is further truncated. This is not a new bug, it is just a further regression
of an apparently old issue (it goes at least as far back as 4.3.7 but it
doesn't happen in AOO).
So I would say the specific text bug is fixed but there are still issues.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this mess
h an AMD during the weekend.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Call-for-testing-LibreOffice-5-4-0-3-hotfix-tp4219064p4219144.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
Bibisect.
On the other hand the git command is bisect...
But it is clear now. I'm glad there is no need to compile anything!
I'm really curious to see how this works but I can't risk any problems on my
work machine.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in conte
and I don't
want to void the warranty)
V Stuart Foote wrote
> Sorry for that noise.
Trying to help never generates noise ;)
Thank you for the Segoe UI tip. It is easier to read than Tahoma!
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Incomplete-tex
Kind regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Incomplete-text-in-menus-and-dialogs-in-5-4-0-1-tp4217620p4217640.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa maili
aphics adapter is an ATI Radeon HD 3800 running on Windows 7 Pro x64
SP1
Has anyone seen this? I can't find any bug report on this on Bugzilla.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Incomplete-text-in-menus-and-dialogs-in-5-4-0-1-tp4217620.html
Sen
Hi Henri
mhenriday wrote
> Pedro, yours sounds like an excellent suggestion to me; but I'm just a
> (grateful) end user. Who has the authority to decide this sort of thing
> ?...
I have no idea.
But the good news is that someone already cleaned up all the folders.
Regards,
Pedro
Bump!
In case nobody noticed this email.
Pedro wrote
> Hi all
>
> The pre-releases folder is where testers get the latest version released
> for testing.
> It doesn't make sense that it accumulates old/outdated test
> versions/documents.
> As an example th
a problem with both Windows builds...
carlo.strata wrote
> p.s. The "src" subdirectory also need a clean since may 2016. ;-)
Yes, that would be nice too :)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Pre-released-5-3-2-1-no-Win-x64-avail
in the parametric compilation make the Windows compilation
> to fail?
This is expected. The Windows binaries take longer time to compile than for
the other OSes. Keep checking the Windows folders. The files should be there
in a day or two.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this mess
Hi Miguel Ángel
m.a.riosv wrote
> There is a Win_x64 on prebuilds, but not with the same version for x86 and
> x64
Thank you for updating!
This is really odd. I think it is better to wait for 5.3.2.2
Reporting bugs for a build with known problems is a waste of time ;)
Pedro
-
carlo.strata wrote
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I confirm no Win64 builds here:
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/win/x86_64/
> for the 5.3.2.1 version...
>
> What's the trouble?
From
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-minutes-of-ESC-call-td4210895.html
Michael Meeks-5
testing real documents!
Would it be possible to use the TDF login mentioned by Michael (Meeks) so
that there is no need for yet another registration?
> + online/TDF/LDAP accounts etc. (Michael)
> + https://user.documentfoundation.org
Thanks!
Pedro
--
View this message
bleApps releases
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/portable/
(maybe there is a more complete archive)
In any case you can install any regular version in parallel (so there is no
need to install/uninstall)
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel
HTH
Pedro
--
View this mess
org
I assumed this would point to a test version but it seems to be a login
interface only... Am I missing something?
Is TDF hosting a free account version of LOO (not a nice acronym for British
English people ;) ) at least for testing purposes?
How is LibreOffice Online comparable wit
Christian Lohmaier-3 wrote
>> The same version was uploaded to folder /pre-releases/win/x86_64/ (but
>> this expected :) )
>
> oups, fixed. Thx for noticing :-)
Thank you for the fast fix.
I still need to update some XP Pro x86 machines
(once XP is no longer supported there is probably no
Hi Christian, all
LibreOffice 5.3.0.3 x64 (and x64 help files) was uploaded by mistake to
folder /pre-releases/win/x86/
The same version was uoploaded to folder /pre-releases/win/x86_64/ (but
this expected :) )
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http
n the
Win platform but I really don't want to use dev builds.
Best regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Call-for-testing-Shutdown-problems-in-Windows-tp4204415p4204946.html
Sent from the QA mailing list arc
V Stuart Foote wrote
> The "easy" workaround from the projects perspective is to always use an
> ODF 1.2/LibreOffice native format.
Yes, that is an easy workaround. But since sending the ODF to someone who is
not using LibreOffice will cause even more loss, it is a quite useless
workaround.
I
Hi Ekari
Ekari wrote
> If you would like to help Pedro, I could send you the
> files, but I can't provide any kind of information on the problems
> as they need to be compared 1 by 1 with MO and LO open.
>
> I have reported 14 bugs to date. one of them is classified as im
progress this tool could achieve. Document
fidelity across Office suites is in my opinion the greatest obstacle to
LibreOffice adoption.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-What-to-do-with-many-files-tp4188097p4189595.html
Sent from
eported can you also indicate the bugzilla
bug number?
If you can do this, then please share a link to your compressed file.
I do not promise to do this completely or within any time frame. But I will
go through it has my free time allows.
Maybe others will jump in...
Best regards,
Pedro
--
Vi
ing it :)
> Have a nice day
> Thomas.
It seems to be faster to fix than to confirm a bug :)
That is because there are only a few QA people but many people signing and
fixing as Caolán ;)
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-
Thomas Hackert wrote
> Would someone be so kind to test it on his/her system, please?
Crashed under Windows 7 x64 as well
Used build
Version: 5.3.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 4da8378302093dd3e3dc3e201ac5e188c55f8009
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default;
TinderBox:
Hi Markus
Thank you for the prompt reply!
Markus Mohrhard wrote
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Pedro
> pedlino@
> wrote:
>
>> Since LO now has a crash report then there is no need to do backtraces,
>> right?
>>
>>
> So the crash reporter only wor
Since LO now has a crash report then there is no need to do backtraces,
right?
When I reproduce a crash, how can I link the crash report to the bug report
in the tracker?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-no-subject-tp4187667p4187714.html
Hi Markus
Markus Mohrhard wrote
> does anyone here have a problem with me adding a field for crash report
> ids
> to bugzilla. I would modify the message in the dialog that tells the user
> about the crash to post the crash id to a bug report.
>
> We would most likely also use that to map bug
e it is greyed out it is not so
obvious (I wouldn't have found it without your answer)
And yes, I agree that a "Print this page" in the context menu of the Print
Preview would be a nice addition but a simply check box for Current Page
would be even more intuitive.
Thank you for the quick (a
/show_bug.cgi?id=34697
Can someone figure out what happened?
Thanks!
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Print-current-page-tp4185617.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name
Bug reported here
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100240
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Check-for-update-tp4181351p4185425.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List
Christian Lohmaier-3 wrote
> Hi *,
>>> One week later (and 18 days after 5.1.3 release) version 5.1.2.2 still
>>> reports it is up to date under Windows.
>
> Yeah, if the version script still does not offer 5.1.3.2 for you, then
> please post the hash from about dialog/check whether it is listed
Bump!
One week later (and 18 days after 5.1.3 release) version 5.1.2.2 still
reports it is up to date under Windows.
Pedro wrote
>
> Pedro wrote
>>
>> Christian Lohmaier-3 wrote
>>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Pedro <[hidden email]> wrote:
&g
Hi Markus
Thank you for the quick and useful answer!
Markus Mohrhard wrote
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Pedro
> pedlino@
> wrote:
>
>> 2) On the second run LibreOffice reports that it is not working correctly
>> and needs to send a Bug Report. Clicking yes b
4641/bug_report.png>
Is this a feature test but no report is actually sent?
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/5-2-Beta-problems-tp4184641.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Thomas Hackert wrote
> Is this reproducible on an other system to anyone? And: are you able
> to get a strace / backtrace? Is this already reported to bugzilla?
When opening your sample file I had a single crash on LO 4.4.7.2 x86 under
Win 10 x64
The error message title was "LibreOffice 4.4 -
Pedro wrote
>
> Christian Lohmaier-3 wrote
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Pedro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Is is possible that the server is reporting that the latest version
>>> available is 5.1.2.1?
>>
>> Ah! thanks for testing and re
r I always have the feeling that the Crash reports are
only a "feel good" feature and that the emails are sent directly to the
bin...
Maybe LibreOffice can do better on user involvement.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/CrashDumps-tp4183396p
Hi Stuart
Thank you for the quick answer.
Is this a new feature in LibreOffice?
In case anyone is interested, the way to disable it is described in this
page
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6035112/disable-application-crash-dumps-on-windows-7
Thanks!
Pedro
--
View this message
: 644e4637d1d8544fd9f56425bd6cec110e49301b
CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default;
Locale: pt-PT (pt_PT)
Are these files useful even if I can't reproduce what caused the crash(es)?
Should I upload them somewhere or can I simply delete it?
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message
Hi Stuart
Thank you for the detailed information.
So this is clearly not the problem since, as I mentioned, "I tested with
both x86 and x64, installed in parallel with SI GUI and standard install."
In any case the PC where I tested the Alpha build has version 5.1.3.1
installed and running so
eature (under Windows 10,
at least) the only Master builds that do run are the x86 from TB39
Best regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Testing-Release-Notes-5-2-Support-wildcards-to-be-compatible-with-XLS-XLSX-and-with-ODF-1-2-tp4181736p4181759.html
Sen
m.a.riosv wrote
> El 22/04/16 a las 10:40, Christian Lohmaier escribió:
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 6:07 AM, V Stuart Foote [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Not sure what to make of it, and do hate to report it, but seems the
>>> Windows
>>> builds for 5.2.0alpha1, both x86 and x64, are affected by
Hi Christian
Christian Lohmaier-3 wrote
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Pedro <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Is is possible that the server is reporting that the latest version
>> available is 5.1.2.1?
>
> Ah! thanks for testing and reporting - the info LO sends as t
Hi all
While checking if bug #46354 was fixed I found an odd result
If I use version
Version: 5.1.2.1 (x64)
Build ID: 2603b69c5ec5981bb5f053f8ebfd1f3de00a4c29
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.19; UI Render: GL;
Locale: pt-PT (en_US)
and Check for Updates, I get "LibreOffice 5.1 is up to
, if manual testing your files leads to greater compatibility you can
count me in.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-writing-unit-test-for-calc-functions-tp4181287p4181297.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com
office.bin"
(located in /usr/lib/libreoffice/program) does report it is 64bit
I can confirm that LibreOffice 5.1.1.2 (from the ppa) does not mention x64
in the About dialog box.
Sorry for assuming there was some logic :)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.docu
t would say
"Version: 5.1.1.2 (x64)")
I assume that your Linux Mint is probably also 32bit since the ppa should
get the same architecture as the OS...
Hope this helps
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/More-information-in-About-dialog-tp417787
Hi Tommy
Tommy wrote
> Version: 5.2.0.0.alpha0+
> Build ID: f64a190f52f9e9c76c2a0d18f072938b5df93aae
> CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.29; UI Render: default;
> TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2016-02-28_14:15:03
> Locale: it-IT (it_IT)
>
> but I think it would be easier to
V Stuart Foote wrote
> See this MSDN note:
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724832%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
Ok. So LibreOffice is not getting the Windows version correctly.
In fact, if I open a command window I get "Microsoft Windows [Version
10.0.10586]" which makes
ve a higher
number than 8.1 but then again Windows version numbers never made much sense
:)
Thanks!
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/More-information-in-About-dialog-tp4177879p4177889.html
Sent from the QA mailing
machines have an x64 OS but you can't assume that LibreOffice is
also...)
Should I create an enhancement request on this? Is it useful? Will someone
care?
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/More-information-in-About-dialog-tp4177879.html
Sent
olution. Maybe
the trick is to force Ctrl+; and Ctrl+Shift+; to execute the same command
(therefore Ctrl+Shift+; is not usable for other commands)
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Excel-key-bindings-for-Calc-tp4176931p4177021.html
Sent
ust noticed that it is now (since branch 5.1) the default
hotkey for absolute/relative cell addresses so thank you to whoever changed
it :)
Best regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Excel-key-bindings-for-Calc-tp4176931p4176961.html
S
Hi Jay
Yousuf 'Jay' Philips wrote
> I'm currently working on an option for having Calc use Excel's keyboard
> shortcuts. So i'm gathering a list of shortcuts to see which ones can be
> integrated in Calc's default mode and which would be exclusive to an
> Excel keybinding mode.
>
>
or the group? speaking in UTC would it be
> AM or PM? later in the evening?
I can't make it at 13:00. But I might join the meeting at 14:30 (if someone
is still on IRC...)
For me any working day of the week at 14:30 UTC is ok
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documen
ned to R and caused
that none would be launched (focus would just jump from one option to the
other) until you pressed enter.
I think this is more an UI/Design task than a QA task.
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Start-Center-shortcuts-a
Hola Miguel Ángel
m.a.mob wrote
> Android phone plus Win10x64
Have you tried Impress Remote? I got it connected through Wifi (haven't
managed Bluetooth yet)
It is absolutely fantastic!
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice
Hi Robinson
Robinson Tryon wrote
> Do you have an Android phone/tablet and are running Windows? Ping me back!
Yes/yes and Yes (Windows XP x86/Windows 7 x64)
Let me know what needs to be tested.
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoff
#96119 need absolute priority. I know that there is a
workaround using the cursor keys and enter but most users don't even know
they can use a keyboard for that effect.
As it stands 5.1 is broken for the common user.
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfo
d in other open
source projects to effectively block a release. Since that doesn't apply in
LibreOffice it should be removed.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Drop-down-boxes-are-broken-for-the-whole-Libr
st in version 5.1.0.0beta1
x86) is that the drop list does not work at all.
There is yet another different problem in branch 5.0 (tested in version
5.0.4.1 x86): pressing Apply doesn't do anything. So the list works but the
changes are not applied.
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http:/
Robinson Tryon wrote
> As mentioned previously, we're no longer using Severity: 'blocker' to
> mark bugs. Please set those bugs to 'critical' severity.
May I suggest that you migrate all "blockers" to "critical" and remove the
"blocker" option from the list?
It is useless, causes
beta and rc stage for a
previous branch/version which are specific to that stage? How many are we
talking about?
I think need to improve the experience both for QA and (especially) for
users reporting bugs.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.or
ever the bugzilla modifications
were not my idea, they were from Tommy. I just said I agreed that there are
too many versions. In any case I don't see how my opinion can affect the
current policies. I'm just a user, I'm not even a QA member.
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
eered to give me a
hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
Regards,
If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and 4.0.1,
a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic
commit/patch?
What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
RC1, etc?
Regards,
Pedro
--
View thi
etween 4.3.0
> and 4.3.7 which spans a range of hundreds commits
I agree. Again, the shorter the list the better. Having a All versions is
exactly the opposite logic of bibisecting. We want the user to point at a
specific version. Why broaden the search when we want to narrow it down?
Regards,
Pedro
-
; approach):
>
> - a/ the most commits
> - b/ without a regression known to be bibisected down to a commit of
> him/her
>
> I assume something like that might create some good and _positive_
> motivation
> in the right direction ...
This is a positive suggesti
Shall we aim for a phone call? Google hangout?
> IRC Chat?
>
> I'm happy Pedro brought this up as I think collectively we can come up
> with a solution.
I am available in that period. Anybody who would like to contribute with
ideas is very welcome!
Personally I prefer IRC chat, since it is al
Hi Bjoern
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:40:37AM -0700, Pedro wrote:
>> A sugestion: maybe have a branch dedicated to bug fixes every other year?
>> Example: let's say 5.1 is dedicated to fixes. Then a slight change of
>> schedule would postpone 5.2.0
do
very early testing for Apache OpenOffice (where each release is a regular
install instead of a parallel Dev install)
However if there is no commitment from the Devs to fix regressions then it
really doesn't matter at which stage you catch them...
Best regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in c
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> That wouldnt help at all, "delaying the release" is just another name for
> "not
> making an release from master for a longer period of time" and thus would
> result in _more_ regressions, not less.
Let's see: If releases are slowed down there are more regressions, if
d back
to the Master branch...
A sugestion: maybe have a branch dedicated to bug fixes every other year?
Example: let's say 5.1 is dedicated to fixes. Then a slight change of
schedule would postpone 5.2.0 to some months later so that most devs would
concentrate on 5.1 (of course new features wo
possible.
Agreed. But since there are less than 500 Unconfirmed bugs (which might not
even be bugs or could be duplicates) and there are nearly 4500 open bugs
(out of which 700 are Regressions) probably it would have a higher impact on
Quality to tackle the largest slice of the pie?
Best rega
V Stuart Foote wrote
>
> Pedro wrote
>> In case no one noticed the tinderbox is named Win-x86 but the builds are
>> Win_x64. Wrong upload?
> Looks like Thorsten just pointed the upload script to Win-x86@42 rather
> than Win-x86_64@42, simple correction.
Ok. So there wi
Thorsten Behrens wrote
> Michael Meeks wrote:
>> AI: + kind offer to setup an MSVC2015 tinderbox vs. master (Thorsten)
>> + community edition ? (Jmux)
>> + is that also 2015 ?
>> + also available (Cloph)
>>
> VS2015 Community Edition now building on tb@42, nightlies here:
>
d, there aren't any 5.0.3.1 x86 builds for Windows
(but the x64 have been there for almost 24h)
Maybe this is related to the fact that there aren't any daily builds for Win
x86 since Oct 5th for the 5.0 branch and since Oct 6th for Master?
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this messag
v-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/master/Win-x86_64@62-TDF/
Maybe you are asking too much of Tinderbox 62? :)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-minutes-of-ESC-call-tp4162607p4162733.html
Sent from the QA mailing li
to the list. Presently i'm planning to add
> Default, Emphasis, Strong Emphasis, and Source Text character styles.
I think it would make sense to include paragraph styles Default, Heading1,
Heading2 and Heading3 since these are used when creating the Table of
Contents of a document.
Regards,
P
- this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to
say hi :)
These are exactly the kind of bugs that bring bad reputation to
LibreOffice...
Interoperability and Regressions...
I can confirm the first one (#93637) and possibly others (like the image in
the header) is a Regression from branch 3.6
Pedro
at java.util.Optional.get(Unknown Source)
at at.reisisoft.sigui.Main.main(Main.java:67)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-SI-GUI-Java-help-needed-please-run-a-jar-file-and-post-the-output-tp4153946p4154212.html
Sent from the QA
something?
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-SI-GUI-Java-help-needed-please-run-a-jar-file-and-post-the-output-tp4153946p4154116.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Hi Florian
Florian Reisinger wrote
Did you start it via the command line? (Something like hold control and
right click - open command line. There input java -jar siguitest2.jar
and a single line of text will be omitted to the command line. You won't
see anything by double-clicking, but that
jmadero wrote
We can't make anything happen. They are volunteers (just like you) -
no one dictates how other people work.
It *might* be a reasonable tender request.
@Pedro - if you want you can submit a grant proposal that we invest in
developing this option. The more information you have
/afrikaans-spell-checker
BTW the extensions search engine really SUCKS!!! Searching africa will NOT
find african... how lame is that?
Hope this helps...
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Spell-Check-on-Windows-7-tp4152554p4152565.html
builds are done
there.
Here is how
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel/OS_X
I don't have a Mac either.
Cheers,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Java-SI-GUI-Feedback-wanted-no-screenshots-tp4152255p4152266.html
reason your posts are not being accepted by the QA mailing list,
although they show on Nabble...
Maybe the mailing list administrator can fix this?
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Issues-with-Display-of-Dialogs-of-5-0-beta2
Hi Klaus-Jürgen
klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote
Funny joke, as there are no daily builds to test 5.0.0:
Already reported that on the Dev mailing list
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/No-x64-Daily-builds-for-Windows-tp4150529.html
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http
I'm still not sure if I'm blacklisted on this mailing list or if you guys
deliberately ignore me. I'm glad you do listen to Florian ;)
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-minutes-of-ESC-call-td4149777.html#a4150019
Again, in case no one has noticed, there isn't even a Windows
Jean-Baptiste Faure-3 wrote
It seems there is an issue in the website download script: this RC1
appears as LibreOffice 4.4.4 unknown release-state (Release Notes)
instead of RC1.
I can confirm that the Windows RC1 is oddly numbered as
Version: 4.4.4.1.0+
Build ID:
Hi Michael, all
Michael Meeks-5 wrote
* Release Engineering update (Robinson)
+ 5.0.0 - Beta 0
snip
+ Windows 64 status (David O)
+ all fine, poking some Base test with Stephan
So the fact that there are _no_ x64 daily builds for the 5.0 branch AND that
the latest
Hi all
I provided feedback on bug
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90127
(comment #10)
but was never notified of later comments or that the bug was fixed.
Is this the new default or is something broken?
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http
Norbert Thiebaud wrote
+ The points where we think there _may_ be still some issue that need
actual user-gui testing (like VclPtr) can be tested just as well with
a Beta release.
For these reasons tweaking/reducing the beta-period is not warranted.
Fair enough.
What is VclPtr? I could not
jphilipz wrote
A user is reporting a weird behaviour of drop downs menus popping
upwards rather than downwards and i'm not able to reproduce it on linux
or windows 7, so as the user is running windows xp or vista, can anyone
check if this is reproducible.
Robinson Tryon wrote
- Just rename the version in Bugzilla
Since there are no 4.5 specific bugs (even if there were some regressions,
there will be no final 4.5.0 version) it doesn't make any sense to keep 4.5
There is no 4.5 version. TDF is jumping from 4.4 to 5.0 so all bugs reported
while
suffers from the same problem as ODF... Too much
resistance from people who make money by selling something... And since it
is not widely accepted people don't use it and because few people use it...
well you get the drift ;)
Maybe TDF sites can push Mozilla Persona?
Just my 2 cents
Pedro
--
View
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
actually, would it be possible in our bugzilla to disallow a transition
from RESOLVED - REOPENED except if the user is a well-known QA or
developer with a special bugzilla privilege?
I think this should be done ASAP.
If new Bugzilla users are advised to search for
ape wrote
I cannot run LibreOfficeDev built in March (OS – Windows XP 64-bit
edition).
There were some builds that had problems but the newest run flawlessly under
Win 7 Pro x64 SP1
Can you test
Version: 4.5.0.0.alpha0+ (x64)
Build ID: 48916c9b8c1363a37bf511626326ee6dc150975c
TinderBox:
build 4.4.2.1 from
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/win/x86/
and the build is
Version: 4.4.2.1
Build ID: 93fc8832889bf050a10ec6d0171dae213adc9b55
Maybe the reporter downloaded from a wrong link?
Hope this helps.
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http
jmadero wrote
I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about bugs that have backtraces
but QA has been unable to repro. Should these just be pushed to NEW ?
I think so. It was the accepted procedure for this bug
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62381
If there is a backtrace it
1 - 100 of 477 matches
Mail list logo
