be done by Ivo (ihi) this week
(15:51:19) jsc_ hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla [Firefox]").
(15:51:28) rtimm: DEV300 is Kurt's (kz)

Personal tools