Recent commits for issue 121542
Hi Ariel, I noticed a couple of commits that you made over the weekend. Only one of these mentioned a bug id (121542, [1]). Some of the changes introduce incompatible API changes, some but not all of which are mentioned in the issue comments. Can you give us a short overview of what you are doing? Thanks, Andre [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121542 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? This seems to concern all combinations of even degrees and minus sign in the begining of formula 1. Enter in cell the expression: =-1^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 Note that =1-2^2 results in -3 and it's true but -2^2 results 4 instead of -4 2. Well, now enter the expression: =-(1)^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 again (or expression like =-(1+2)^2 the result will be 9 instead of -9) 3. Only if enter the expression: = -(1^2) The result now will be right and equal -1 Such behaviour contradicts mathematical notation of formula. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [buildbot] investigate nightly windows build
Hi, On 24.05.2013 10:21, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 23.05.2013 09:19, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: [snip] I have seen that #621 of aoo-win7 also had this error and that you had again cleaned up the hanging processes. In order to get some error output I will switch off the HTML output (no --html option) and the multiprocessor build (no -P2 -- -P2 options) before the weekly clean build of aoo-win7 and for the aoo-w7ia2 build which is always clean. Build #113 of aoo-w7ia2 went well. The failure occured just because I forgot to disable the collection of the HTML build logs. I'm confused - was there something wrong with the w7ia2 build. The previous two builds were clean: http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-w7ia2 Other than stumbling over hung processes, I don't think there is an issue with ia2. We had observed the problem of the hanging process. #105 had hanging process #106 went well after your process cleaning #107, #108, #109, #110 had again problems with hanging processes #111 went well after your process cleaning #112 the first successful build without your invention #113 went well with my first temporary investigation stuff - failure just because of error in copying non-existing HTML logs. #114 went well with my second investigation stuff I decided to do some investigation stuff as the problem showed up two times in the last days. Currently, we do not hit the problem. But when it occurs again, we will have some more information due to the different logging. The problem of the current HTML logging is that we do not have it, when the hanging process error occurs. As #114 went well I will now switch on the default multiprocesses builds - 2 modules built in parallel with each using 2 make/dmake processes. #115 build of aoo-w7ia2 having standard multiprocessor builds (options -P2 -- -P2) went well. I will leave the HTML output switched off until Monday. May be the problem with the hanging process occurs. Then we have some output when and where it occurs. #117 build of aoo-w7ia2 showed again the error. Thus, following #118 build fails - it could not remove /ext_libraries/apr/wntmcsi12/misc/apr-1.4.5/Makefile.win A deeper look into the #117 build output reveals the following: - module apr was successful build, but the 'deliver' was not performed. While searching for the reason Andre and myself again consulted Andrew's information about the hanging processes. Andrew mentioned process cl.exe - cl /nologo /?. We search for the corresponding code which starts such a process. We found it inside the makefile uses for the Windows apr build - namely /ext_libraries/apr/wntmcsi12/misc/apr-1.4.5/Makefile.win. The process seems to be used to determine, if a 64bit compiler should be used or not. As we have a 32bit compiler for our Windows platform, I will simplify this makefile. Hopefully this will solve our buildbot problems. For the coming clean build of aoo-win7 at the weekend I will switch off its HTML output in order to have some output in case the problem with the hanging process occurs. clean build of aoo-win7 went well. Thus, I reverted the temporary switch off of the HTML output. Best regards, Oliver. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [buildbot] investigate nightly windows build
Hi, On 27.05.2013 12:00, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: [snip] I have seen that #621 of aoo-win7 also had this error and that you had again cleaned up the hanging processes. In order to get some error output I will switch off the HTML output (no --html option) and the multiprocessor build (no -P2 -- -P2 options) before the weekly clean build of aoo-win7 and for the aoo-w7ia2 build which is always clean. Build #113 of aoo-w7ia2 went well. The failure occured just because I forgot to disable the collection of the HTML build logs. I'm confused - was there something wrong with the w7ia2 build. The previous two builds were clean: http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-w7ia2 Other than stumbling over hung processes, I don't think there is an issue with ia2. We had observed the problem of the hanging process. #105 had hanging process #106 went well after your process cleaning #107, #108, #109, #110 had again problems with hanging processes #111 went well after your process cleaning #112 the first successful build without your invention #113 went well with my first temporary investigation stuff - failure just because of error in copying non-existing HTML logs. #114 went well with my second investigation stuff I decided to do some investigation stuff as the problem showed up two times in the last days. Currently, we do not hit the problem. But when it occurs again, we will have some more information due to the different logging. The problem of the current HTML logging is that we do not have it, when the hanging process error occurs. As #114 went well I will now switch on the default multiprocesses builds - 2 modules built in parallel with each using 2 make/dmake processes. #115 build of aoo-w7ia2 having standard multiprocessor builds (options -P2 -- -P2) went well. I will leave the HTML output switched off until Monday. May be the problem with the hanging process occurs. Then we have some output when and where it occurs. #117 build of aoo-w7ia2 showed again the error. Thus, following #118 build fails - it could not remove /ext_libraries/apr/wntmcsi12/misc/apr-1.4.5/Makefile.win Andrew, can you please kill the hanging processes. Many thanks in advance. Best regards, Oliver. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On 2013/05/27 11:20 AM, Torokhov Sergey wrote: There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? This seems to concern all combinations of even degrees and minus sign in the begining of formula 1. Enter in cell the expression: =-1^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 Note that =1-2^2 results in -3 and it's true but -2^2 results 4 instead of -4 2. Well, now enter the expression: =-(1)^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 again (or expression like =-(1+2)^2 the result will be 9 instead of -9) 3. Only if enter the expression: = -(1^2) The result now will be right and equal -1 Such behaviour contradicts mathematical notation of formula. I'm quite sure AOO's way of interpreting such an expression was determined by compatibility considerations. For what its worth Wikipedia [1| also states these different conventions: There exist differing conventions concerning the unary operator − (usually read minus). In written or printed mathematics, the expression −32 is interpreted to mean −(32) = −9,[3] but in some applications and programming languages, notably the application Microsoft Office Excel and the programming language bc, unary operators have a higher priority than binary operators, that is, the unary minus (negation) has higher precedence than exponentiation, so in those languages −32 will be interpreted as (−3)2 = 9.[4] In cases where there is the possibility that the notation might be misinterpreted, parentheses are usually used to clarify the intended meaning, however due to the syntax of most major programming languages, it is usually hard or impossible to be ambiguous. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions_to_the_standard Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Torokhov Sergey torokhov-...@yandex.ru wrote: There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions_to_the_standard The behavior or OpenOffice and MSO and C in general in computing, is due to the way 'parsing' works, which in computing _must_ be un-ambiguous. There is a 'gramatical distinction between '- the binary operator as in a - b , which is (operator -)(a,b) and the unary operator - as in -a. The later is treated with a higher priority so that expression like a * -b can be parsed properly. (other wise it would be treated as a * (0 implicit) - b = -b instead of -ab Norbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Hi, On 27.05.2013 11:20, Torokhov Sergey wrote: There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? This seems to concern all combinations of even degrees and minus sign in the begining of formula 1. Enter in cell the expression: =-1^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 Note that =1-2^2 results in -3 and it's true but -2^2 results 4 instead of -4 2. Well, now enter the expression: =-(1)^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 again (or expression like =-(1+2)^2 the result will be 9 instead of -9) 3. Only if enter the expression: = -(1^2) The result now will be right and equal -1 Such behaviour contradicts mathematical notation of formula. I tried Microsoft Office Excel 2003, 2010 and 2013. All three applications showed the same results on the above formulas as OpenOffice Calc. Thus, I believe that your guess is true that the reason for OpenOffice's behavior is the compatibility with Microsoft Office. Best regards, Oliver. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[QA][Test Report] Weekly Status Update as of 20130527
Hi All, We continue doing the AOO 4.0 Full Regression test this week, here is the weekly update (5/18 - 5/27), please find more detail statistics in wiki: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/WeeklyReport/20130527 *Test execution: * We have assigned 1565 text executions to about 16 volunteers(some ask more when they are done), and completed about 35% in execution so far. 2/3 Mac test executions have been assigned out among volunteers and Mac test team. 100% Ubuntu test executions have been done. The target is to % attempted 1000 test executions before June 6 providing all volunteers complete their assignments before that date. *Defect summary:* 1. 34 defects were opened and 17 defect were resolved last week, so we have 17 (34-17) net new defect added in the backlog 2. 164 critical defects have been assigned to about 6 volunteers to confirm, including all defects(79) after release 3.4 (please see defect distribution among versions in wiki above) *Issues quality highlight:* 1. The connections on TestLink and BZ are really low and they are dropping frequently which impact the productivity 2. Mac and Redhat are with risk as less testing done on them - need QA assignees make progress on these platforms 3. Critical defects are waiting for fix - need more Dev volunteers to involve 4. QAs are reminded to make sure to perform all test cases with navigation and accelerators, and make sure to specify defect numbers in Testlink for failed test executions *Volunteer status:* 1. We have 3 volunteers ask more test executions when they complete previous assignments 2. We have total 6 vulunteers(2 more this week) on defect work, need more to clean backlog of unconfirmed and resolved defects *Plan for next week:* 1. Prioritize critical defects and assign them to Dev volunteers 2. Confirm left 128 critical defects which are not confirmed yet 3. Continue AOO 4.0 Full Regression test Thanks you all for effort this week, let's continue and make progress next week! Regards, Yu Zhen
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On 27.05.2013 13:33, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Torokhov Sergey torokhov-...@yandex.ru wrote: There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions_to_the_standard The behavior or OpenOffice and MSO and C in general in computing, is due to the way 'parsing' works, I don't think so. First you define what the precedence of your operators should be and only then you define your grammar to parse expressions accordingly. I think that these two reasons are more probably: 1. An error in the original implementation (of MS Office) 2. Maybe -1^2 = 1 is what the majority of (non-mathematical) users of MS Office expect. In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. -Andre which in computing _must_ be un-ambiguous. There is a 'gramatical distinction between '- the binary operator as in a - b , which is (operator -)(a,b) and the unary operator - as in -a. The later is treated with a higher priority so that expression like a * -b can be parsed properly. (other wise it would be treated as a * (0 implicit) - b = -b instead of -ab Norbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Andre Fischer wrote: In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. Indeed. Before this becomes another 0 ^ 0... there is an issue for this, it dates back to 2004 and it is marked invalid. That's it. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 If someone has strong feelings he can post comments there, even though I don't believe that marking the issue as REOPENED would have any practical effects. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Hi, please see the (long) discussions in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 and https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=26755 and its duplicates. Torokhov Sergey schrieb: There is a some strange behaviour in OpenOffice Calc (and in Microsoft Office too). Did it was made in OpenOIffice for compability with MSO? This seems to concern all combinations of even degrees and minus sign in the begining of formula 1. Enter in cell the expression: =-1^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 Note that =1-2^2 results in -3 and it's true but -2^2 results 4 instead of -4 2. Well, now enter the expression: =-(1)^2 The result will be equal 1 instead of -1 again (or expression like =-(1+2)^2 the result will be 9 instead of -9) 3. Only if enter the expression: = -(1^2) The result now will be right and equal -1 Such behaviour contradicts mathematical notation of formula. My personal favorite is the way Gnumeric does it. It puts brackets around -1 when you enter the formula, so that there is no doubt about the meaning. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:08:15 +0200 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Andre Fischer wrote: In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. Indeed. Before this becomes another 0 ^ 0... there is an issue for this, it dates back to 2004 and it is marked invalid. That's it. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 If someone has strong feelings he can post comments there, even though I don't believe that marking the issue as REOPENED would have any practical effects. Regards, Andrea. I think whether this behaviour be mathematically correct or incorrect we must follow the behaviour of MS Excel. -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Find a better name for sidebar?
... iPanel? ...iBar? ...iSidebar? ...iTools? On 24.05.2013 08:49, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.r...@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:34 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Find a better name for sidebar? SmartPanel ? Yes, not bad. That sounds good. Greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Thanks to all for explanations - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On 27.05.2013 14:08, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Andre Fischer wrote: In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. Indeed. Before this becomes another 0 ^ 0... there is an issue for this, it dates back to 2004 and it is marked invalid. That's it. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 If someone has strong feelings he can post comments there, even though I don't believe that marking the issue as REOPENED would have any practical effects. For what it's worth, I took the liberty to change the status from Closed/Invalid to Closed/Wontfix as requested in the last comment from two years ago: WONTFIX would be more honest and respectful than INVALID! I don't plan to do anything else with this issue. -Andre Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
27.05.2013, 16:16, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de: My personal favorite is the way Gnumeric does it. It puts brackets around -1 when you enter the formula, so that there is no doubt about the meaning. Kind regards Regina It looks currently like best solution without misunderstanding from view of user while rechecking the formula (especially in case of big formula) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Recent commits for issue 121542
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Hi Ariel, I noticed a couple of commits that you made over the weekend. Only one of these mentioned a bug id (121542, [1]). Some of the changes introduce incompatible API changes, some but not all of which are mentioned in the issue comments. that commit does not introduce an incompatible API change, on the contrary, is the (partial) revert of one: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1413471view=markup#l82 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1425458view=markup#l96 Can you give us a short overview of what you are doing? As the commit message says, css::awt::XPopupMenu::execute() needs a css::awt::Rectangle. In most cases, only X and Y are needed to indicate the position where the PopupMenu will be executed, but in others a rectangle is needed, for example when executing a PopupMenu in a toolbar's drop-down click handler. [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121542 Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpcIPjke007u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recent commits for issue 121542
On 27.05.2013 15:16, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Hi Ariel, I noticed a couple of commits that you made over the weekend. Only one of these mentioned a bug id (121542, [1]). Some of the changes introduce incompatible API changes, some but not all of which are mentioned in the issue comments. that commit does not introduce an incompatible API change, on the contrary, is the (partial) revert of one: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1413471view=markup#l82 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1425458view=markup#l96 Can you give us a short overview of what you are doing? As the commit message says, css::awt::XPopupMenu::execute() needs a css::awt::Rectangle. In most cases, only X and Y are needed to indicate the position where the PopupMenu will be executed, but in others a rectangle is needed, for example when executing a PopupMenu in a toolbar's drop-down click handler. That was the only one of r1486372, r1486373, r1486374, r1486375, r1486377, r1486379, r1486380, r1486381, and r1486438 that belonged to a bugzilla issue. The others do not. The individual commits have messages that describe what they are doing. What is missing is the big picture. Some commits seem to belong together, some seem to introduce new functionality that other developers might be interested in. But there is no easy and short way to know. Take commit r1486372 as example. Its message says Some small clean-up to use the PopupMenu ToolbarController but the addition of the ExecuteHdl_Impl callback seems to imply more than just cleanup. Or commit r1486379 Make .uno:Open a drop-down toolbar item. What would that drop-down menu contain? Are there code changes in other commits that belong to this? A bugzilla issue with a little more information would be very nice. -Andre [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121542 Regards - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Find a better name for sidebar?
why i, I'd say oPanel or aPanel +1 On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Armin Le Grand armin.le.gr...@me.comwrote: ... iPanel? ...iBar? ...iSidebar? ...iTools? On 24.05.2013 08:49, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.r...@oracle.com**] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:34 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Find a better name for sidebar? SmartPanel ? Yes, not bad. That sounds good. Greetings, Jörg --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Find a better name for sidebar?
We'll sidebar doesn't in anyway indicate it can't be edited. Many people use blogging systems, and sidebars are editable. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.dewrote: Hi, Shari Smith schrieb: How about User Box or User Panel? UP Box (User Panel Box; UP the side) A user cannot customize the sidebar beyond disabling a deck. Therefor _User_ Box might arouse expectations that cannot be answered. Kind regards Regina On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de wrote: Hello, From: Andre Fischer [mailto:awf@gmail.com] I am quite aware of the difference between a generic name and a marketable brand name. I just don't think that the sidebar deserves this honor. That may be, just may be the criterion that if you want success? It proverb says: It does not matter what color the cat is, the main thing it catches mice. Therefore, it may be so that the sidebar does not deserve a separate name, just say no need not not allowed. Hm, I think that we should be careful about our claims. The sidebar in itself is a me-too feature, not the first of its kind. If we want to market it then we have to find the aspects of the sidebar that are unique or better than in other applications. If we already have them, great. If not then we should work for 4.1 to get them. It appears that the sidebar now gets attention from a lot of people in this community. It would be great if we could turn this attention into a list of new ideas for improvements and new features of the sidebar. Yes, that's right. I think if you look for improvements, you should see who can help as a multiplier. In the sidebar that are e.g. the macro developer that could use the sidebar in their applications. My inquiry to a few months ago but unfortunately had little resonance. This here would be an area where we could greatly advance AOO, that if we increase the opportunities for macro programmers, whether. In the Basic DIE, or with respect to the simple usability of the sidebar in macros Look at MS Office, a large part of its success is owed o the applications the macro developer, based on this, to end users, program. Greetings, Jörg --**--** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Find a better name for sidebar?
Hi 2013/5/27 Shari Smith shari.sm...@uneedstuff.com: why i, I'd say oPanel or aPanel +1 Effectively panel is interesting in our local context, so [a|I|o]Panel is a good way. More yet if in the furure the formating toolbar will be disabled. Better(IMHO) if we improve this *panel* with Renaissance4 CWS[1] [1]http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg07311.html Claudio. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based on a completely new platform on MacOS additionally to the existing one. The 32bit version will be part of the AOO 4.0 release and we will need this version for backward compatibility on older system anyway. The 64bit version will run on 10.7 and newer only. I am looking forward to any constructive feedback or concerns. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Recent commits for issue 121542
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 04:49:01PM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: On 27.05.2013 15:16, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: Hi Ariel, I noticed a couple of commits that you made over the weekend. Only one of these mentioned a bug id (121542, [1]). Some of the changes introduce incompatible API changes, some but not all of which are mentioned in the issue comments. that commit does not introduce an incompatible API change, on the contrary, is the (partial) revert of one: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1413471view=markup#l82 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/offapi/com/sun/star/awt/XPopupMenu.idl?revision=1425458view=markup#l96 Can you give us a short overview of what you are doing? As the commit message says, css::awt::XPopupMenu::execute() needs a css::awt::Rectangle. In most cases, only X and Y are needed to indicate the position where the PopupMenu will be executed, but in others a rectangle is needed, for example when executing a PopupMenu in a toolbar's drop-down click handler. That was the only one of r1486372, r1486373, r1486374, r1486375, r1486377, r1486379, r1486380, r1486381, and r1486438 that belonged to a bugzilla issue. The others do not. The individual commits have messages that describe what they are doing. What is missing is the big picture. Some commits seem to belong together, some seem to introduce new functionality that other developers might be interested in. But there is no easy and short way to know. No, there is no new functionality; it's just a clean-up of framework::PopupMenuController, that, as a UNO component, was not useful at all. The big picture is commit r1486377, all other related commits are preparation for that, or as a result of that: framework::PopupMenuController clean-up What the clean-up means is explained in the commit message. What might be useful for others is the reuse of PopupMenu filled at runtime by PopupMenuController's, this was already there by the original design, but it wasn't useful; now the concept is in use, as per the other commits, in the Open menu button on the StartCenter, the .uno:Open, .uno:AddDirect, and .uno:AutoPilotMenu toolbar items. Instead of copy paste of code, they reuse the PopupMenuController's. This allowed removing the copy paste (and killing the sfx2 implementation in favor of the new framework one). Take commit r1486372 as example. Its message says Some small clean-up to use the PopupMenu ToolbarController but the addition of the ExecuteHdl_Impl callback seems to imply more than just cleanup. This was in the internal implementation, which was made protected, quite strange because it was only forward-declared (ToolboxController_Impl), hard to guess what was intended with this. I needed only access to some protected members, mainly the toolbar item ID, which was only available via a weird bool getToolboxId( sal_uInt16 rItemId, ToolBox** ppToolBox); so as I was there, I cleaned what was easy to clean; this class needs further clean-up - all related to m_bSupportVisiable is rather ugly, for example - but will be done as a mayor refactoring in the area, to make pure UNO ToolbarController's possible - right now they are impossible to implement because the toolbar item controller needs access to the vcl ToolBox to manipulate the item it controls. Or commit r1486379 Make .uno:Open a drop-down toolbar item. What would that drop-down menu contain? See above. Both the Open menu button on the start center and the toolbar item have the same behaviour now. Are there code changes in other commits that belong to this? A bugzilla issue with a little more information would be very nice. I didn't find a bug for the original framework::PopupMenuController commit http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/rev/4c837e6c327e so opening a new one just to state I will clean you up sounded too egocentric at that time. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp4FJVLu2mJW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. I am against (but will vote -0) of making a release just to hold the deadline, I would very much prefer to see what a realistic deadline would be. rgds jan I. Ps. You do a great job as release manager, but someone has to be devils advocate. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based on a completely new platform on MacOS additionally to the existing one. The 32bit version will be part of the AOO 4.0 release and we will need this version for backward compatibility on older system anyway. The 64bit version will run on 10.7 and newer only. I am looking forward to any constructive feedback or concerns. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 06:58:54PM +0200, janI wrote: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) For Linux we already release a 64 bit version, together with the 32 bits. is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. The bitness is not that important, if I understood clearly, it's not like we are dropping 32 bit support in MacOS for 4.1. What might be something to think about is the change in the system requirements between 4.0 and 4.1; we had unintentionally changed the system requirements in Linux from previous versions released by Sun/Oracle, this turned into some people saying you better install LO, that works on older Linux distros. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpopiypDdk6H.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Without concern for rationale, it is part of the ODF 1.2 OpenFormula syntax that unary minus has precedence over all binary operators. It is not uncommon for there to be such a rule in programming languages (C/C++, Java, and JavaScript, for example). Some languages that have an exponentiation operator (not that common) might have different precedence cases, so that A^-b might be either illegal or A^(-b) -a^b might be either (-a)^b or -(a^b), the second being the case for Fortran In Openformula both forms are legal and the unary - has higher precedence (is done first) over ^. It is unfortunate that the built-in Help defines the operators in Calc but it does not specify the precedence. - Dennis PS: There are times when INVALID and WON'T FIX are inappropriate responses. One can be taken as saying something about the submitter, the other says something about the developer, although WON'T FIX is appropriate for a trivial defect that has no serious consequences or for an implementation-specific case that will be preserved. My preference over INVALID is BY DESIGN (it is meant to be that way) and even SPECIFIED or TO SPEC or STANDARD (when it is required to be that way). -Original Message- From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 05:21 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:08:15 +0200 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Andre Fischer wrote: In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. Indeed. Before this becomes another 0 ^ 0... there is an issue for this, it dates back to 2004 and it is marked invalid. That's it. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 If someone has strong feelings he can post comments there, even though I don't believe that marking the issue as REOPENED would have any practical effects. Regards, Andrea. I think whether this behaviour be mathematically correct or incorrect we must follow the behaviour of MS Excel. -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Google Summer of Code 2013
Hello Everyone, Thank you for placing confidence in my skills. I'll make sure that I'll put my 100% effort in bonding with the community and completing my project. I'll definitely utilize this opportunity very well. THANK YOU. -- Rajath S, M.Sc(Hons.) Physics, Birla Institute of Technology and Science - Pilani, Pilani
Re: Google Summer of Code 2013
Hi Rajath, On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:39:29AM +0530, Rajath Shashidhara wrote: Hello Everyone, Thank you for placing confidence in my skills. I'll make sure that I'll put my 100% effort in bonding with the community and completing my project. I'll definitely utilize this opportunity very well. Looks like your application was selected, and this was informed by Google today. Congratulations and welcome aboard. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpQCH8mz3Byv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
Am Montag, 27. Mai 2013 um 18:58 schrieb janI: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. it's ok to have different opinions but let me explain why I think it's worth a new major version. The sidebar in the form we introduce with the next release is a big UI change, very visible to our users. This kind of changes should be made for major releases only. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. Ariel pointed already out that Linux is not relevant here and we support a 64bit version already. As I tried to explain a 64bit version on MacOS is comparable to a new platform, a complete new port and that is possible to every version. I am against (but will vote -0) of making a release just to hold the deadline, I would very much prefer to see what a realistic deadline would be. It is not only to hold a deadline, it is of course time for a new release and we have a lot good stuff in it. How long do we want to move if we would move at all? 2 weeks, 4 weeks or 2 month? What would it change during the summer and vacation time? I believe not really much and we would potentially have only some further bug fixes and maybe the 64bit MacOS version. I prefer of course to give our users the new sidebar as soon as possible and receive feedback to make this feature even more shining in a 4.1. Juergen rgds jan I. Ps. You do a great job as release manager, but someone has to be devils advocate. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
Am Montag, 27. Mai 2013 um 19:47 schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 06:58:54PM +0200, janI wrote: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) For Linux we already release a 64 bit version, together with the 32 bits. is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. The bitness is not that important, if I understood clearly, it's not like we are dropping 32 bit support in MacOS for 4.1. What might be something to think about is the change in the system requirements between 4.0 and 4.1; we had unintentionally changed the system requirements in Linux from previous versions released by Sun/Oracle, this turned into some people saying you better install LO, that works on older Linux distros. it is not only our decision and we have to react. Apple deprecated API's and we have to make some changes to be ready for the future. We will still support the 32bit version for older versions. But some of the changes Herbert made will be available on newer os versions and with the new platform. Juergen Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems I think this is a huge problem if we're going to introduce changes like this *after* the regression tests have already been run (or are nearly done). Doesn't this totally wreck the QA cycle to introduce widespread changes like this *after* regression tests have been running for weeks? I really cannot support this unless the QA team is comfortable with having their testing invalidated and is willing/able to rerun all of their regression tests. Also, it is not clear to me what the benefit is of merging stlport into the trunk at the last minute? - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. Would it look any worse if we had a more stable release without the stlport changes? A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. I agree there. Delaying the release just runs into vacation time. So why rush the stlport? Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based on a completely new platform on MacOS additionally to the existing one. The 32bit version will be part of the AOO 4.0 release and we will need this version for backward compatibility on older system anyway. The 64bit version will run on 10.7 and newer only. I am looking forward to any constructive feedback or concerns. Main concern is the test impact of last minute stlport merge into the trunk. Maybe you can more fully describe the test impact. My impression was the impact would be widespread and could introduce bugs into any part of the product. Is that true? If so, how can we avoid doing a complete regression test pass? As you know that takes several weeks, and that also puts us into vacation season. Regards, -Rob Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. You might want to put your negative quotes into their own threads to make it easier for those opposed to the project to find it and put it into Wikipedia or an article. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. We already have Linux 64 bit. I am against (but will vote -0) of making a release just to hold the deadline, I would very much prefer to see what a realistic deadline would be. Fortunately publishing a release at Apache requires only three +1 PMC votes and there are no vetos. The process is biased toward making it easy to release. -Rob rgds jan I. Ps. You do a great job as release manager, but someone has to be devils advocate. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based on a completely new platform on MacOS additionally to the existing one. The 32bit version will be part of the AOO 4.0 release and we will need this version for backward compatibility on older system anyway. The 64bit version will run on 10.7 and newer only. I am looking forward to any constructive feedback or concerns. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Without concern for rationale, it is part of the ODF 1.2 OpenFormula syntax that unary minus has precedence over all binary operators. It is not uncommon for there to be such a rule in programming languages (C/C++, Java, and JavaScript, for example). Some languages that have an exponentiation operator (not that common) might have different precedence cases, so that A^-b might be either illegal or A^(-b) -a^b might be either (-a)^b or -(a^b), the second being the case for Fortran In Openformula both forms are legal and the unary - has higher precedence (is done first) over ^. It is unfortunate that the built-in Help defines the operators in Calc but it does not specify the precedence. - Dennis PS: There are times when INVALID and WON'T FIX are inappropriate responses. One can be taken as saying something about the submitter, the other says something about the developer, although WON'T FIX is appropriate for a trivial defect that has no serious consequences or for an implementation-specific case that will be preserved. My preference over INVALID is BY DESIGN (it is meant to be that way) and even SPECIFIED or TO SPEC or STANDARD (when it is required to be that way). We use INVALID for two main things today: - user didn't submit a defect report at all, but posted a help request, how to question, etc. - user submitted a defect report but the behavior was not a defect WONTFIX mean something is a actually a valid defect, but for one reason or another it won't be fixed. IMHO, if what we're doing is in accordance with ODF, and is needed for compatibility with MS Office and past OpenOffice spreadsheets, then the defect report is INVALID. There is not other way to treat it, if we want to be consistent. Note: the distinction is important if we track defects by components, etc. Knowing how many real (non-invalid) defects are in a component, or are found in a given release, etc., is good information to know. We lose the value of that data if we mix it up by calling something WONTFIX for political reasons. This should be an engineering decision, not a public relations effort. Making best thing is to rename INVALID so it is less offensive? Maybe NOT-A-BUG or something like that? But still preserve the distinction between that at WONTFIX. Regards, -Rob -Original Message- From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 05:21 AM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:08:15 +0200 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Andre Fischer wrote: In any case, this is a problem with no good solution. Indeed. Before this becomes another 0 ^ 0... there is an issue for this, it dates back to 2004 and it is marked invalid. That's it. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=24271 If someone has strong feelings he can post comments there, even though I don't believe that marking the issue as REOPENED would have any practical effects. Regards, Andrea. I think whether this behaviour be mathematically correct or incorrect we must follow the behaviour of MS Excel. -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Bugzilla]Documentation component?
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:04:57PM +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2013/5/26 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 09:27:56PM +0200, RGB ES wrote: Recently, an user on the EN forum raised a valid question: which is the best way to report a bug not on how the program works but on the documentation? For example, Math have only two components, code and UI, but what happens if someone find an error on the bundled help? This used to be Product: documentation, Component: Online Help, as in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120194 Yes, but if you click on New to create a new issue the product documentation is missing. It ended up in Infrastructure/documentation. Not sure if that makes sense, but that is where it is now. Maybe better is General/Bundled Help ? Or a per-product component for the same? -Rob Yes, that's why the used to be ;) The option is also missing if you try to edit the product once created the bug. The category clean-up narrowed it too much, most of the bugs I submit end up in General - code. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
What we've done so far: 1) Called for logo submissions from the community 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions. There was a lot of cross-fertilization of ideas, as designers saw what others had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas. 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions. Over 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments. 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey. 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated version. That's where we are now. The updated logos (three of them) are on the wiki now: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design occurring. So what next? I'd like to propose some next steps. A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next week. The discussion might lead to further refinement. B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design we'll go with that one. C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward consensus, then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Bugzilla]Documentation component?
2013/5/28 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:04:57PM +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2013/5/26 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 09:27:56PM +0200, RGB ES wrote: Recently, an user on the EN forum raised a valid question: which is the best way to report a bug not on how the program works but on the documentation? For example, Math have only two components, code and UI, but what happens if someone find an error on the bundled help? This used to be Product: documentation, Component: Online Help, as in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120194 Yes, but if you click on New to create a new issue the product documentation is missing. It ended up in Infrastructure/documentation. Not sure if that makes sense, but that is where it is now. Maybe better is General/Bundled Help ? Or a per-product component for the same? I think on a per-product basis is more clear and easier to find. Regards Ricardo -Rob Yes, that's why the used to be ;) The option is also missing if you try to edit the product once created the bug. The category clean-up narrowed it too much, most of the bugs I submit end up in General - code. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions
Yes, NOT A BUG is definitely preferable to INVALID. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 02:56 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton Subject: Re: Question about: OpenOffice Calc. =-1^2 like expressions [ ... ] Making best thing is to rename INVALID so it is less offensive? Maybe NOT-A-BUG or something like that? But still preserve the distinction between that at WONTFIX. Regards, -Rob [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
[This was cross-posted, so I'm not clear what list was intended. Makes tracking the discussion difficult.] I'll bite: I prefer Chris's latest. The weight of the lettering is more powerful. I think the Apache should not be so thin. The form used by Samer works better. I also think down-scaling will work better in this case. As far as the orb goes, Chris's could be a tad larger, but not by much. I prefer the orientation of the foreground bird to Kevin's, which has a more threatening feel in my subjective experience. - Dennis PS: Interesting that we've come around to a close variant of the current logo. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 03:22 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; market...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection What we've done so far: 1) Called for logo submissions from the community 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions. There was a lot of cross-fertilization of ideas, as designers saw what others had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas. 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions. Over 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments. 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey. 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated version. That's where we are now. The updated logos (three of them) are on the wiki now: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design occurring. So what next? I'd like to propose some next steps. A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next week. The discussion might lead to further refinement. B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design we'll go with that one. C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward consensus, then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
On May 27, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 27 May 2013 17:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. I understand your motivation and will not be the showstopper. but my honest opion is that the reasons for calling it 4.0 get very thin. You might want to put your negative quotes into their own threads to make it easier for those opposed to the project to find it and put it into Wikipedia or an article. Getting a 64 bit release for mac (and possible in linux) is something (as you write) for a major version and not a minor version like 4.1. We already have Linux 64 bit. I am against (but will vote -0) of making a release just to hold the deadline, I would very much prefer to see what a realistic deadline would be. Fortunately publishing a release at Apache requires only three +1 PMC votes and there are no vetos. The process is biased toward making it easy to release. The main process is mechanical. My check list: (1) Is the packaging complete? (2) Are the signatures and checksums on the packages correct? (3) Is the signature that of the Release Manager? (4) Are the LICENSE and NOTICE file included and correct? (5) Does the source release match a checkout of the release tag from svn? (6) Is the RAT report on the source package clean? If not, are only a few files incorrect? If any of the above is a definitive NO then I am -1 for good technical reasons. An answer of NO to (6) becomes a judgement call on the meaning of few. If all are YES then I am +1. Following the above protects our users by assuring that the IP is properly licensed and that released packages can be authenticated by them. (Leaving out the fact that this authentication is hard and non-standard. Leaving out any discussion about digital signatures.) Given the large number of packages in our releases I would like to discuss how we can automate performing our checks. A good starting point would be configuration that is used to support the download page. Regards, Dave -Rob rgds jan I. Ps. You do a great job as release manager, but someone has to be devils advocate. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant
Re: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection
On May 27, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [This was cross-posted, so I'm not clear what list was intended. Makes tracking the discussion difficult.] I'll bite: I prefer Chris's latest. The weight of the lettering is more powerful. I think the Apache should not be so thin. The form used by Samer works better. I also think down-scaling will work better in this case. As far as the orb goes, Chris's could be a tad larger, but not by much. I prefer the orientation of the foreground bird to Kevin's, which has a more threatening feel in my subjective experience. These are good observations. I would like to see it with an ffi ligature. I think we should leave the 4 out. Others have mentioned that 4 is an unlucky number is some cultures. Perhaps we have compromise and have both versioned and un-versioned logo designs. If so then I think a treatment like Version 4.0 in grey and blue might work. Regards, Dave - Dennis PS: Interesting that we've come around to a close variant of the current logo. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 03:22 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; market...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Next steps for AOO 4.0 Logo Selection What we've done so far: 1) Called for logo submissions from the community 2) Many designers responded and we received 40 submissions. There was a lot of cross-fertilization of ideas, as designers saw what others had come up with, what worked, and borrowed ideas. 3) We did a survey of user responses to the 40 logo submissions. Over 5000 users offered their ratings and written comments. 4) Publish report and blog post on the results of the logo survey. 5) Invited the designers of the top-rated logos to read over the survey comments and refine their designs and submit an updated version. That's where we are now. The updated logos (three of them) are on the wiki now: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement As you can see there is quite a bit of convergence on a design occurring. So what next? I'd like to propose some next steps. A) Let's discuss the three designs on the mailing list for the next week. The discussion might lead to further refinement. B) If at the end of the week there is consensus on a single design we'll go with that one. C) If at the end of the week there is not consensus on a single design, and the discussion is not leading us closer toward consensus, then we'll have a 72-hour vote of PMC members to pick the logo. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Naming and Trademark Concerns
Hi - I just now reviewed Jürgen's latest snapshot build and I have some trademark concerns. The current UI and Help file seem to be out of Apache Branding policy[1][2] in two ways. (1) The most prominent use of the brand in many place is OpenOffice when it ought to be Apache OpenOffice. This is the case in many places throughout the UI and Help files. (2) There is no trademark attribution in the application UI. I'm willing to help mitigate these issues if someone wants to point me towards the correct action. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Naming and Trademark Concerns
On May 27, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi - I just now reviewed Jürgen's latest snapshot build and I have some trademark concerns. The current UI and Help file seem to be out of Apache Branding policy[1][2] in two ways. (1) The most prominent use of the brand in many place is OpenOffice when it ought to be Apache OpenOffice. This is the case in many places throughout the UI and Help files. Can you give some examples? (2) There is no trademark attribution in the application UI. I'm willing to help mitigate these issues if someone wants to point me towards the correct action. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed further schedule towards AOO 4.0
Am Montag, 27. Mai 2013 um 23:38 schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I would like to discuss our further schedule towards AOO 4.0 and the problems I see. And I would like to discuss a proposal how to address these problems. We are behind our schedule a little bit and we have identified some problems regarding the 64bit port on MacOS that I will try to explain below (hopefully without too many technical details that everybody can understand it). Proposal - Move MacOS 64 bit version to 4.1 and merge stlport relevant changes (all platforms) asap into trunk and include them in AOO 4.0. - Move into showstopper mode next week, beginning with June 3th. Means we integrate only showstopper flagged issues and new translations. And potentially new art work if we get a new logo and icons in time. Deadline for new art work should be June 10th. - Intensive QA with the stlport changes to detect potential problems I think this is a huge problem if we're going to introduce changes like this *after* the regression tests have already been run (or are nearly done). Doesn't this totally wreck the QA cycle to introduce widespread changes like this *after* regression tests have been running for weeks? I really cannot support this unless the QA team is comfortable with having their testing invalidated and is willing/able to rerun all of their regression tests. Also, it is not clear to me what the benefit is of merging stlport into the trunk at the last minute? - Create a AOO 4.0 branch 1 week later, June 10th, where we hopefully have integrated already returned translations. - Translation deadline will be set to June 14th to have some time for the integration and further testing. Further translations can we release at a later time as a special language update release (TBD) I would still like to keep the end of June date because everything else looks quite nice and we should give our users the new sidebar. Would it look any worse if we had a more stable release without the stlport changes? A shifted release date won't really help us because we will move in the vacation time and I think it is better to bring the 4.0 version out before. I agree there. Delaying the release just runs into vacation time. So why rush the stlport? Once we have solved the mozilla problem for the 64bit version we can decide if we want release a 4.1 immediately or later together with further improvements, fixes and further languages. Background Explanation == Herbert did a great job with his ongoing work to port AOO to 64bit on the MacOS platform. This work is mainly triggered and motivated by the deprecation of some system abi's and the drop of 32 bit Java. In short we switched to the clang compiler, a new platform SDK, XCode4, replaced for example atsui API with CoreText, get rid of stlport (on all platforms) and did many more cleanup that work that were necessary because of better and/or different compiler/linker behaviour or error messages etc. Everything looked quite well until we focused on the still used precompiled older Mozilla libraries. We currently struggle with porting this stuff to 64 bit and evaluating if we can get rid of them completely. A complete drop of the mozilla libs would be a further huge improvement but it is of course a lot of work to understand the code first and all dependencies and to replace it with some new code... At the moment we see this on risk for AOO 4.0 and plan to postpone this to 4.1. But the drop of the stlport lib is relevant for all platforms and will introduce a binary incompatibility. The best and only time for such an incompatible change is a major version. The plan is to extract the stlport relevant changes and merge them on trunk asap (this week). This will decouple any further work on the 64bit port and we can release the 64bit version at any time later (as 4.1) because the 64bit version is based on a completely new platform on MacOS additionally to the existing one. The 32bit version will be part of the AOO 4.0 release and we will need this version for backward compatibility on older system anyway. The 64bit version will run on 10.7 and newer only. I am looking forward to any constructive feedback or concerns. Main concern is the test impact of last minute stlport merge into the trunk. Maybe you can more fully describe the test impact. My impression was the impact would be widespread and could introduce bugs into any part of the product. Is that true? If so, how can we avoid doing a complete regression test pass? As you know that takes several weeks, and that also puts us into vacation season. I would expect that we have a lot of tests that we do for every new
