+1 I used the last version for a month and a half in production Even with bugs it is a great step forward
-- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://dataved.ru/ +7 916 562 8095 On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> wrote: > The issue seems to be fixed: OPENMEETINGS-333 > revision 1353401 > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]>wrote: > >> OK >> I'll try to fix it and will let you know. >> >> BTW Irina reported me this functionality was working in previous versions >> of OM. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM, [email protected] < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I found the usage of "connectedEvents" flag now more exactly: >>> The conncetedEvents flag is set to true if you create an event through >>> the "private message center". >>> You can attach an room + meeting time to each email in our UI. >>> If the function in "UserService::composeEmail" detects that the receipent >>> is an internal user of OpenMeetings, it will add the booked event time to >>> the calendar. >>> It will create a separated entry for each participant in the table >>> appointments. >>> >>> I don't think that the functionality that invited users through the >>> calendar will have an entry in their calendar was ever implemented. >>> However I think you should keep in mind the functionality of the Private >>> Message Center. >>> >>> I think your solution would work, as long as the initial creator (cause I >>> don't know if he is on that list of meeting members too) does not receive >>> duplicate events and is still able to edit/delete the event while >>> participants can do view only. >>> >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >>> 2012/6/22 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>> >>>> I can create appointment list linked from meeting_members and set >>>> isConnectedEvent flag to true for this event? >>>> >>>> Is it OK? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:43 PM, [email protected] < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> @Maxim: >>>>> There is a flag "connectedEvents" in the table appointments. >>>>> If that flag is true, any other event that has the same roomId (cause >>>>> very meeting created through the calendar has the same unique roomId) will >>>>> be updated with the new date and time. >>>>> If the client UI detects that the flag "isConnectedEvent" is true, the >>>>> user cannot update the event ( cause only the creator of the event should >>>>> be able edit it). >>>>> I think (my) idea was that each participant has its own entry in the >>>>> table appointments. >>>>> Linking the meeting_members would be another possibility but you need >>>>> to somehow "mark" those events differently, cause you need to restrict the >>>>> possibility to edit/update/delete such events for participants different >>>>> from the creator of the event. >>>>> >>>>> Sebastian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2012/6/22 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> sorry for the wide posting >>>>>> I'm afraid this issue might be release blocker :( >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Maxim Solodovnik < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello Sebastian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irina and I are found issue with latest OM: >>>>>>> Appointment is not appear in attendee calendar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steps: >>>>>>> 1) login as user A >>>>>>> 2) go to Calendar >>>>>>> 3) create appointment titled 'AAAA' for tomorrow invite OM user B >>>>>>> 4) logout >>>>>>> 5) login as user B >>>>>>> 6) go to Calendar >>>>>>> Result: there is no appointment titled 'AAAA' for tomorrow >>>>>>> Expected result: there should be appointment titled 'AAAA' for >>>>>>> tomorrow >>>>>>> >>>>>>> according to my quick investigation While selecting appointments for >>>>>>> the user appointments with this user as meeting_members are not >>>>>>> selected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> should I file and/or fix this issue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Maxim Solodovnik < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My only concern is regarding RTMPT screen sharing client. >>>>>>>> I guess we can release 2.0.1 with working RTMPT. >>>>>>>> I vote for release ASAP :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:36 PM, [email protected] < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there anybody that would like to discuss Release Candidate 2? >>>>>>>>> @Maxim Do you still give +1 to this release candidate after your >>>>>>>>> concerns ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems like our mentors did miss this Vote. >>>>>>>>> I have missed to start the subject line with "[VOTE]", maybe that >>>>>>>>> is the reason why. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sebastian >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2012/6/20 Denis Kandrov <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Denis Kandrov >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19.06.2012 01:50, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear OpenMeetings Community, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings >>>>>>>>>>> 2.0 >>>>>>>>>>> Incubating RC2 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Main changes are covered in the Readme: >>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/openmeetings/** >>>>>>>>>>> tags/2.0RC2/README<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openmeetings/tags/2.0RC2/README> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Full Changelog: >>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/openmeetings/** >>>>>>>>>>> tags/2.0RC2/CHANGELOG<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openmeetings/tags/2.0RC2/CHANGELOG> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Release artefacts: >>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**sebawagner/rc2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esebawagner/rc2/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tag: >>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/openmeetings/** >>>>>>>>>>> tags/2.0RC2/<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openmeetings/tags/2.0RC2/> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using 93A30395): >>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/openmeetings/** >>>>>>>>>>> project/KEYS<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openmeetings/project/KEYS> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Sebastian Wagner >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>>>>>>>> http://www.openmeetings.de >>>>>>>>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>>>>>>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> WBR >>>>>>>> Maxim aka solomax >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> WBR >>>>>>> Maxim aka solomax >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> WBR >>>>>> Maxim aka solomax >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sebastian Wagner >>>>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>>>> http://www.openmeetings.de >>>>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>>>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> WBR >>>> Maxim aka solomax >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sebastian Wagner >>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock >>> http://www.openmeetings.de >>> http://www.webbase-design.de >>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com >>> [email protected] >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> WBR >> Maxim aka solomax >> > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax
