Re: [Libreoffice] [libreoffice-l10n] Re: REMINDER: Release 3.4.0-rc1 from ooo-build-3-2-1 branch == string and UI freeze

Hi Michael,
On 03/05/2011 13:30, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 21:28 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote:
> > Yes I do too, but the issue is that we didn't test the betas at all yet
> > due to this bug
>
>         Which sucks; hopefully the Windows&  Mac builds have been use-able for
> testing - and of course, the snapshots of them.

Not sure about Mac, but I think we have a lot of testers under Linux.
> > and it covers a quiet large range of distributions. So, may be we should
> > really take time to test the RC fully before really calling it an RC
> > and spread the word around it.
>
>         The danger of this - is that by introducing further delay into the
> release pipeline - we slow down our ability to respond to bugs that are
> found, and since we are releasing a build per week anyway - we can only
> really choose to miss out a week: which isn't that wonderful :-) Already
> we only have a few days to fix a bug in RC<n>  and get the fix out in
> RC<n+1>.
>
>         -Far- better for people to be running and using the daily snapshot
> releases and reporting bugs against them - instead of waiting for RCs
> (per-se).

Yes agreed, there is a lot of room for improvement on the testing side. 
But betas are supposed to be tested too :)
>         Having said that - warning that RC1 may be a bit rough in the release
> notes is a good idea :-)

But a RC1 is supposed to be a release candidate, so how could it be 
rough? I mean I understand all the reasons you have given above about 
correction of bugs, etc. And I know we have a good part of 
responsibility for not pointing the stopper at the good time.
What I'm trying to highlight also here is the communication. It's quiet 
frustrating to not be able to install a version when you want to 
contribute to tests, and having a RC that is rough sound strange for me.

- although, given that this is caused by some
> obscure compiler problem - apparently only present on the gross / old
> system we compile the binaries on for Linux, I'm optimistic that once it
> is fixed we'll not be in such terrible shape.

Ok, let see.

Kind regards
Sophie

--
Founding member of The Document Foundation