Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on aoo-win7

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:29:43PM -0700, Andrew Rist wrote:
> >>STATUS: Failure
> >>
> >>  Build revision 1490123 on branch openoffice/trunk
> >>
> >>  Snapshot results at: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> >>
> >>  Build using the ASF buildslave: bb-win7
> >>
> >>  Build results at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/642
> >>
> >>  Build reason was: The Nightly scheduler named 'aoo-win7-nightly' 
> >> triggered this build
> >C:/Progra~1/MICROS~1.0/VC/include\../../VC/include/unordered_set(64) :
> >error C2065: '_Hash_compare' : undeclared identifier
> >
> >the bot might be suffering from the issue described here:
> >http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcgeneral/thread/eaf24519-84e3-442e-ac7d-adab82a81ede
> >
> >"If you're using the original Feature Pack, you may want to install
> >the Feature Pack Refresh instead. If you installed the Windows SDK
> >after installing the Feature Pack, it overwrites a few headers and you
> >need to repair VS to get the Feature Pack headers back (this is
> >documented in the Feature Pack release notes)."
> >
> >If repairing does not work, install Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack Release from
> >http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=6922
> I've installed this now.
> Also, kicked off new builds.

If you have access to the files in that machine, you can verify by
looking at 

C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\include\xhash

In the broken header, when you search for _Hash_compare you find
nothing; after the fix you'll find some results:

$ grep --line-number _Hash_compare /cygdrive/c/Program\ Files\ 
\(x86\)/Microsoft\ Visual\ Studio\ 9.0/VC/include/xhash
146:// TEMPLATE CLASS _Hash_compare
150:class _Hash_compare
159:_Hash_compare()
163:_Hash_compare(hasher _Hasharg)
168:_Hash_compare(hasher _Hasharg, _Keyeq _Keyeqarg)


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgp_gLXdcrlAD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on aoo-win7

[Andrew Rist]

On 6/8/2013 3:46 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:35 AM,   wrote:

Hi! , The aoo-win7 builder has just completed a run

STATUS: Failure

  Build revision 1490123 on branch openoffice/trunk

  Snapshot results at: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/

  Build using the ASF buildslave: bb-win7

  Build results at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/642

  Build reason was: The Nightly scheduler named 'aoo-win7-nightly' triggered 
this build

C:/Progra~1/MICROS~1.0/VC/include\../../VC/include/unordered_set(64) :
error C2065: '_Hash_compare' : undeclared identifier

the bot might be suffering from the issue described here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcgeneral/thread/eaf24519-84e3-442e-ac7d-adab82a81ede

"If you're using the original Feature Pack, you may want to install
the Feature Pack Refresh instead. If you installed the Windows SDK
after installing the Feature Pack, it overwrites a few headers and you
need to repair VS to get the Feature Pack headers back (this is
documented in the Feature Pack release notes)."

If repairing does not work, install Visual C++ 2008 Feature Pack Release from
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=6922

I've installed this now.
Also, kicked off new builds.
A.



Regards

-
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: Ave atque vale

[Raphael Bircher]

Dear TJ

I CCed you in the e-Mail.

Am 10.06.13 00:22, schrieb TJ Frazier:

Dear friends,

Due to a terminal medical diagnosis, I am withdrawing from most 
participation in ASF and AOO. I will try to arrange a death notice, so 
that my privileges can be revoked at that time. Meanwhile, I may be 
able to kibitz a little.
I beleve it's hard for us all to replay such a message. I think it's 
hard to imagine how you feel now. Look, this project is a tecnical 
project. It's about one and zero's. But behind this bits and bytes are 
peoples. And even we don't know sameone in person, he counts to the AOO 
team. I hope you have good family members and friends around you, and I 
wish you the power of the world for the hard task in front of you.


In thoughts I am with you


I am unsubscribing from all lists but Announce, but will be available 
(maybe) through email / wiki.


It's been fun.

Thanks! We will miss you

Raphael


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

Re: Ave atque vale

[Alexandro Colorado]

Really sad news, hope the best for you.

On 6/9/13, TJ Frazier  wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> Due to a terminal medical diagnosis, I am withdrawing from most
> participation in ASF and AOO. I will try to arrange a death notice, so
> that my privileges can be revoked at that time. Meanwhile, I may be able
> to kibitz a little.
>
> I am unsubscribing from all lists but Announce, but will be available
> (maybe) through email / wiki.
>
> It's been fun.
>
> /tj/
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org

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

Ave atque vale

[TJ Frazier]

Dear friends,

Due to a terminal medical diagnosis, I am withdrawing from most 
participation in ASF and AOO. I will try to arrange a death notice, so 
that my privileges can be revoked at that time. Meanwhile, I may be able 
to kibitz a little.


I am unsubscribing from all lists but Announce, but will be available 
(maybe) through email / wiki.


It's been fun.

/tj/


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

Re: Certified DEVs

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> On 9 June 2013 22:18, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>> As I said, let's not worry about the certification thing. I doubt it
>>> is really worth the effort developing a formal certification program
>>> for so few. It really has to be thousands of possible candidates to
>>> make these things work and end users would be the only way of getting
>>> those numbers. It is only to answer the simple question "How many
>>> people are making or are likely to make significant coding
>>> contributions to the project?"  (I don't think TDF has the first clue
>>> about certification in general, it's just that happens to be where
>>> they are identifying their main coders.) Perhaps Dave's svn authors
>>> list would do it. Maybe its just not an issue. Just occurred to me
>>> that if someone asked me how many people work on AOO code I wouldn't
>>> be able to give any sort of answer.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I was responding to the topic of the thread that you started.
>> I'm not really interesting in rehashing the "whose is longer" debate
>> with LibreOffice.
>
> Seems I'm a bad communicator ;-) It's nothing to do with whose is
> longer. I was simply saying if someone asked me how many developers
> were making significant contributions at AOO I wouldn't be able to
> answer the question. Maybe everyone else can so its just my problem.
>

If I received such a question I'd say that OpenOffice is a 13-year old
open source project that has received contributions from hundreds of
developers and companies such as Sun, Oracle, Novell and IBM, that
contributors come and go, and that detailed data is available from our
public code repository history.

That's sufficient for any casual query.  If they want more information
then it is best for them to come to the dev list and explain exactly
what they are looking for, since there are a dozen different ways you
can slice and dice the data, and no one simple answer is sufficient
for all purposes.

-Rob

>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
> -
> 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: Certified DEVs

[Ian Lynch]

On 9 June 2013 22:18, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>> As I said, let's not worry about the certification thing. I doubt it
>> is really worth the effort developing a formal certification program
>> for so few. It really has to be thousands of possible candidates to
>> make these things work and end users would be the only way of getting
>> those numbers. It is only to answer the simple question "How many
>> people are making or are likely to make significant coding
>> contributions to the project?"  (I don't think TDF has the first clue
>> about certification in general, it's just that happens to be where
>> they are identifying their main coders.) Perhaps Dave's svn authors
>> list would do it. Maybe its just not an issue. Just occurred to me
>> that if someone asked me how many people work on AOO code I wouldn't
>> be able to give any sort of answer.
>>
>
> Sorry, I was responding to the topic of the thread that you started.
> I'm not really interesting in rehashing the "whose is longer" debate
> with LibreOffice.

Seems I'm a bad communicator ;-) It's nothing to do with whose is
longer. I was simply saying if someone asked me how many developers
were making significant contributions at AOO I wouldn't be able to
answer the question. Maybe everyone else can so its just my problem.


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

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

Re: Certified DEVs

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> As I said, let's not worry about the certification thing. I doubt it
> is really worth the effort developing a formal certification program
> for so few. It really has to be thousands of possible candidates to
> make these things work and end users would be the only way of getting
> those numbers. It is only to answer the simple question "How many
> people are making or are likely to make significant coding
> contributions to the project?"  (I don't think TDF has the first clue
> about certification in general, it's just that happens to be where
> they are identifying their main coders.) Perhaps Dave's svn authors
> list would do it. Maybe its just not an issue. Just occurred to me
> that if someone asked me how many people work on AOO code I wouldn't
> be able to give any sort of answer.
>

Sorry, I was responding to the topic of the thread that you started.
I'm not really interesting in rehashing the "whose is longer" debate
with LibreOffice.

-Rob

> On 9 June 2013 21:37, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>> On 9 June 2013 20:35, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
>> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
>> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
>> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
>
> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the 
> TDF process:
>
> From the page you cite:
>> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
>> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the 
>> Engineering Steering Committee.
>
> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
>> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is 
>> for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily 
>> complete nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse 
>> any of the listed companies. Interested parties are asked to 
>> individually assess if the listed companies are suitable for their 
>> respective requirements. If you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please 
>> inform us ati...@documentfoundation.org.
>
> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
> comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
>

 For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
 the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:

 http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight

> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X 
> commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported 
> by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding 
> the person with the least commits who is on their list.
>
> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. 
> This could also point to our full committer count to show that the 
> project values all contributions.
>
> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies 
> that are contributing.
>

 The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
 for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
 extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
 up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
 then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
 are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
 larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
 merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
 that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
 the same core rather than extending the reach.

 Regards,

 -Rob
>>>
>>> It wasn't so much the certification part that seems important. More
>>> that there are 26 people who are judged to be capable of (and probably
>>> willing) to make a significant contribution to LO code. How many AOO
>>> people can similarly be identified? Its just a simple thing if its
>>> easy to present. I'm not suggesting anyone spend a lot of time on it.
>>>
>>
>> I assume all LibreOffice developers are "capable" of contributing to
>> OpenOffice, at least at the technical level.   Vice versa as well, of
>> course.
>>
>> So if I were looking at a meaningful certification program and not
>> just a project-specific marketing campaign, I'd probable look for a
>> way to target the larger market, i.e., the combined developer base.
>> Otherwise it is like offering a certification for Windows 7 only, or
>> the apocryphal doctor who specializes in the left hand.  I'd define
>> the competency as "Open 

Re: Certified DEVs

[Ian Lynch]

As I said, let's not worry about the certification thing. I doubt it
is really worth the effort developing a formal certification program
for so few. It really has to be thousands of possible candidates to
make these things work and end users would be the only way of getting
those numbers. It is only to answer the simple question "How many
people are making or are likely to make significant coding
contributions to the project?"  (I don't think TDF has the first clue
about certification in general, it's just that happens to be where
they are identifying their main coders.) Perhaps Dave's svn authors
list would do it. Maybe its just not an issue. Just occurred to me
that if someone asked me how many people work on AOO code I wouldn't
be able to give any sort of answer.

On 9 June 2013 21:37, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>> On 9 June 2013 20:35, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

 On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:

> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.

 Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the 
 TDF process:

 From the page you cite:
> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the 
> Engineering Steering Committee.

 But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is 
> for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete 
> nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of 
> the listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess 
> if the listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements. 
> If you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us 
> ati...@documentfoundation.org.

 Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
 comparison may be fodder for press FUD.

>>>
>>> For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
>>> the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:
>>>
>>> http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight
>>>
 We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X 
 commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported 
 by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding 
 the person with the least commits who is on their list.

 If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. 
 This could also point to our full committer count to show that the project 
 values all contributions.

 We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies 
 that are contributing.

>>>
>>> The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
>>> for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
>>> extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
>>> up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
>>> then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
>>> are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
>>> larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
>>> merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
>>> that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
>>> the same core rather than extending the reach.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>
>> It wasn't so much the certification part that seems important. More
>> that there are 26 people who are judged to be capable of (and probably
>> willing) to make a significant contribution to LO code. How many AOO
>> people can similarly be identified? Its just a simple thing if its
>> easy to present. I'm not suggesting anyone spend a lot of time on it.
>>
>
> I assume all LibreOffice developers are "capable" of contributing to
> OpenOffice, at least at the technical level.   Vice versa as well, of
> course.
>
> So if I were looking at a meaningful certification program and not
> just a project-specific marketing campaign, I'd probable look for a
> way to target the larger market, i.e., the combined developer base.
> Otherwise it is like offering a certification for Windows 7 only, or
> the apocryphal doctor who specializes in the left hand.  I'd define
> the competency as "Open source productivity" or "the open source
> office", and consider both desktop software as well as complimentary
> server software like content management, and the skills needed to get
> this all working together.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> --
>> Ian
>>
>> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>>
>> Headline points in the 2014 and 201

Re: Certified DEVs

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> > On 9 June 2013 20:35, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> >>>
>  My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
>  developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
>  comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
> >>>
> >>> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand
> the TDF process:
> >>>
> >>> From the page you cite:
>  Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the
> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering
> Steering Committee.
> >>>
> >>> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of
> translation):
>  Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers
> is for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily
> complete nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse
> any of the listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually
> assess if the listed companies are suitable for their respective
> requirements. If you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us
> ati...@documentfoundation.org.
> >>>
> >>> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for
> like" comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
> >>>
> >>
> >> For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
> >> the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:
> >>
> >> http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight
> >>
> >>> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X
> commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported
> by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding
> the person with the least commits who is on their list.
> >>>
> >>> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog
> post. This could also point to our full committer count to show that the
> project values all contributions.
> >>>
> >>> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not
> companies that are contributing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
> >> for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
> >> extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
> >> up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
> >> then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
> >> are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
> >> larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
> >> merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
> >> that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
> >> the same core rather than extending the reach.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >
> > It wasn't so much the certification part that seems important. More
> > that there are 26 people who are judged to be capable of (and probably
> > willing) to make a significant contribution to LO code. How many AOO
> > people can similarly be identified? Its just a simple thing if its
> > easy to present. I'm not suggesting anyone spend a lot of time on it.
> >
>
> I assume all LibreOffice developers are "capable" of contributing to
> OpenOffice, at least at the technical level.   Vice versa as well, of
> course.
>
> So if I were looking at a meaningful certification program and not
> just a project-specific marketing campaign, I'd probable look for a
> way to target the larger market, i.e., the combined developer base.
> Otherwise it is like offering a certification for Windows 7 only, or
> the apocryphal doctor who specializes in the left hand.  I'd define
> the competency as "Open source productivity" or "the open source
> office", and consider both desktop software as well as complimentary
> server software like content management, and the skills needed to get
> this all working together.
>
> -Rob
>
> ​I don't see how this could be other than a project specific marketing
campaign. ​

​Basically because you either certified the process or certify the product
specific skills. I see more suitable to LibreOffice processes to be
transferable to Gnome since both communities share the same admins and
processes, than to Apache-way process. ​

>
> > --
> > Ian
> >
> > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
> >
> > Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
> >
> > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> >
> > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> > Wales.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.o

Re: Certified DEVs

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> On 9 June 2013 20:35, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>>
 My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
 developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
 comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
>>>
>>> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the TDF 
>>> process:
>>>
>>> From the page you cite:
 Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
 Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering 
 Steering Committee.
>>>
>>> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
 Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is 
 for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete 
 nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of the 
 listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess if 
 the listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements. If 
 you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us 
 ati...@documentfoundation.org.
>>>
>>> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
>>> comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
>>>
>>
>> For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
>> the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:
>>
>> http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight
>>
>>> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X 
>>> commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported 
>>> by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding 
>>> the person with the least commits who is on their list.
>>>
>>> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. 
>>> This could also point to our full committer count to show that the project 
>>> values all contributions.
>>>
>>> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies 
>>> that are contributing.
>>>
>>
>> The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
>> for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
>> extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
>> up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
>> then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
>> are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
>> larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
>> merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
>> that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
>> the same core rather than extending the reach.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>
> It wasn't so much the certification part that seems important. More
> that there are 26 people who are judged to be capable of (and probably
> willing) to make a significant contribution to LO code. How many AOO
> people can similarly be identified? Its just a simple thing if its
> easy to present. I'm not suggesting anyone spend a lot of time on it.
>

I assume all LibreOffice developers are "capable" of contributing to
OpenOffice, at least at the technical level.   Vice versa as well, of
course.

So if I were looking at a meaningful certification program and not
just a project-specific marketing campaign, I'd probable look for a
way to target the larger market, i.e., the combined developer base.
Otherwise it is like offering a certification for Windows 7 only, or
the apocryphal doctor who specializes in the left hand.  I'd define
the competency as "Open source productivity" or "the open source
office", and consider both desktop software as well as complimentary
server software like content management, and the skills needed to get
this all working together.

-Rob


> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
> -
> 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: Certified DEVs

[Ian Lynch]

On 9 June 2013 20:35, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>>> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
>>> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
>>> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
>>
>> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the TDF 
>> process:
>>
>> From the page you cite:
>>> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
>>> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering 
>>> Steering Committee.
>>
>> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
>>> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is 
>>> for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete 
>>> nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of the 
>>> listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess if 
>>> the listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements. If you 
>>> notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us 
>>> ati...@documentfoundation.org.
>>
>> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
>> comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
>>
>
> For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
> the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:
>
> http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight
>
>> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X 
>> commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported by 
>> examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding the 
>> person with the least commits who is on their list.
>>
>> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. 
>> This could also point to our full committer count to show that the project 
>> values all contributions.
>>
>> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies 
>> that are contributing.
>>
>
> The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
> for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
> extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
> up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
> then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
> are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
> larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
> merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
> that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
> the same core rather than extending the reach.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob

It wasn't so much the certification part that seems important. More
that there are 26 people who are judged to be capable of (and probably
willing) to make a significant contribution to LO code. How many AOO
people can similarly be identified? Its just a simple thing if its
easy to present. I'm not suggesting anyone spend a lot of time on it.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

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

Re: Certified DEVs

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 6/9/13, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>>> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
>>> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
>>> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
>>
>> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the
>> TDF process:
>>
>> From the page you cite:
>>> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the
>>> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the
>>> Engineering Steering Committee.
>>
>> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
>>> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is
>>> for your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete
>>> nor up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of
>>> the listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess
>>> if the listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements.
>>> If you notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us
>>> ati...@documentfoundation.org.
>>
>> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like"
>> comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
>>
>
> For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
> the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:
>
> http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight
>
>> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X
>> commits to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported
>> by examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding
>> the person with the least commits who is on their list.
>>
>> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post.
>> This could also point to our full committer count to show that the project
>> values all contributions.
>>
>> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies
>> that are contributing.
>>
>
> The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
> for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
> extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
> up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
> then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
> are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
> larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
> merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
> that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
> the same core rather than extending the reach.
>

A group of associates have been flirting around with the idea of an
OpenDocument Specialist. A course that will involved the ins, and out
of OpenDocument, AOO, and ODFToolkits as well as other odf
manipualtion tools outside of the projects.

I think is on a similar aim to create developers very familiar with
the tools, the specification and the manipulation of such as standard.

Although we are not that focused on certification (usually just a
school diploma validating the credits). I think the similar task to
develop a syllabus and objectives is something that could be useful
for people.

> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> On 9 June 2013 17:24, Dave Fisher  wrote:

 On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote:

> On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>
>> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>>
>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>>
>> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
>> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
>> considering such a thing?
>>

 The LO page is more about the people who are "certified" coders. This is
 a functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO
 committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing
 and most importantly Translation.

 Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we
 want to start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put
 our energy into writing the best code? [4]

>
> I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we
> do
> such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
> QA, documenters etc.

 Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an
 organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is
 important. It is community over code. [1]
 .
> I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
> where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to
> have
> for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the
> interest
> of each.

Re: Certified DEVs

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
>> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
>> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
>> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.
>
> Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the TDF 
> process:
>
> From the page you cite:
>> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
>> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering 
>> Steering Committee.
>
> But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
>> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is for 
>> your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete nor 
>> up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of the 
>> listed companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess if the 
>> listed companies are suitable for their respective requirements. If you 
>> notice mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us 
>> ati...@documentfoundation.org.
>
> Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
> comparison may be fodder for press FUD.
>

For the same credentials (and 100 pounds) one can become a Knight of
the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand:

http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack/knight

> We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X commits 
> to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported by 
> examining the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding the 
> person with the least commits who is on their list.
>
> If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. This 
> could also point to our full committer count to show that the project values 
> all contributions.
>
> We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies 
> that are contributing.
>

The other part is this:  what the market really needs is an easy way
for any competent developer to learn AOO programming, whether macros,
extensions or core, and be productive.   This is a need for good,
up-to-date documentation, sample apps, etc.  When that is in place
then we might be lucky enough to have a large number of developers who
are not also committers.  But until we've more fully enabled this
larger developer ecosystem, then any certification program would
merely be self-dealing, as it appears to be with LibreOffice.  And
that doesn't really accomplish anything.  It is just heaping titles on
the same core rather than extending the reach.

Regards,

-Rob


> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> On 9 June 2013 17:24, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote:
>>>
 On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>
> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
> considering such a thing?
>
>>>
>>> The LO page is more about the people who are "certified" coders. This is a 
>>> functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO 
>>> committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and 
>>> most importantly Translation.
>>>
>>> Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want 
>>> to start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our 
>>> energy into writing the best code? [4]
>>>

 I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we do
 such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
 QA, documenters etc.
>>>
>>> Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an 
>>> organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is 
>>> important. It is community over code. [1]
>>> .
 I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
 where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have
 for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest
 of each.
>>>
>>> We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it.
>>>
>>> It is currently in the CWiki here [2]
>>>
>>> Originally it was here [3]
>>>
>>> We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a 
>>> community of volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their 
>>> details on the wiki or request help with doing so.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> [1] http://communityovercode.com/
>>> [2] 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers
>>> [3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html
>>>
>>> [4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I 
>>> am against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there 
>>> is

Re: Certified DEVs

[Juergen Schmidt]

Am Sonntag, 9. Juni 2013 um 16:34 schrieb Rob Weir:

> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> > I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
> > 
> > http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
> > 
> > While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
> > something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
> > considering such a thing?
> > 
> 
> 
> If someone is actively contributing to the project, and their
> contributions have merit, then they would ordinarily be voted in as a
> committer. An "Apache Committer" is a recognized title in the
> industry. Try searching LinkedIn for the term, for example.
> 
> I don't think we want to confuse things with other titles, or dilute
> the value of "Apache Committer". We should focus on shipping more
> code, not more titles ;-)
> 
> 

+1

We should indeed focus on the code and the project. I don't know how they 
assign the title but when I review the list there is no surprise.

Juergen 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> > --
> > Ian
> > 
> > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
> > 
> > Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
> > 
> > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> > 
> > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> > Wales.
> > 
> > -
> > 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: Apache licence and derivated work

[Guy Waterval]

Hi Rob,

2013/6/8 Rob Weir 

>
> OK.  So this is entirely 3rd party and Apache policy does not apply.
>
> Section 4 of the ALv2 explains what is required by someone who
> modifies and redistributes a work under Apache license:
>
[...]

Many thanks for your answer, it's more clear for me now.
Regards
-- 
gw

Re: Certified DEVs

[Dave Fisher]

On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:

> My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
> developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
> comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.

Before we can make a like for like comparison we need to understand the TDF 
process:

From the page you cite:
> Certified Developers are present TDF members, were nominated by the 
> Certification Committee, and subsequently peer-reviewed by the Engineering 
> Steering Committee.

But there is also a disclaimer (with a grammatical error of translation):
> Notes on the aforementioned entries: our list of certified developers is for 
> your information, alphabetically sorted, and not necessarily complete nor 
> up-to-date. Specifically does TDF not recommend nor endorse any of the listed 
> companies. Interested parties are asked to individually assess if the listed 
> companies are suitable for their respective requirements. If you notice 
> mistakes or inaccuracies, please inform us ati...@documentfoundation.org.

Unless we can replicate this process I am afraid that any "like for like" 
comparison may be fodder for press FUD.

We would need to use a publicly measurable approach like "more than X commits 
to the code base". It is likely that X would need to be supported by examining 
the commit logs of LO and comparing with their list finding the person with the 
least commits who is on their list.

If someone can provide this comparison then I would support a blog post. This 
could also point to our full committer count to show that the project values 
all contributions.

We can also emphasize that at the ASF it is individuals and not companies that 
are contributing.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> On 9 June 2013 17:24, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>> 
 I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
 
 http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
 
 While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
 something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
 considering such a thing?
 
>> 
>> The LO page is more about the people who are "certified" coders. This is a 
>> functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO 
>> committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and 
>> most importantly Translation.
>> 
>> Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want to 
>> start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our energy 
>> into writing the best code? [4]
>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we do
>>> such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
>>> QA, documenters etc.
>> 
>> Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an 
>> organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is 
>> important. It is community over code. [1]
>> .
>>> I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
>>> where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have
>>> for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest
>>> of each.
>> 
>> We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it.
>> 
>> It is currently in the CWiki here [2]
>> 
>> Originally it was here [3]
>> 
>> We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a community 
>> of volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their details on 
>> the wiki or request help with doing so.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> [1] http://communityovercode.com/
>> [2] 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers
>> [3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html
>> 
>> [4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I am 
>> against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there is a 
>> demonstrated problem. This may be done in private. If I have inexplicably 
>> changed my mind later then it will be because a real security threat to the 
>> AOO codebase is manifest.
>> 
>>> 
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>> 
 
 --
 Ian
 
 Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
 
 Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
 
 www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
 
 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
 Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
 Wales.
 
 -
 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...@

Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]

[RGB ES]

2013/6/9 Andrea Pescetti 

> On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:
>
>> At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
>> that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
>> here is one possible idea:
>>
>> 1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
>> /Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
>> outdated
>> 2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
>> described bellow
>>
>
> This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere. I'd
> prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something related to
> version 3.


Agree. Calling it Documentation-3 is perfect.



> And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO" but simply
> "Documentation".


Sure, that was the original idea. I just mentioned Documentation-AOO as a
transitional page where we can work without hurry, and then move the pages
to their right positions.

>From Tuesday I'll start to work on the Draw guide, someone that can help me
with the portal page? I can do it myself, of course, but only on a couple
of weeks.

Regards
Ricardo



> Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the wiki, it is the main subject of
> the wiki, so it is redundant to say in the title that wiki pages discuss
> Apache OpenOffice.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: non-pro build of r1491954 on Windows breaks in sal

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi Regina,

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 04:27:51PM +0200, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I know there is https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122500
> " Impossible to build with Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition" but I'm
> no sure, whether my problem is the same.
> 
> I use VC 2008 Express SP1. I get the error:
> 
> Compiling: sal/systools/win32/kill/creating pr/src/io/Makefile
> kill.cxx
> Compiling: 
> sal/rtl/source/C:/AOO_2013_06_08/trunk/main/solver/400/wntmsci12/inc/stl\config/stl_select_lib.h(26)
> : fatal error C1189: #error :  "For static link with STLport
> library, _DEBUG setting MUST be on when _STLP_DEBUG is on. (/MTd
> forces _DEBUG)"
> dmake:  Error code 2, while making '../../../wntmsci12/obj/kill.obj'
> 
> I have neither --without-stlport nor --with-stlport in my configure.

The default is still building with stlport. A pro build breaks in
lingucomponent, I didn't try a non-pro with stlport.

You may want to reconfigure --without-stlport and see what happens
(AFAIK the release builds will be built without stlport).


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpItl3MaZRBY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Certified DEVs

[Ian Lynch]

My main thought was market confidence. If LO can say they have 26
developers working on code it would be interesting to have a
comparison on a similar "like for like" basis.

On 9 June 2013 17:24, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote:
>
>> On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>>>
>>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>>>
>>> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
>>> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
>>> considering such a thing?
>>>
>
> The LO page is more about the people who are "certified" coders. This is a 
> functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO 
> committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and 
> most importantly Translation.
>
> Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want to 
> start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our energy 
> into writing the best code? [4]
>
>>
>> I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we do
>> such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
>> QA, documenters etc.
>
> Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an 
> organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is 
> important. It is community over code. [1]
> .
>> I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
>> where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have
>> for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest
>> of each.
>
> We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it.
>
> It is currently in the CWiki here [2]
>
> Originally it was here [3]
>
> We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a community 
> of volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their details on the 
> wiki or request help with doing so.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> [1] http://communityovercode.com/
> [2] 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers
> [3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html
>
> [4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I am 
> against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there is a 
> demonstrated problem. This may be done in private. If I have inexplicably 
> changed my mind later then it will be because a real security threat to the 
> AOO codebase is manifest.
>
>>
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>>>
>>> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>>>
>>> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>>>
>>> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
>>> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
>>> Wales.
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>



-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

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

Re: problem opening older Word 6 doc with 4.0

[Kay Schenk]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
>
>> Kay,
>>   Could you please share the bug ID when you reported it?
>>   It sounds like a ship stopper candidate if can be confirmed.
>>   Thanks!
>>
>> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>>
>
> Well I did create an issue on it with the attached document. Some comments
> were received concerning the fact that that the doc could not be opened
> with 3.4.1, 3.3, so maybe the document attached was corrupt.
>
> In any case, I can not find my reported issue at the moment. If I locate
> it, I will post the id here.
>

Here's the issue number and additional findings:

 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122489

>
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/7 Max Merbald 
>>
>> > Thank you! Since there still are quite a few older files around AOo 4
>> > should be able to open them.
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 06.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> >
>> >  4.0 is giving me this message when trying to open an older Word 6
>> version
>> >> document...
>> >>
>> >> "Read-Error .
>> >> This is not a WinWord 97 file."
>> >>
>> >> This is an old document I downloaded from a public server quite some
>> time
>> >> ago.
>> >>
>> >> it was readable in 3.4.1, but not now.
>> >>
>> >> I will file a bug and upload it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> --**--**-
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
>> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 
> MzK
>
> "You can't believe one thing and do another.
>  What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
>  -- Leonard Peltier
>



-- 

MzK

"You can't believe one thing and do another.
 What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
 -- Leonard Peltier

Re: Certified DEVs

[Dave Fisher]

On Jun 9, 2013, at 7:36 AM, janI wrote:

> On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> 
>> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>> 
>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>> 
>> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
>> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
>> considering such a thing?
>> 

The LO page is more about the people who are "certified" coders. This is a 
functional equivalent to an svn auth list on the codebase - those AOO 
committers who work on the codebase as opposed to QA, Infra, Marketing and most 
importantly Translation.

Apache is a flat organization. We don't make this distinction. Do we want to 
start playing a marketing game of numbers, or do we want to put our energy into 
writing the best code? [4]

> 
> I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we do
> such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
> QA, documenters etc.

Exactly. If anything we should highlight our differences. We are an 
organization where active contribution and engagement of all kinds is 
important. It is community over code. [1]
.
> I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
> where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have
> for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest
> of each.

We have built similar information. Committers just need to maintain it.

It is currently in the CWiki here [2]

Originally it was here [3]

We could add more here, or we could describe that the project is a community of 
volunteers, etc. We could remind committers to update their details on the wiki 
or request help with doing so.

Regards,
Dave

[1] http://communityovercode.com/
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers
[3] http://openoffice.apache.org/people.html

[4] I don't want to restart this discussion, but this is one reason why I am 
against having a different svn auth list for the codebase unless there is a 
demonstrated problem. This may be done in private. If I have inexplicably 
changed my mind later then it will be because a real security threat to the AOO 
codebase is manifest. 

> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Ian
>> 
>> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>> 
>> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>> 
>> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>> 
>> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
>> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
>> Wales.
>> 
>> -
>> 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: [DL][Website] Preparing AOO 4

[Kay Schenk]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 06/09/2013 11:00 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>  Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>
>>> Am 06/09/2013 12:18 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>
 * Release Schedule is actually a "Release History", or timeline

>>> Right. Wouldn't it then be better to point to the new schedule?
>>>
>>
>> No, this would mix stable and unstable version information and we are
>> already quite paranoid on not linking unstable builds... So I would just
>> rename the link to "Release History" and keep it as it is.
>>
>
> The link points to the schedule, not to the wiki for downloading snapshot
> builds. And I don't see any cross link to it.
>
>
>  * Dictionaries leads to a totally outdated section. We recently
 consolidated all dictionaries in extensions.openoffice.org , so I'd
 recommend a link "Extensions and Dictionaries" pointing to
 extensions.openoffice.org instead of two separate links.

>>> Then it's IMHO better to extend the link in the light blue box to speak
>>> about "Get Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Dictionaries" and delete the
>>> link in the nav sidebar.
>>>
>>
>> Updating the blue box is OK. And for the right sidebar, I don't see a
>> risk with duplication, a lot of stuff is already duplicated: we can even
>> leave it as it and link "Dictionaries" to
>> http://extensions.openoffice.**org  ;
>>
>
> OK, updated.
>
>
> > the important part is to avoid that
>
>> users are driven to a totally outdated page recommending now deprecated
>> and obsolete features like DicOOo.
>>
>
> What about the link to the building guide? I've lost the overview where
> the best data is.
>

The Build Guide link you have seems OK to me.


>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 

MzK

"You can't believe one thing and do another.
 What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
 -- Leonard Peltier

Re: [Discuss][Wiki]"Synchronizing" (or not) localized wiki sites [was: Fwd: [UserGuide]My "roadmap"]

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 08/06/2013 RGB ES wrote:

At this point, I think we all agree that we have a bit of a license mess
that needs to be fixed in order to clarify the documentation project. So
here is one possible idea:

1- Move the current /Documentation page to /Documentation-OLD or
/Documentation-LEGACY(1), indicating at the begining that the content is
outdated
2- Create a new "portal" page on the old url with the characteristic
described bellow


This could work. But I'm tired of seeing "Legacy" notices everywhere. 
I'd prefer to call the "legacy" stuff "Documentation-3" or something 
related to version 3. And "new" stuff should not be "Documentation-AOO" 
but simply "Documentation". Apache OpenOffice is not a guest on the 
wiki, it is the main subject of the wiki, so it is redundant to say in 
the title that wiki pages discuss Apache OpenOffice.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: problem opening older Word 6 doc with 4.0

[Kay Schenk]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:

> Kay,
>   Could you please share the bug ID when you reported it?
>   It sounds like a ship stopper candidate if can be confirmed.
>   Thanks!
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>

Well I did create an issue on it with the attached document. Some comments
were received concerning the fact that that the doc could not be opened
with 3.4.1, 3.3, so maybe the document attached was corrupt.

In any case, I can not find my reported issue at the moment. If I locate
it, I will post the id here.

>
>
>
> 2013/6/7 Max Merbald 
>
> > Thank you! Since there still are quite a few older files around AOo 4
> > should be able to open them.
> >
> >
> > Am 06.06.2013 18:25, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >
> >  4.0 is giving me this message when trying to open an older Word 6
> version
> >> document...
> >>
> >> "Read-Error .
> >> This is not a WinWord 97 file."
> >>
> >> This is an old document I downloaded from a public server quite some
> time
> >> ago.
> >>
> >> it was readable in 3.4.1, but not now.
> >>
> >> I will file a bug and upload it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --**--**-
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 

MzK

"You can't believe one thing and do another.
 What you believe and what you do are the same thing."
 -- Leonard Peltier

Re: Certified DEVs

[janI]

On 9 June 2013 16:04, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>
> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
> considering such a thing?
>

I think the committer status, covers much of the "certification", if we do
such a thing for developers, we should also do it for
QA, documenters etc.

I do like the lo page, as such, because it clearly shows who (and from
where) are paid, and who are volunteers. Such a list would be nice to have
for newcommers, especially if it included a line or two about the interest
of each.

rgds
jan I.

>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Certified DEVs

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.
>
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/
>
> While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
> something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
> considering such a thing?
>

If someone is actively contributing to the project, and their
contributions have merit, then they would ordinarily be voted in as a
committer.   An "Apache Committer" is a recognized title in the
industry.  Try searching LinkedIn for the term, for example.

I don't think we want to confuse things with other titles, or dilute
the value of "Apache Committer".  We should focus on shipping more
code, not more titles ;-)

-Rob

> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
>
> Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>
> -
> 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

non-pro build of r1491954 on Windows breaks in sal

[Regina Henschel]

Hi,

I know there is https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122500 " 
Impossible to build with Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition" but I'm no 
sure, whether my problem is the same.


I use VC 2008 Express SP1. I get the error:

Compiling: sal/systools/win32/kill/creating pr/src/io/Makefile
kill.cxx
Compiling: 
sal/rtl/source/C:/AOO_2013_06_08/trunk/main/solver/400/wntmsci12/inc/stl\config/stl_select_lib.h(26) 
: fatal error C1189: #error :  "For static link with STLport library, 
_DEBUG setting MUST be on when _STLP_DEBUG is on. (/MTd forces _DEBUG)"

dmake:  Error code 2, while making '../../../wntmsci12/obj/kill.obj'

I have neither --without-stlport nor --with-stlport in my configure.

Kind regards
Regina

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

Certified DEVs

[Ian Lynch]

I noticed that LibreO has 26 Certified Developers.

http://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/

While we have the concept of a committer here at AOO is there
something specific for active code developers? Would it be worth
considering such a thing?

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications

Headline points in the 2014 and 2015 school league tables

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

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

Fwd: Need QA (test) volunteers on Ubuntu 64bit

[Yuzhen Fan]

Add QA group I just missed ..

-- Forwarded message --
From: Yuzhen Fan 
Date: Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Need QA (test) volunteers on Ubuntu 64bit
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org


Mechtilde, thank you for the reporting, you can check the issue you found
in a newer build, if it still happens, please open a bug in Bugzilla.

Regards,
Yu Zhen


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I use AOO 4.0 pre since weeks for nomal use under Debian/wheezy  64 bit.
>
> In general it works. As the other time if I found e bug I will report it.
>
> My last build is from 2013-04-26. I look now for a newer one.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> Am 09.06.2013 09:17, schrieb Yuzhen Fan:
> > Thanks Anna and Edwin for your quick response and volunteering! Here is
> the
> > assignment for you both and general testing list is attached
> >
> > Anna is for components: Math, Base, Calc, Accessibility
> > Edwin is for components: Writer, Impress, Draw
> >
> > Testing requirement:
> > 1. Do a quick go through with latest dev snapshot build(contains stlport
> > change) on Ubuntu 64bit(VM installation is also OK)
> > 2. Notify us once critical bugs are discovered
> > 3. Send the test result to me for consolidation with other platforms
> before
> > June 14, better June 13
> >
> > Thanks again for your participate!!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yu Zhen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Edwin Sharp  wrote:
> >
> >> Please assigm me checklist.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 13:59, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We have achieved the exeution target on full regression testing, as
> every
> >>> QA assignee continues to do their assignments or retest for failed test
> >>> cases when related defects have been resolved, We now have another work
> >>> with more higher priority, that is to do a quick go through with latest
> >> dev
> >>> snapshot build(contains stlport change) by end of next week (*June
> 14*).
> >>>
> >>> We're looking for people who can spend a few time over next week to run
> >>> pre-defined checklist on their Ubuntu 64bit, and to enter Bugzilla
> issues
> >>> for any failed test functions, as well as to highlighter the critical
> >> bugs
> >>> in the report.
> >>>
> >>> If you have interest on it, please let me know as soon as possible, I
> >> will
> >>> send you the general testing list. Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Yu Zhen
>
>
>

Re: Need QA (test) volunteers on Ubuntu 64bit

[Yuzhen Fan]

Mechtilde, thank you for the reporting, you can check the issue you found
in a newer build, if it still happens, please open a bug in Bugzilla.

Regards,
Yu Zhen


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I use AOO 4.0 pre since weeks for nomal use under Debian/wheezy  64 bit.
>
> In general it works. As the other time if I found e bug I will report it.
>
> My last build is from 2013-04-26. I look now for a newer one.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> Am 09.06.2013 09:17, schrieb Yuzhen Fan:
> > Thanks Anna and Edwin for your quick response and volunteering! Here is
> the
> > assignment for you both and general testing list is attached
> >
> > Anna is for components: Math, Base, Calc, Accessibility
> > Edwin is for components: Writer, Impress, Draw
> >
> > Testing requirement:
> > 1. Do a quick go through with latest dev snapshot build(contains stlport
> > change) on Ubuntu 64bit(VM installation is also OK)
> > 2. Notify us once critical bugs are discovered
> > 3. Send the test result to me for consolidation with other platforms
> before
> > June 14, better June 13
> >
> > Thanks again for your participate!!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yu Zhen
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Edwin Sharp  wrote:
> >
> >> Please assigm me checklist.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 13:59, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We have achieved the exeution target on full regression testing, as
> every
> >>> QA assignee continues to do their assignments or retest for failed test
> >>> cases when related defects have been resolved, We now have another work
> >>> with more higher priority, that is to do a quick go through with latest
> >> dev
> >>> snapshot build(contains stlport change) by end of next week (*June
> 14*).
> >>>
> >>> We're looking for people who can spend a few time over next week to run
> >>> pre-defined checklist on their Ubuntu 64bit, and to enter Bugzilla
> issues
> >>> for any failed test functions, as well as to highlighter the critical
> >> bugs
> >>> in the report.
> >>>
> >>> If you have interest on it, please let me know as soon as possible, I
> >> will
> >>> send you the general testing list. Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Yu Zhen
>
>
>

Re: Need QA (test) volunteers on Ubuntu 64bit

[Mechtilde]

Hello,

I use AOO 4.0 pre since weeks for nomal use under Debian/wheezy  64 bit.

In general it works. As the other time if I found e bug I will report it.

My last build is from 2013-04-26. I look now for a newer one.

Kind regards

Mechtilde

Am 09.06.2013 09:17, schrieb Yuzhen Fan:
> Thanks Anna and Edwin for your quick response and volunteering! Here is the
> assignment for you both and general testing list is attached
> 
> Anna is for components: Math, Base, Calc, Accessibility
> Edwin is for components: Writer, Impress, Draw
> 
> Testing requirement:
> 1. Do a quick go through with latest dev snapshot build(contains stlport
> change) on Ubuntu 64bit(VM installation is also OK)
> 2. Notify us once critical bugs are discovered
> 3. Send the test result to me for consolidation with other platforms before
> June 14, better June 13
> 
> Thanks again for your participate!!
> 
> Regards,
> Yu Zhen
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Edwin Sharp  wrote:
> 
>> Please assigm me checklist.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 13:59, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have achieved the exeution target on full regression testing, as every
>>> QA assignee continues to do their assignments or retest for failed test
>>> cases when related defects have been resolved, We now have another work
>>> with more higher priority, that is to do a quick go through with latest
>> dev
>>> snapshot build(contains stlport change) by end of next week (*June 14*).
>>>
>>> We're looking for people who can spend a few time over next week to run
>>> pre-defined checklist on their Ubuntu 64bit, and to enter Bugzilla issues
>>> for any failed test functions, as well as to highlighter the critical
>> bugs
>>> in the report.
>>>
>>> If you have interest on it, please let me know as soon as possible, I
>> will
>>> send you the general testing list. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Yu Zhen




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DL][Website] Preparing AOO 4

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 06/09/2013 11:00 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 06/09/2013 12:18 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

* Release Schedule is actually a "Release History", or timeline

Right. Wouldn't it then be better to point to the new schedule?


No, this would mix stable and unstable version information and we are
already quite paranoid on not linking unstable builds... So I would just
rename the link to "Release History" and keep it as it is.


The link points to the schedule, not to the wiki for downloading 
snapshot builds. And I don't see any cross link to it.



* Dictionaries leads to a totally outdated section. We recently
consolidated all dictionaries in extensions.openoffice.org , so I'd
recommend a link "Extensions and Dictionaries" pointing to
extensions.openoffice.org instead of two separate links.

Then it's IMHO better to extend the link in the light blue box to speak
about "Get Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Dictionaries" and delete the
link in the nav sidebar.


Updating the blue box is OK. And for the right sidebar, I don't see a
risk with duplication, a lot of stuff is already duplicated: we can even
leave it as it and link "Dictionaries" to
http://extensions.openoffice.org ;


OK, updated.

> the important part is to avoid that

users are driven to a totally outdated page recommending now deprecated
and obsolete features like DicOOo.


What about the link to the building guide? I've lost the overview where 
the best data is.


Marcus


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

Slides custom work

[Szegő Miklós]

 Hi, here is mike from Budapest,Hungary  :-)

Looking for an open source version of Slideshare I
have found you on the net. Certainly you know that
the new Google Hangout/s/  uses the technology of
Slideshare. This would I "override" with an alternative
version if possible.

Please give me your estimate to the following task
regarding my own app. in developing status.

As "demo" pls. watch on this side the first video
https://sites.google.com/site/plusquant/videos-of-previous-talks
As you could see:
-at 1:20 from the start,
-the man from the webcam into the bigger player /David Poulin/ says:
-"...lookin the slides..." than
- from 1:47 the slides appear on the big player "before" David
one by one /they fill the big player/ and we hear David's voice.
Then, at the end of presentation of the documents on the screen,
David appears again.

So I like to have a very similar solution for our Moderator, who will
sit on a similar big player. Each Moderator /Client/ has
an own webadmin and surely /??/ he should be able
-to upload his files on our Wowza server, prior of the live show
-and when he choose to show this files to the audience
-to be able to show one by one /play/stop/ his slides and
-these slides should fill the whole big player

Next to your estimate please tell me how many days could you code it
into the Wowza server side script.
If you need help in Wowza server side programming, I could contact
you with a developer

Best regards
Szego Miklos/Mike, Budapest
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/miklos-szego/7/b50/522




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

Re: [DL][Website] Preparing AOO 4

[Andrea Pescetti]

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 06/09/2013 12:18 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

* Release Schedule is actually a "Release History", or timeline

Right. Wouldn't it then be better to point to the new schedule?


No, this would mix stable and unstable version information and we are 
already quite paranoid on not linking unstable builds... So I would just 
rename the link to "Release History" and keep it as it is.



* Dictionaries leads to a totally outdated section. We recently
consolidated all dictionaries in extensions.openoffice.org , so I'd
recommend a link "Extensions and Dictionaries" pointing to
extensions.openoffice.org instead of two separate links.

Then it's IMHO better to extend the link in the light blue box to speak
about "Get Apache OpenOffice Extensions and Dictionaries" and delete the
link in the nav sidebar.


Updating the blue box is OK. And for the right sidebar, I don't see a 
risk with duplication, a lot of stuff is already duplicated: we can even 
leave it as it and link "Dictionaries" to 
http://extensions.openoffice.org ; the important part is to avoid that 
users are driven to a totally outdated page recommending now deprecated 
and obsolete features like DicOOo.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Need QA (test) volunteers on Ubuntu 64bit

[Yuzhen Fan]

Thanks Anna and Edwin for your quick response and volunteering! Here is the
assignment for you both and general testing list is attached

Anna is for components: Math, Base, Calc, Accessibility
Edwin is for components: Writer, Impress, Draw

Testing requirement:
1. Do a quick go through with latest dev snapshot build(contains stlport
change) on Ubuntu 64bit(VM installation is also OK)
2. Notify us once critical bugs are discovered
3. Send the test result to me for consolidation with other platforms before
June 14, better June 13

Thanks again for your participate!!

Regards,
Yu Zhen



On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Edwin Sharp  wrote:

> Please assigm me checklist.
>
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013, at 13:59, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have achieved the exeution target on full regression testing, as every
> > QA assignee continues to do their assignments or retest for failed test
> > cases when related defects have been resolved, We now have another work
> > with more higher priority, that is to do a quick go through with latest
> dev
> > snapshot build(contains stlport change) by end of next week (*June 14*).
> >
> > We're looking for people who can spend a few time over next week to run
> > pre-defined checklist on their Ubuntu 64bit, and to enter Bugzilla issues
> > for any failed test functions, as well as to highlighter the critical
> bugs
> > in the report.
> >
> > If you have interest on it, please let me know as soon as possible, I
> will
> > send you the general testing list. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yu Zhen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


General Testing List.xlsx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet

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