Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/08/2016 Don Lewis wrote:

   * Updated bundled serf to fix a CVE and a WebDAV issue.  The FreeBSD
 port has been using the system version of the latest and greatest.


We've been discussing this separately. This will make the build system 
even more complex, but it does have advantages and brings to completion 
work started with 4.1.2.



   * Handle the Wiki Publisher and PDF Import extensions as integrated
 extensions:
 
 I've done some work on this in the FreeBSD port, but I haven't
 tackled the installer part for other platforms.


Can you elaborate on this? For example the fact that they shouldn't ping 
for updates looks problematic (not so bad, but it will require a 
reasonable release pace). And actually the document suggests that 
bundled dictionaries are handled as integrated extensions, which is not 
the case at the moment - and this allows users to get, for example, a 
fresh English dictionary when they wish.



Someone should fix the broken spellcheck problem.  It generates a lot of
complaints from our users.


We've investigated it a length; it is uncommon (it seems common due to 
the huge number of users) and like Rory and Dennis wrote this is better 
fixed with an after-the-fact fix: a tool (which ideally would become a 
menu item or a first start option) that allows to start with a clean 
profile.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Andrea Pescetti]

Resending to 3 lists... I suggest to have a "canonical" reply-to to the 
dev list for the next messages. Andrea


Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 23/08/2016 Kay Schenk wrote:

WARNING: This is quite long!


And the discussion was even longer, but I'll start with answering this one.

And I'll first note that:

1) Work is not starting now. We have years of code already committed and
not shown in previous releases.

2) Like for every release, we make plans but at a certain point we have
to cut the release and this "wishlist" is thus a tentative guideline.


*PRIORITIES*
1. Update the localization.
We've had quite a bit of work by the localization folks since the 4.1.1
release. This was the last release, in 2014-08-21 to import localization
updates. Currently, it seems we might also add 3 new languages: Uyghur,
Sinhala, and Icelandic with the 4.2 release. This would include both UI
translations and Help translations.


Last translations import were done in 4.1.0 and not 4.1.1 (if I recall
correctly); but this is a minor detail. There are no new languages to be
expected in 4.2.0: we have new languages in Pootle, but I don't think
any of them is ready enough for being released (this may of course
improve with time). So in short 4.2.0 means that we can add strings to
the code, which means we can make them available to translators, which
in turn means we can (we have to) update all translations.


We need volunteers to lead this endeavor. I, personally, don't know
anything about this process.


I'm slowly working on this but I still have something to find/learn.
I've sent the l10n list a mail sending that I'm planning to test a first
import in early September - just to test the process.


2. Update Java requirement from Java 1.5 to *at least* Java 1.7
I am rather adamant that we change our building requirement to Java 1.7
for all platforms. I will be changing that in our Building Guide today.


Is there a real reason for it? I see this like saying (this is just an
example, not to be taken literally) "we drop support for Windows XP
since it's old and unsupported". In short: if we need work to drop Java
1.5 then we have clear advantages in raising our requirement to 1.7,
otherwise we can simply drop the requirement saying "we won't explicitly
test compatibility with Java < 1.7"; but in that case we must provide
ways to obtain a compatible JRE for all the 4 supported platforms.


3. Issues for inclusion
We need to include submitted/tested patches since 4.0.x. This should not
include UI changes which would need to undergo a much longer test period.


The version number is not a detail. We call it 4.2.0 since UI changes
are allowed. On the other hand, we don't have to include all patches;
actually, seeing all the code that already went in, I would be more on
the conservative side here.


Additionally, issue 127068, involving analytics on our source code would
surely be worth investigating.
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127068


These are automatically found defects, good for easy fixes but probably
not really important.

I'd rather suggest that we give some attention to the 4.1.2 regressions,
especially this one (the only one so far):
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622


*BUILDBOTS AND CONFIGURATION*
1. Move to different buildbots?


Not needed. A "nice to have" if they standardize it, but buildbots (I
mean, the Linux version they use) are not so relevant for a release.


2. Configuration Issues
Add, at least the ant version we're checking for in our configuration is
not the version recommended in our Building Guide.


The this is a bug in configure, needs its own issue and must be checked.


*PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT* ...
It has
been suggested that we use the ASF buildbots to produce our binaries
with this release.


The ASF buildbots and releases cover two different fields. I've been
misunderstood from time to time, but just to make it clear: I would
never want that we use the buildbots for releasing (at least for Linux),
since you want a recent Linux on buildbots and on old Linux on the
release VM (where this VM is hosted can be deferred to a separate thread).


Andrea has volunteered to set up a production environment for us. SEE:
http://markmail.org/message/b4dbjdeu4llczqwt


I see that discussion has been misunderstood. I'll reply there. It
suffices to say, here, that I'm not suggesting to use buildbots for the
release builds. Which basically means I agree with your point of view in
this respect.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Dailies/Nightlies

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Lino wrote:

​They are matching today. Apparently​ it takes some time (a day?) for the
page to update.


It is done automatically, but I have no idea when the cron jobs run.


​Yes, that is a workaround. So the simple answer to ftp is no.


Indeed. No FTP.


BTW does the daily build mean that the exact same build (1756231) was
compiled 7 days in a row? Isn't that a waste of energy?​


Not necessarily, since the server environment changes (we upgrade 
libraries and other). So, even if we are building the same code, it is 
still important to us to check that it builds correctly.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Dailies/Nightlies

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 24/08/2016 Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a problem updating the html page (at least for the
>> Windows builds)
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>> compared to
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/
>>
>
> I don't see differences, both are the same revision. Remember that there
> are two CI jobs for Windows, the other binaries are at
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/winsnap/ and that job
> runs less frequently.


​They are matching today. Apparently​ it takes some time (a day?) for the
page to update.


>
>
> Is there any way to have access by ftp to the nightly builds folder?
>> I really would like to see actual file size and date before downloading...
>>
>
> Here you see the file size
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/


​Yes, I know that. I meant the exact size in bytes.


> and here you can match revision and date:
> https://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7
>
>
​Yes, that is a workaround. So the simple answer to ftp is no.

BTW does the daily build mean that the exact same build (1756231) was
compiled 7 days in a row? Isn't that a waste of energy?​

​Regards,
Pedro​

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:12 PM
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of 
> ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> I am about to start staging the Hotfixes that we have for 
> general distribution.
> 
> I do have some changes to the Windows version that I will make first.
> 
>  1. The APPLY/REVERT scripts have a minor inconsistency in 
> the formatting of a message following a successful operation. 
>  (This was caught already in the Dutch translation and drafts 
> of the German one.)
> 
>  2. The README is corrected
> a. To identify the location where the correct Zip should 
> be downloaded (already done in the Dutch version).
> b. To update the Acknowledgment (ditto).
> c. Improve wording in the note about Anti-Virus options 
> to request permission to accept the Zip download.
> 
> That is starting now.

The design of the site 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html is 
very confusing.

By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first column, are 
in the 2 tables reversed.

Can we use a uniform table:

Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download | Signature | 
Digital Hashes
MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...   |
MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |



I wanted to make the changes itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do not 
know why.



Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:12 PM
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of 
> ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> I am about to start staging the Hotfixes that we have for 
> general distribution.
> 
> I do have some changes to the Windows version that I will make first.
> 
>  1. The APPLY/REVERT scripts have a minor inconsistency in 
> the formatting of a message following a successful operation. 
>  (This was caught already in the Dutch translation and drafts 
> of the German one.)
> 
>  2. The README is corrected
> a. To identify the location where the correct Zip should 
> be downloaded (already done in the Dutch version).
> b. To update the Acknowledgment (ditto).
> c. Improve wording in the note about Anti-Virus options 
> to request permission to accept the Zip download.
> 
> That is starting now.

The design of the site 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html is 
very confusing.

By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first column, are 
in the 2 tables reversed.

Can we use a uniform table:

Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download | Signature | 
Digital Hashes
MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...   |
 | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...   |
MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |
Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...   |



I wanted to make the change itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do not know 
why.



Greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org