RC3 released as Final version???

Hi all,

I am aware that for developers a .0 release is a little more than a Beta, but for QA people I think that it is a little offensive that a Final version is released and the About box says

LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3

Maybe QA has a different meaning for me. But it really pisses me off the lack of concern about these details.

I know that the last RC version IS the release version codewise, but changing the text in the About box can't possibly affect the stability of the release, right?

More disappointed regards,
Pedro

Pedro wrote (14-02-12 22:33)

> is released and the About box says
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3

IIRC, this is as usual: after the final RC no new builds are made, so no
strings are updated :-)


--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

On 14/02/12 22:35, Cor Nouws wrote:
This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about
expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough.
Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be
taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the
dangers of such practices.

– Olav
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Olav Dahlum wrote

This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about
expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough.
Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be
taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the
dangers of such practices.

Thanks you, Olav. I was starting to think I was the only mad person here.

Apparently even Cor finds this normal.

Cor, please show me ONE program that does this and I will agree with you.

 This is completely absurd for me...

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė:
I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least
Mozilla does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so
after renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary.

One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is
easily would be to implement my suggestion from
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about
dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this:

LibreOffice 3.5.0
Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3

In this case, the fourth number in Build ID line would represent the RC
number.

Rimas
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi,

YES!!   RC3 etc. should be removed from the About.

Indeed marketing wise this it is bad to keep RC3 while the product is
flagged as 3.5.

regards

Luc

2012/2/15 Rimas Kudelis <[hidden email]>:


--
Luc Castermans
mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Rimas Kudelis píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 08:31 +0200:
> 2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė:

>>> Maybe QA has a different meaning for me. But it really pisses me off
>>> the lack of concern about these details.

I wonder where this strong opinion comes from. How often do you check
about dialogs in other applications? I do it only and only when I report
bug and developers ask me to provide the build version.

Why normal people would want to look into this dialog and study it in
details? They know what they installed and what the application is for.
Aren't they?

I know that details are sometimes important but I am not convinced that
this problem is so serious. The application stability and usability is
more important for me than some crazy version in about dialog.


> > Olav Dahlum wrote
> >> This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about
> >> expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough.
> >> Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be
> >> taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the
> >> dangers of such practices.

Where did you address this danger?


> One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is
> easily would be to implement my suggestion from
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about
> dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0
> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3


It was YOU, QA guys, who complained about unclean versioning, see
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html

You were confused by things like, 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd and you wanted
something human readable. I wonder if libreoffice-3.5.0.3 is clear
enough.

I see several possibilities here:


1. Do one more build once the last rc is approved.

   It will delay the release by few days (build time, smoketest, upload
   on mirrors). Note that we can't do incremental build easily because
   it is dangerous and the build tree is not stored on the build hosts.


2. Do a crazy hack to show the version according to the installer name.

   It would be possible on Windows and MAC but pretty hard on Linux
   because we rename only the download tarball but not the RPMs.


3. Omit "rcx" in the last planed release candidate.

   The danger is that it might include blocker. We might need another
   rc and it will not be easy to distinguish them.


4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
   another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.

   Will this be enough for QA people?


5. Wait if real users complain.

   Olav says, that they already complain?


I prefer the 4th solution if the 5th one is not acceptable for you.


Best Regards,
Petr

















_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Petr Mladek wrote:
I wonder if the "LibreOffice 3.5.0" plus tagname is a reasonable
compromise? I.e. for RC builds, drop the "LibreOffice 3.5.0 betaX"
product name postfix - since RCs behave like final in other ways,
and the tagname libreoffice-3.5.0.3 is descriptive enough?

I would personally *hate* any solution that needs re-doing *any*
work on build hosts & mirrors, just for getting one string fixed. ;)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi,

2012/2/15 Petr Mladek <[hidden email]>:
I prefer 4th, too. I think that in About box only end user information
should be shown. For QA people I started to hack a page, which is like
about:buildconfig in Firefox, it will have much more detail, including
configure options, compiler version, etc. I will continue to work on
that feature when I find some time.

In regards of  "real users", in Hungarian forums I have already read
complains. :( People just cannot understand that rc3=final.

Cheers,
Andras
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Petr Mladek schrieb:

>> LibreOffice 3.5.0
>> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3

Hi Petr,

indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists.

I prefer your suggestion (or similar):

Version: 3.5
Tag: 3.x.y.z
Buid-ID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

NO RC info, we can publish such relations in the release plan, QA-FAQ or
similar.

Beta versions sould have the Beta in the version.

Version: for normal users
Tag: for Interested users, QA testing public versions
Build-ID: to distinguish daily builds for QA, developers

Best regards

Rainer
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

On 15/02/12 07:31, Rimas Kudelis wrote:

> I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least
> Mozilla does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so
> after renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary.

rebuilding sounds like a bad idea in any case (FWIW AFAIR for OOo the
"rcX" was also not shown in the about box, the installer files were just
renamed).

that sounds like an excellent idea: developers and QA know what the .3
at the end means, but it doesn't confuse end users.

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Rainer Bielefeld píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:28 +0100:
> Petr Mladek schrieb:
>
> >> LibreOffice 3.5.0
> >> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3

Hmm, I do not like "LibreOffice twice. :-)

> Hi Petr,
>
> indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists.
>
> I prefer your suggestion (or similar):
>
> Version: 3.5
> Tag: 3.x.y.z
> Buid-ID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

These might be too many lines :-)

Also detecting the tag might be a bit error prone. If you want to
extract a tag in git, it creates just another branch. I am not sure how
to safely detect that it was created from a branch.


What about having the following for the beta builds:

        LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
        BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

and the following for rc builds:

        LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
        BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

, where .x means the number of the release candidate. Such micro numbers
have also other applications in the about dialog.

By other words, I would replace the human readable string (alpha, beta,
rc) with just a number for the release candidates and keep it for
alpha-s and beta-s.

It sounds like a good compromise. What do you think?


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Andras Timar píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:07 +0100:
Great to have such a page. Anyway, we need to make the versioning easily
understandable without reading complex explanation and without complex
transformations.

> In regards of  "real users", in Hungarian forums I have already read
> complains. :( People just cannot understand that rc3=final.

OK. We need to do something about it for 3.5.1 :-)


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi Petr,

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
>    another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
>
>    Will this be enough for QA people?

        Of course; this might have the opposite problem that people will think
the first RC is final: 3.5.0.1 or whatever ;-) But perhaps it will work.

        I tend to think waiting extra days, and taking extra risk to do more QA
on an ~identical build with one string changed is pretty silly.

        We could try using a different name for the last release Gold Master
Candidate (gmc) instead of "release candidate" or somesuch ;-) then
fewer people would know what it meant, and fewer might get uppity.

        Then again, those doing the most complaining prolly perhaps missed the
release note that states that RC3 was final, and will not have to do the
many man-hours of detailed work themselves [ so it seems easy ] just to
get that one string changed ;-)

        Honestly, if this is our biggest problem, we are in fantastic shape ;-)

        ATB,

                Michael.

--
[hidden email]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi all,

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:48:56PM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Petr,
>
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
> >    another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
> >
> >    Will this be enough for QA people?

It has to. Also having the repository tag be exactly the same as the stuff
showing up in "About" has one beautiful and rare attribute: consistency!

> I tend to think waiting extra days, and taking extra risk to do more QA
> on an ~identical build with one string changed is pretty silly.

Yes. Esp. since the ~ in ~identical might be a real problem. We really want to
release the binary version that was tested, not some untested binary that is
build from an almost identical source and then pushed to the innocent without
any serious testing after rebuilding. Given the size of LibreOffice, making
the final release with an essentially untested binary build is outright insane
IMHO.

> We could try using a different name for the last release Gold Master
> Candidate (gmc) instead of "release candidate" or somesuch ;-) then
> fewer people would know what it meant, and fewer might get uppity.

Nah, lets not introduce yet-another-confusing-layer-of-abstraction.

> Then again, those doing the most complaining prolly perhaps missed the
> release note that states that RC3 was final, and will not have to do the
> many man-hours of detailed work themselves [ so it seems easy ] just to
> get that one string changed ;-)
>
> Honestly, if this is our biggest problem, we are in fantastic shape ;-)

Indeed.

Best,

Bjoern

P.S.: btw Debian (and thus also Ubuntu) currently patch out the rc from the
About box. But that is something different as those binaries are getting
serious testing by volunteers still before being subjected on the unsuspecting.
If we have the tagname (instead of a rc or somesuch) in the About box, Id
propose to use that as-is in distro builds too (again: consistency).
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Also detecting the tag might be a bit error prone. If you want to
> extract a tag in git, it creates just another branch. I am not sure how
> to safely detect that it was created from a branch.

And if you build from source tarballs you don't even have git - even more,
you might not even have git installed in the build chroot ;-)

Remember http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-3-5&id=9abb0b6bbe2de65988065f78354ccf5ebde4a7ae
:)

Regards,

Rene
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Hi Petr, all

Petr Mladek wrote

What about having the following for the beta builds:

        LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
        BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

and the following for rc builds:

        LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
        BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

I think this is a perfect solution for the About box.

My only request is that in the sequence of the other topic
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html

the name of the binaries and the About box have some common element while making it clear that one release is an RC and the other is final.

So, RC binary files would be named
...
LibO_3.5.0.2rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi
LibO_3.5.0.3rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi


Then the final installer would be simply need to be renamed to
LibO_3.5.0.3_Win_x86_install_multi.msi

I apologize for the explosive post.

Best regards,
Pedro

On Wednesday 15 February 2012, Petr Mladek wrote:

> What about having the following for the beta builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
> BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
>
> and the following for rc builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
>         BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom

However you decide - any chance to have the same strings returned also when
invoking "libreoffice --version" cli command?  (consistency ...)

Nino


_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Petr Mladek schrieb:

Hi,

for me that solution would be fine.

ATB

Rainer
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/