Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net] >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 14:46 >> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows >> > [ ... ] >> [knmc] >> As we move forward to a general distribution here is an odt revision of >> the readme that can be used to generate an html, pdf, or text versions. >> All versions are attached but may not come through to the list. They can >> all be accessed from the following link. >> <https://1drv.ms/f/s!AMMYmStvrJNJgQQ> >> All feedback is both welcomed and encouraged. > [orcmid] > > The .odt and the .txt file come through as attachments. > > Do you have specific recommendations about what should be done with these? [knmc] My initial idea was to create a template that could be used to standardize this type of documentation rather than having individuals using different tools and methodologies on the different operating systems that we support. It just took me longer than I had expected. At this point it is far to late to attempt to do anything for this particular patch release. So all I am looking for is feed back on structure and if it is even a worthwhile endeavor to pursue. [knmc] > I notice that there are problems with the .txt file layout not having hard > line breaks. [knmc] That is one reason I have never been a big fan of using plain text for documentation. I would rather see PDF or HTML > The name changes and dates in 0.2.0 are not reflected. That is just a field and can be changed easily > The .odt also needs layout work. There's too much white space and I have > not looked closely enough to figure out why. [knmc] I suspect that it is due to the styles choices I made. I based them off the standard headings and text styles. I do not see to much white space , but that may be a difference on how we view document structure. > > I know we differ on formatting and some document organization matters. I am > not going to address them at this point. There are always going to be those kinds of differences and compromises have to be made on all sides. That is why I am seeking feedback. > I am going to 1.0.0 now, essentially with the 0.2.0 except for the change of > version number and removal of the limitation to testing use. I did the other > repair you suggested. I think Marcus is ready on the other binaries, so > something will happen tomorrow (Friday). Given the time critical nature it is imperative that the general release be done quickly. As I said earlier it took me longer than I had anticipated to get the structure to where I wanted it.
Regards Keith > > I'm not certain what the final inch is just yet, but it looks like everything > is ready enough. > > - Dennis >> regards >> Keith >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
