ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-11-23 IRC log
Conversation with #oooreleases at Mon Nov 23 14:56:01 2009 on email@example.com (irc)
(14:56:01) #oooreleases: The topic for #oooreleases is: Release-Stauts-Meeting, every monday at 15:00 Hamburg Time (13:00 UTC in summer)
(14:56:11) mla: hi
(14:56:15) VolkerMe [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room.
(14:56:20) ja_ [email@example.com] entered the room.
(14:56:32) ja_: Moin
(14:56:35) MechtiIde: hallo
(14:56:42) VolkerMe: Moin
(14:58:38) mdamboldt_away [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room.
(14:58:42) mdamboldt_away is now known as mdamboldt
(14:58:47) rtimm [n=Ruediger@nat/sun/x-wtaukphegaetokni] entered the room.
(14:59:35) UweL [email@example.com] entered the room.
(14:59:40) CorNouws [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room.
(14:59:46) mdamboldt: Hi
(14:59:57) blauwal [n=jr93709@nat/sun/x-aryhcmdrknvzzdvv] entered the room.
(15:00:00) CorNouws: hi Martin :-)
(15:00:08) CorNouws: Hin *
(15:00:52) mdamboldt: Lets start with 3.2 status...
(15:01:27) ja_: The agenda doesn't list any separate show stopper issues
(15:01:29) of_sun: Hi!
(15:01:35) mdamboldt: OOO320m5 is complete. And we are just starting on the OOO320m6 round.
(15:02:00) MechtiIde: so without localisation37?
(15:02:18) mdamboldt: In detail this means the OOO320m6 build will start today/tomorrow, we are just waiting for L10N CWS approval.
(15:02:19) Stefan_b_away [email@example.com] entered the room.
(15:02:25) Stefan_b_away: Moin!
(15:02:37) Stefan_b_away is now known as Stefan_b
(15:03:28) VolkerMe: Isn't there bugfixing of l10n until friday?
(15:03:47) mdamboldt: VolkerMe: Yes, those will be done in a separate CWS by Ivo
(15:03:50) _rene_: will we call m6 beta2?
(15:03:58) _rene_: there was a question on releases wrt this
(15:04:05) _rene_: and I tend to thik this would be a good iea
(15:04:09) _rene_: idea
(15:04:19) CorNouws: _rene_: Yes
(15:04:24) CorNouws: we had a discussion on marcon about naming one of the next builds Beta2
(15:04:30) MechtiIde: I don't think so
(15:04:37) CorNouws: Question for me however: when will the builds with l10n fixes (deadline 2009-11-27) be available?
(15:05:13) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@220.127.116.11] entered the room.
(15:05:16) MechtiIde: and when we will get RC1?
(15:05:27) CorNouws: Can the builds with full l10n be annouced as Beta2? or
(15:05:36) CorNouws: does that take more time?
(15:05:45) _rene_: the you also can just let it be...
(15:05:58) _rene_: rc1 is supposed to be one week from x-mas. means 4 weeks from now
(15:05:59) MechtiIde: for me it isn't a good idea to have between beta2 and RC1 only 1 week or shorter
(15:06:21) _rene_: MechtiIde: there won't be if you do m6 as beta2. because that would be *this* week :)
(15:06:45) MechtiIde: and deadlin of l10n is Friday
(15:06:53) CorNouws: to gain attention (testers and publicity) every possibility to announce some 'special' build is important
(15:07:06) MechtiIde: so you want another beta without l10n?
(15:07:07) VolkerMe: CorNouws: The translation in m6 will be complete, but the issues in this translations will be fixed later.
(15:07:08) CorNouws: so the question: when will builds with l10n integrated be ready??
(15:07:39) CorNouws: VolkerMe: you answer before I send my question :-)
(15:08:00) CorNouws: However ...
(15:08:15) MechtiIde: CorNouws, when Friday is deadline for l10n we get the binaries nextweek Thusday or so
(15:08:24) CorNouws: m6 will only be en_US with Germand, French, Japan langpacks?
(15:08:28) MechtiIde: (3.12.09
(15:08:41) _rene_: MechtiIde: so what? then make m7 the one with localisations ;-)
(15:09:07) MechtiIde: _rene_, and the Beta nearly 1 week later
(15:09:24) _rene_: why?
(15:09:42) _rene_: I don't buy this "beta has to contain localizations" thing, you know....
(15:09:43) MechtiIde: means 14.12.09 or the week beginning with that day
(15:10:03) enoki [firstname.lastname@example.org] entered the room.
(15:10:07) _rene_: we can do m6 with en-US and make it beta2 ;)
(15:10:20) VolkerMe: CorNouws: Afair the beta1 was also with limited langpacks. You will get them all with the first RC
(15:10:23) _rene_: we did beta (aka m2) the same way :)
(15:11:45) CorNouws: MechtiIde: to gain attention (testers and publicity) every possibility to announce some 'special' build is important
(15:12:15) CorNouws: announcing Beta2 soon, and RC1 with k10n later is good in that view
(15:12:22) VolkerMe: So it's just the decision if we can live with the l10n issues for beta2.
(15:12:33) MechtiIde: CorNouws, there is only one week diffenrent
(15:13:03) CorNouws: VolkerMe: m6 won't be available in all languages though ??
(15:13:12) mdamboldt: A Beta2 release within our current schedule would raise expectations which can't be fulfilled. Beta2 would sound like we have much time for Beta2 feedback and to address all of the raised issues. In fact we are already in stopper mode for 3.2 and as Mechtilde said we are not very far away from the first release candidates.
(15:13:15) CorNouws: MechtiIde: Not is m6 is next week ...
(15:13:16) MechtiIde: CorNouws, and is a beta version good without any organiszation of testing
(15:13:20) _rene_: as m2 wasn't either
(15:13:42) ja_: I don't think it's useful to have a second Beta just before RC1
(15:13:54) _rene_: MechtiIde: that's nonsense, sorry
(15:14:03) _rene_: MechtiIde: how does a beta2 now prevent coordination of testing?
(15:14:13) VolkerMe: CorNouws: No.
(15:14:25) CorNouws: hi all: I am here as *marketing representative*
(15:15:30) CorNouws: so announcing Beta2 to raise awareness is good for that
(15:15:30) CorNouws: if it does not have a full support scheme (as was mith m2, thanks René) no prob from that POV
(15:15:42) _rene_: ja_: except for people outside the project who don't want to upload a milestone but a "beta release". merketing... I'd probably get more testers in Debian if I uploaded a beta2 instead of a ~ooo320m6
(15:15:57) MechtiIde: CorNouws, for me there is no time to organize it
(15:16:07) _rene_: (and I need to update from by beta package anyway asap)
(15:16:10) MechtiIde: to organize means also to reproduce the issues
(15:16:15) Andreas_SunOOoUX [n=andreas_@nat/sun/x-mzuungcqwxrpmmne] entered the room.
(15:16:18) MechtiIde: and to confirm and so on
(15:16:22) CorNouws: MechtiIde: organise what, Mechtilde?
(15:16:32) MechtiIde: to organize means also to reproduce the issues
(15:16:34) MechtiIde: and to confirm and so on
(15:16:38) CorNouws: Ah, thanks for explaining
(15:17:26) CorNouws: So we expect more issues if we annouce it as Beta2
(15:17:26) CorNouws: And do not expect to be able to handle
(15:17:26) CorNouws: Is that both correct?
(15:17:35) MechtiIde: CorNouws, yes
(15:18:23) _rene_: and you believe people won't report them on "beta" either?
(15:18:33) _rene_: they still can report it on "beta". does not help in any way.
(15:18:48) CorNouws: Is Mechtilde the only here who needs to coope with such a situation ?
(15:19:24) _rene_: those also won't be fixed anymore in stopper mode. and for beta-reported bugs you know whether it's a stopper (fixed in m6/beta2 or not -> not fixed and probably won't anyway)
(15:19:26) CorNouws: _rene_: announcing as Beta2 will give more beta-users, so more issues (read many dups ...)
(15:20:15) MechtiIde: we should decide such plans earlier in a release timeline
(15:20:22) _rene_: and my problem is that I don't have much testers on experimental exactly because it's an eearly version :)
(15:20:41) MechtiIde: _rene_, I know that
(15:20:47) _rene_: and it's already really tight to get 3.2.1 into the next debian stable. so we need to get testers ASAP
(15:20:58) _rene_: we might end up with 3.1.1 :-(
(15:21:10) _rene_: (I fear about shipping 3.2.0...)
(15:21:19) CorNouws: MechtiIde: Can we do anything to make it bearable for you to have axtra issues because of a Beta2 ?
(15:22:10) MechtiIde: CorNouws, do you confirming the Issues and reassign to the right developers
(15:22:11) CorNouws: and I repeat: Is Mechtilde the only here who needs to coope with such a situation ?
(15:22:15) MechtiIde: and clos duplicates
(15:22:36) Stefan_b: CorNouws: As usual: We want to know important issues (stoppers) ASAP and we do NOT wwant to waste time with unimportant newbie-contributions.
(15:22:42) Stefan_b: Cor, no she is not alone.
(15:23:46) MechtiIde: CorNouws, if you have a little bit time after the meeting I can tell you some examples
(15:24:08) VolkerMe: CorNouws: She is not really alone, but has not enough co-workers.
(15:24:13) CorNouws: So the question comes up: if marketing and René like the idea of Beta2: can we give the needed extra support ?
(15:24:14) CorNouws: And how much would that be?
(15:24:15) Stefan_b: I think the time aspect counts more than issue amounts. One week between a beta XYZ and a RC sounds streange to me.
(15:25:07) CorNouws: I still do not have clear when RC1 will be.... I thought December 17 earliest?
(15:25:31) MechtiIde: CorNouws, this is to late to release before christmas
(15:25:57) CorNouws: MechtiIde: I am afraid I know the examples ...
(15:26:03) MechtiIde: then we have to decide today to release mid or end of January
(15:26:03) _rene_: it is already. no news. calling m6 does not change that.
(15:26:12) _rene_: Stefan_b: correct. and how does issues being reported on beta help here?
(15:26:16) CorNouws: MechtiIde: Release is scheduled for Januari currently!
(15:26:24) MechtiIde: CorNouws, where
(15:26:33) dtardon: MechtiIde, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease32
(15:26:35) _rene_: Stefan_b: you'll get old bugs reported instead of people testing with beta2 and *not* reporting them because they don't see it
(15:26:47) CorNouws: dtardon: thanks
(15:26:48) ja_: As Martin already said our 3.2 schedule doesn't allow to have a second Beta. There's not enough time to evaluate feedback from mainly end-users at this time just before we plan to have release candidate 1. We already committed on Dec 17th as QA approval date last week.
(15:27:03) SimonAW left the room (quit: "leaving").
(15:27:17) dtardon: CorNouws, i noticed the change just today :)
(15:27:19) _rene_: ja_: so you don't evaluate feeedback on milestones? ;)
(15:27:52) _rene_: ja_: and don't forget you'll need to process bugs reported against beta which already are fixed...
(15:28:00) _rene_: (maybe)
(15:28:05) ja_: _rene_: trust me ;-)
(15:28:30) MechtiIde: _rene_, there are not so much last weeks
(15:28:39) CorNouws: To summarize: m6 is end November and RC1 December 20 .., Correct?
(15:28:42) _rene_: I do, but I also know what happens with Debian testing and unstable with OOo versions right now
(15:28:53) MechtiIde: CorNouws, no
(15:28:54) _rene_: people report bugs against the old one and *that* causes extra work
(15:28:57) mdamboldt: CorNouws: No
(15:29:11) CorNouws: So then wat is correct, pls?
(15:29:13) _rene_: (compared to this this would be beta and beta2)
(15:29:44) mdamboldt: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease32
(15:30:17) CorNouws: mdamboldt: I know, but where does that list m6, and where RC1 ?
(15:32:00) mdamboldt: Uuups, while looking at the schedule link for 3.2 I just noticed some strange wording in there, create by my self. 2009-12-17 should of course not read "QA approval expected by today "
(15:34:00) MechtiIde: Then my proposal is to announce m7 as RC1 also we know we need a second one
(15:34:09) ***CorNouws Hard to exchange ideas and come to an agrement when my questions remain unanswered ..
(15:34:14) MechtiIde: in order to make it public
(15:37:14) mdamboldt: CorNows: I've updated the Wiki page. Based on the last shift in the release schedule of 3.2 due to L10N the final bits (release candidate 1) should be ready just before Christmas. We already had a discussion last week where _rene_ mentioned that in an ideal world we would be able to release just before christmas.
(15:38:09) ja_ left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(15:38:13) CorNouws: mdamboldt: So when I stated "m6 is end November and RC1 December 20 .., Correct?" December 20 was nearly correct
(15:38:32) ja_ [n=ja93804@nat/sun/x-qdqvkigszgujuwnp] entered the room.
(15:38:52) _rene_: mdamboldt: true, but that is not connected to whether we call m6 m6 or beta2 :-)
(15:39:41) mdamboldt: CorNouws: Yes, the plan was for 17th December 2009.
(15:39:53) MechtiIde: I summarize. you want m6 = Beta2 (binaries available 30.11.09)
(15:39:58) mdamboldt: _rene_: Correct, but I'd like to correct that confusing wording.
(15:40:13) MechtiIde: m7 = RC1 (available 17.12.09
(15:40:36) _rene_: MechtiIde: I want m6 = beta2. The 30.11 is said by you, not me :)
(15:40:37) ja_ left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(15:40:42) MechtiIde: I speak of the binaries
(15:41:03) MechtiIde: I summarize the timeline
(15:41:05) _rene_: and why should be binaries take 1 week?
(15:41:09) ja_ [n=ja93804@nat/sun/x-zzqvnbhpnjdprxav] entered the room.
(15:41:16) MechtiIde: _rene_, thats the experience
(15:41:28) mdamboldt: Regarding Beta2 I'm still not a friend of calling anything that. As I mentioned it would raise wrong expectation from my point of view. I agree here with Mechtilde and Stefan_b. I don't fear the number of reported issues, but I think we can't respond on those in the current time frame.
(15:42:04) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, ACK
(15:42:12) MechtiIde: I don't fear it too
(15:42:12) _rene_: but you can on ones reported against "beta"?
(15:42:18) MechtiIde: for the next months
(15:42:24) CorNouws: mdamboldt: Ok, that is fair enough
(15:42:36) CorNouws: _rene_: sad for your idea to get more testers
(15:42:55) CorNouws: _rene_: good thing is that IMO 3.2.0 will be good :-)
(15:43:10) _rene_: that probably will mean Debian queeze (freezed in March!) will end up with 3.1.1 ;-(
(15:43:31) _rene_: CorNouws: THAT I am not sure of, so far .0s were always full of regressions. and I have seen no sign this cycle that this will change
(15:43:51) mdamboldt: _rene_: We promoted the "Beta" some time ago. So there was some time to work on the feedback.
(15:43:56) _rene_: real life gets the most interesting bugs. 3.1.0 broke (almost) all hebrew docs with tables
(15:44:20) _rene_: mdamboldt: obviously that didn't work, as I got *1* bug report for the beta
(15:44:26) _rene_: but dozens for 3.1.1
(15:44:41) MechtiIde: _rene_, that is reallife
(15:45:33) MechtiIde: and another beta doesn't change it essential
(15:45:44) MechtiIde: for the real bugs
(15:46:00) CorNouws: MechtiIde: I think so too ..
(15:46:44) VolkerMe: mdamboldt: As suspected I agree with you about the wrong expectations.
(15:47:50) _rene_: people also have the expectations that license bugs or important bugs affecting distributions are fixed in time
(15:48:19) dtardon left the room (quit: "this parrot is dead").
(15:48:20) _rene_: that doesn't hold either and they are not, so why not telling people "sory, we're in stopper mode, your bug will be 3.2.1 material"?
(15:48:39) _rene_: I mean, bugs reported which are not stoppers are not lost, they can (and should) still be fixed
(15:49:31) MechtiIde: and the expectaions of the reporter?
(15:49:37) Stefan_b: _rene_: +1
(15:49:40) CorNouws: _rene_: sounds fair anought for me
(15:49:53) Stefan_b: MechtiIde: depends on the reporter :-)
(15:50:10) MechtiIde: yes
(15:50:12) _rene_: Stefan_b: then why you arguing about not calling it beta2 with the "bug maintainance" reasoning?
(15:50:23) Stefan_b: Some know what all is about and some mistake the tracker for an fre--of-charge order sheet.
(15:51:38) Stefan_b: _rene_: as said above...
(15:52:08) Stefan_b: one week between beta and RC makes no sense.
(15:52:23) CorNouws: Stefan_b: We have 2 to 3 weeks ...
(15:53:03) VolkerMe: And the RC self will follow us around the christmas tree
(15:53:04) MechtiIde: nearly 2
(15:53:15) MechtiIde: nearly 2 weeks
(15:53:26) Stefan_b: I believe the beta is more a marketing teaser than having any positive effect on release quality.
(15:53:44) CorNouws: Stefan_b: correct
(15:53:49) Stefan_b: I mean beata2
(15:53:50) mdamboldt: So people agree here to call/promote the m6 as Beta2 release while pointing out that we already expect not to be able to handle all the feedback receive on that one till the final release of 3.2?
(15:54:01) mdamboldt: What about the L10N question in relation to it?
(15:54:06) CorNouws: MechtiIde: Nov 30 (latest) till Decm 20 (earliest) is 3 weeks
(15:54:15) MechtiIde: then we should also annouce that therre is only very little time to work on the reported bugs
(15:54:22) mdamboldt: At least the late ones Spanish and ??? Would not be complete in m6
(15:54:46) _rene_: mdamboldt: just don't care. I'd even accept a m6 without loc37
(15:55:00) CorNouws: MechtiIde: Yes, and I can ask some marketing guys with knowledge of IssueTr to help a bit..
(15:55:04) _rene_: transitions (IMHO) are decoupled with whether m is beta2 or not
(15:55:06) _rene_: eh
(15:55:08) mdamboldt: ??? => is Korean if I remember correct
(15:55:09) _rene_: translations
(15:55:12) MechtiIde: CorNouws, Nobody knos if the binaries are available at 30.Nov and 17. Dez is the day for RC1
(15:55:41) CorNouws: MechtiIde: mind my words :-D
(15:55:57) Stefan_b: CorNouws: Good idea. PROCESSING issues is the bottleneck. Not "too little of them written".
(15:56:08) _rene_: MechtiIde: if they start the build now, why should the binaries only appear on Monday?
(15:56:12) CorNouws: Stefan_b: :-)
(15:56:36) _rene_: MechtiIde: even if the builds take 2 days or so, that would be Wednesday. or Thursday
(15:56:38) kai_a left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(15:56:49) MechtiIde: _rene_, mdamboldt said they started today or tomorrow to merge the svn
(15:57:20) MechtiIde: then I can hope to see some builds on Saturday
(15:57:40) MechtiIde: Thats my experience the last half year
(15:57:56) _rene_: if they" artifically" delay builds, that's true, yes
(15:57:59) CorNouws: MechtiIde: ok ... but I think awareness of what can be expected with Beta2 is more important
(15:58:09) CorNouws: as are extra hends on IssueTracker ..
(15:58:15) CorNouws: hens - hands
(15:59:09) MechtiIde: CorNouws, and the others: you can decide to do so
(15:59:41) MechtiIde: i only can do the normal work = working on known stoppers
(15:59:50) MechtiIde: not more
(15:59:56) ja_: I vote against Beta 2
(16:01:17) MechtiIde: CorNouws, I know two bugs (Crashes) but I cant reproduce a concret scenario without my private data
(16:01:25) MechtiIde: for example
(16:01:27) CorNouws: ja_: (main) reason ? (I just got the impression that there was sort of agreement ..)
(16:01:44) _rene_: MechtiIde: and how does that change whether m6 is called m6 or beta2?
(16:01:49) _rene_: MechtiIde: correct, it doesn't :-)
(16:02:20) MechtiIde: _rene_, therefore I said you can decide
(16:02:56) ja_: CorNouws: the schedule between Beta 2 and RC1 is too tight to be able to react on Beta 2 feedback.
(16:03:17) _rene_: ja_: equally you can argue it's too tight to react on m6 feedback
(16:03:23) _rene_: ja_: why are we doing it then?
(16:03:43) _rene_: let's not do a milestone until rc1
(16:03:44) CorNouws: ja_: Correct, we cannot act on any issue, not being a showstopper. So we have to
(16:04:10) CorNouws: so when annoucning a Beta2 we have to be aware of that
(16:04:12) _rene_: (no, I don't mean this suggestion serious, fwiw)
(16:04:15) MechtiIde: _rene_, you have less newbiew on m6 than you announce it as beta2
(16:04:48) ***CorNouws gets the idea he read this discussion at least twice the last hour :-)
(16:04:50) _rene_: that I disagree with
(16:04:58) _rene_: the download ages shows m5 before beta
(16:05:14) _rene_: so what will newbies get? m5.
(16:05:21) _rene_: same with m6 when it's uploaded.
(16:06:45) CorNouws: CorNouws: But announcing a Beta usually is calling for extra public feed back :-\
(16:07:31) _rene_: anyway, afk for a moment, work stuff....
(16:07:35) CorNouws: So marketing wise ... we have to do something else. Fair enough
(16:08:21) mdamboldt: So we talk about m6 as Beta2 but without loc37. Ivo is in progress to integrate CWSs for the m6. As soon as the last one is integrated the build will start. -> This means late this evening or early tomorrow morning. Depends on conflicts and issues during integration of nominated ones. So I would expect to see the m6 this week, but probably without loc37.
(16:09:27) MechtiIde: then you should not publish any langpacks
(16:10:08) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Yes, in case of absence of loc37, they wouldn't contain anything better than Beta1 did.
(16:10:36) MechtiIde: because the old langpacks show problems
(16:10:48) MechtiIde: which are stopper
(16:11:01) MechtiIde: and only depends on the old langpacks
(16:11:17) MechtiIde: IMO absolutely no langpacks
(16:11:26) mla: Mechtilde: which problems do you mean? l10n related?
(16:11:40) MechtiIde: Format - Page
(16:11:47) CorNouws: _rene_: I think I have to withdraw my support for a Beta2. Makes no sense to the public.
(16:11:47) CorNouws: But maybe we can (in the marketing project) think of something else to help you raise awareness??
(16:11:49) MechtiIde: which wronge page size
(16:12:20) MechtiIde: s/which/with
(16:12:28) mla: ok, this is l10n related, right?
(16:12:30) MechtiIde: for example
(16:12:34) MechtiIde: mla yes
(16:13:46) ja_: So we upload OOO320_6 as OOo-Dev3.2 en-US only and call it Beta 2 ?
(16:13:48) MechtiIde: and I don't know which problems are still hidden and I don't want to know it
(16:14:00) mla: ok, I can tell Ivo not to pack any langpacks, then we should get the m6 2 hours earlier ;-)
(16:16:58) ja_ left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(16:17:30) ja_ [n=ja93804@nat/sun/x-lkeyzprykvafyqqw] entered the room.
(16:18:24) ja_: Current RE duties: DEV300_m66 by Vladimir Glazunov (vg) and OOO320_m6 by Ivo Hinkelmann (ihi)
(16:18:26) _rene_: ok, back
(16:18:29) _rene_: CorNouws: hrmpf :)
(16:18:32) CorNouws: ja_: that can only work if we can tell the people: the beta is important to find real showstoppers and the rest of the news issues will be 3.2.1.
(16:18:55) CorNouws: _rene_: (moment pls, new idea ;-) )
(16:19:09) _rene_: ah, well. I'll probably upload m6 to Debian experimental anyway, be it m6 or beta2. but beta2 would help getting more testers (imho). but I said that already :-)
(16:21:01) CorNouws: ja_: all: we can annouce beta2 and ask for help to fund important bugs for the 3.2, while we know that only real showstoppers will be picked up and the rest of the news issues will be 3.2.1. (or later) .... OK?
(16:21:17) CorNouws: fund = find ( ;-) )
(16:23:01) MechtiIde: CorNouws, no disagree
(16:24:12) CorNouws: MechtiIde: ?? " (16:02:24) MechtiIde: _rene_, therefore I said you can decide "
(16:24:28) ja_: disagree; let's handle OOO320_m6 as regular developer snapshot
(16:25:41) Andreas_SunOOoUX left the room (quit: "Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de").
(16:25:53) CorNouws: getting more puzzled, but OK, _rene_: we can have contact via mail to think of some solution in your direction. OK?
(16:26:16) mla: -1, because I still have the feeling that we would raise the wrong expectations from the users that are using a beta
(16:27:21) mdamboldt: After reading todays whole meeting thread again, I'm not a friend of calling the m6 Beta2 anymore. I will ask Ivo to continue work on m6 integration and to include the loc37 CWS too as soon as it's ready. Anything else wouldn't fit into the existing schedule and would raise wrong expectations.
(16:27:51) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: I would still expect the m6 to be available before next weekend.
(16:27:59) mdamboldt: Anything else for todays meeting?
(16:28:05) CorNouws: mdamboldt: all: as said: ok for me.
(16:28:33) UweL: +1
(16:29:21) ***mdamboldt We should keep the good idea of having more Beta spots within future releases, including l10n ones.
(16:29:41) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, ok there are only 7 CWSs that seems to be possible ;-)
(16:29:50) mla: mdamboldt: argh, I just wanted to write this ;-)
(16:29:50) ***mdamboldt Note to myself, review upcomming schedules
(16:30:26) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, CorNouws and we should plan such things early enough
(16:30:49) ***CorNouws would help future discussion considerably if it is clear right from the start what builds can be expected when ..
(16:30:50) MechtiIde: also with the marcon group
(16:31:43) ja_: As a result I'll notify Florian/John/Louis to remove the Beta link from our main website
(16:32:02) _rene_: no, why? we have a Beta release, keep it
(16:32:14) _rene_: when you don't want a beta2, please keep the "official" beta
(16:32:18) _rene_: you want that, you get that
(16:32:43) CorNouws: _rene_: no pls not ...
(16:32:48) _rene_: removing someting called beta and just adding some "random" developer snapshot you don't want to call beta2 doesn't make sense
(16:33:15) _rene_: CorNouws: well, that they should have thought about earlier, shouldn't they?
(16:33:50) ja_: we already talked about this some weeks ago within this meeting
(16:33:57) CorNouws: it was discussed earlier. That resulted in my attending here to discuss the beta 2 idea ;-)
(16:34:20) CorNouws: _rene_: see you on mail ..
(16:34:22) CorNouws: thanks all - have to leave now - bye
(16:34:42) CorNouws left the room.
(16:36:14) mla: keeping the beta stuff when the download numbers going down nearly to 0 makes no sense, too ;-)
(16:36:40) mdamboldt: bye
(16:36:45) ja_: bye bye
(16:36:55) mdamboldt: mla: +1
(16:37:04) _rene_: ja_: that is not relevant. a) plans can be changed b) I'd have proposed a beta2 anyway even if it didn't come up on releases
(16:37:32) _rene_: mla: ah, right, ans that's why the beta still is more prominent on the download page than m5? :)