libreoffice team mailing list archive

[Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:48:12PM +0200, Boaz Dodin wrote:
> Before the upcoming backports of LibreOffice (4.0.2 and 3.6.6), I would
> suggest a little bit of standardization of what is uploaded to which PPA:
> 1. As there is a separate "Pre-Releases" PPA, only this PPA should have not
> final builds.
> This is also mean that the other PPAs should have only final builds.

No, the 'pre-releases' PPA is only for prereleases of a major: alphas, betas.
RCs (at least RCs after x.x.0) are fine in the ppa.
 
> 2. The stable PPAs should not have RC2 builds as final builds.
> I separated this from the first point, as usually RC2 is bit-to-bit the
> final build, so you may say "it's a final build".
> >From the end-user point of view - RC2 in the name of package mean "it's an
> RC build".
> I think there are many users that just wanna a consistent PPA with stable
> builds, without the need to wonder time after time, how stable the update
> proposed by the PPA.
> Also, it will bring less updates to the stable PPAs - about 1 per month (as
> RC1 and RC2 will be only at "Pre-Releases" PPA).

One goal of the PPA was to test-drive releases for an SRU. Having early
feedback there (thus on RCs) is a good thing. Also, the difference between RCs
and finals upstream are only that the review process is stricter after RC1, so
there is little risk in publishing an RC1 in the ppa too. However, it indeed
might not be needed to backport the RCs. So my proposal would be:

- if time allows, publish rc1 to the series it appeared in Ubuntu
  (e.g. 3.6.6rc1 to Quantal)
- publish rc2 to the series it appeared in Ubuntu as early as possible
  (1 week before final)
- rebuild as final when upstream says so and backport

That would mean less activity on the backports and decent early testing.

Best,

Bjoern