Lending a Hand
Hello, I'm Robin, I do QA and is good to be here. Thus, I look forward to our working together on this great product. Have a great day! R. -- Robintel BMS www.robintel.ro
Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1
On 8/13/13 6:55 PM, Ricardo Berlasso wrote: 2013/8/13 Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: But if we change it it annoys potentially other users. The question is what would be the correct and most often wanted default. What is the purpose of showing margins, and by extension, seeing text smaller, (less zoom level)?. Is there any data the user can put on Margins? change the margin colors? put pictures in margins?. In short: what use is there for margins taking a sizeable portion of the screen size? I do not see those margin you talk about and for a good reason: I never use maximized windows. I hate maximized windows. Other people love maximized windows, of course, but many of us just hate them: how do you count how many people is on each camp? Default values are an important discussion point and I started a couple of threads about defaults in the past, but defaults are also an incredible difficult question where almost all possible answers are at the same time wrong and right for someone. I propose to start (again) a discussion about default values, but not now: let's concentrate on 4.0.1. please start a new thread for this topic. It's a feature/enhancement discussion and doesn't belong to the topic of this thread Thanks Juergen Regards Ricardo I'm not saying we should NOT show margings, after all, in Optimal width, a portion of the margins is seen, but not 50-100 pixels of them, on every side. I'm not even saying the view with margins is wrong, maybe someone wants to look at the bigger picture. But for TYPING text, optimal width is the best. So, again, why isn't that option the default?. Maybe the UX guys can comment?. And yes, I'd love to see a survey. And even better, some telemetry (like Firefox' ) about how many users, when typing or browsing text documents, end up viewing the document in optimize width mode). Thanks for taking the time to answer, btw. Appreciate it. Best regards, FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell - 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
[RELEASE]: propose translation deadline for AOO 4.0.1
Hi, it seems that besides new languages some communities are working on fixes/improvements of the existing translation which is fine for me. To coordinate this work with the rest I would like to propose a general translation deadline for new languages as well as updates of existing ones. I propose September 6th, 2013 - 12:00 UTC at noon Please take this date into account of any translation related planning. Changes after this date won't make it into AOO 4.0.1 and the earlier you have finished the work the better it is and you will have more time for testing and potential further fixes. The general workflow is to create an issue, assign it to me and request the showstopper flag. When the translation is ready put a comment in the issue to signal that it can be integrated. Thanks Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Pootle] about translating AOOE site
2013/8/13 janI j...@apache.org On 12 August 2013 23:47, Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/8/12 janI j...@apache.org On 12 August 2013 11:11, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 12 August 2013 11:01, Raphael Bircher r.birc...@gmx.ch wrote: Am 12.08.13 10:56, schrieb janI: On 12 August 2013 10:48, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com **wrote: Could we create a pootle project on translate.apache.org to upload AOOE PO files and get them translated? I have the karma to do that, but sorry for my lack of knowledge, what is AOOE compared to AOO ? Apache OpenOffice Extension Website?! that was too simple, why did I not see that. Project is created, so as soon as I get the files I will put them on the vm. After the initial load anybody can download them, and users can upload changes. Great! Just a small comment: there is a typo on the project name: there is a missing i between the f and the c: it says Apache OpenOffce Extensions. corrected (not by me someone was faster). I am still waiting for the initial batch of po files, you cannot load the primary set yourself. Thanks Jan, We are now cleaning up PO files that actually contain thousands of Drupal strings, I'll be back to yo with an English, German and French versions in few days. If it works fine we'll be able to add the Polish version right away. Roberto In general we need .pot (po template files for en-US), these act as template files for all languages. Furthermore an administrator (e.g. me) needs to activate new languages, currently no languages are active. rgds jan I. Regards Ricardo rgds jan I. thx. rgds jan I. If you make the po files available to me, I can do it relative fast. rgds jan I. Roberto --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Debian Build Scripts
Hi there, I am looking for the debian source packages and or debian/rules for apache open office, can anyone give me some pointers? mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Debian Build Scripts
On 14.08.2013 12:57, Mike Dupont wrote: I am looking for the debian source packages and or debian/rules for apache open office, can anyone give me some pointers? AOO creates its Debian packages using EPM [1] when the configure option --with-package-format=deb is given to the AOO build. They are assembled when AOO builds its main/postprocess module using some perl scripts in main/solenv/bin/ [1] http://www.msweet.org/projects.php?Z2 Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Debian Build Scripts
Thank you, that is what I was looking for! mike On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: On 14.08.2013 12:57, Mike Dupont wrote: I am looking for the debian source packages and or debian/rules for apache open office, can anyone give me some pointers? AOO creates its Debian packages using EPM [1] when the configure option --with-package-format=deb is given to the AOO build. They are assembled when AOO builds its main/postprocess module using some perl scripts in main/solenv/bin/ [1] http://www.msweet.org/projects.php?Z2 Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: unexpected behavior from configure -- new env script not generated
On 13.08.2013 23:02, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:16 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 13 August 2013 21:03, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday, I did a dmake clean to start over with my build, and then proceded with autoconf and configure. I had chagned my ant version a while back and this was reflected in my configure call. Much to my surprise, the old ant version seemed to be stuck' in configure's brain, and it took me a while to track this down and just delete my existing shell environment script. Then the configure worked as expected. This was the ONLY change in my configure params Any guesses as to the cause of this? * Is this a problem with *my* system autoconf or configure ? * is this how things normally work and we should document this in the build I have had similar problems a couple of times. I used to have source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh in .bashrc, meaning environment was set when I ran configure. After having a couple of strange problem (in my case with epm), I took source... out of .bashrc, so securing that I run configure without the AOO environment, since then I have not had problems. Due to my genLang tests, I do configure a couple of times pr week (to test my build changes). hope it helps. rgds jan I. instructions ? got around it by just deleting my *.sh file and then running configure again. If I knew more about autoconf, I could just put some code in that to delete it. Configure is supposed to create the environment -- part of the AC_OUTPUT I think, so this is why I asked about this. In my case, my *.sh is not getting overwritten but seemingly reused. Deleting the *.sh file when running configure would not have the desired effect. The problem is not that the file exists but that it has been run prior to calling configure. Run configure in a 'clean' shell and you should have no problems. -Andre I'm looking at configure.in etc but since I'm not an autoconf guru, well, what to do. -- - MzK Success is falling nine times and getting up ten. -- Jon Bon Jovi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: unexpected behavior from configure -- new env script not generated
Hi, On 14.08.2013 14:28, Andre Fischer wrote: On 13.08.2013 23:02, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:16 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 13 August 2013 21:03, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday, I did a dmake clean to start over with my build, and then proceded with autoconf and configure. I had chagned my ant version a while back and this was reflected in my configure call. Much to my surprise, the old ant version seemed to be stuck' in configure's brain, and it took me a while to track this down and just delete my existing shell environment script. Then the configure worked as expected. This was the ONLY change in my configure params Any guesses as to the cause of this? * Is this a problem with *my* system autoconf or configure ? * is this how things normally work and we should document this in the build I have had similar problems a couple of times. I used to have source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh in .bashrc, meaning environment was set when I ran configure. After having a couple of strange problem (in my case with epm), I took source... out of .bashrc, so securing that I run configure without the AOO environment, since then I have not had problems. Due to my genLang tests, I do configure a couple of times pr week (to test my build changes). hope it helps. rgds jan I. instructions ? got around it by just deleting my *.sh file and then running configure again. If I knew more about autoconf, I could just put some code in that to delete it. Configure is supposed to create the environment -- part of the AC_OUTPUT I think, so this is why I asked about this. In my case, my *.sh is not getting overwritten but seemingly reused. Deleting the *.sh file when running configure would not have the desired effect. The problem is not that the file exists but that it has been run prior to calling configure. Run configure in a 'clean' shell and you should have no problems. This is my experience, too. Esp. under Linux I always start with a new shell, when I want to configure my AOO build environment. Best regards, Oliver. I'm looking at configure.in etc but since I'm not an autoconf guru, well, what to do. -- - MzK Success is falling nine times and getting up ten. -- Jon Bon Jovi - 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
Some thoughts on quality
We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0. The fact that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows that we value quality. I'd like to take this a step further, and see what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do going forward to improve. Quality, in the end, is a process, not a state of grace. We improve by working smarter, not working harder. The goal should be to learn and improve, as individuals and as a community. Every regression that made it into 4.0.0 was added there by a programmer. And the defect went undetected by testers. This is not to blame. It just means that we're all human. We know that. We all make mistakes. I make mistakes. A quality process is not about becoming perfect, but about acknowledging that we make mistakes and that certain formal and informal practices are needed to prevent and detect these mistakes. But enough about generalities. I'm hoping you'll join with me in examining the 32 confirmed 4.0.0 regression defects and answering a few questions: 1) What caused the bug? What was the root cause? Note: programmer error is not really a cause. We should ask what caused the error. 2) What can we do to prevent bugs like this from being checked in? 3) Why wasn't the bug found during testing? Was it not covered by any existing test case? Was a test case run but the defect was not recognized? Was the defect introduced into the software after the tests had already been executed? 4) What can we do to ensure that bugs like this are caught during testing? So 2 basic questions -- what went wrong and how can we prevent it in the future, looked at from perspective of programmers and testers. If we can keep these questions in mind, and try to answer them, we may be able to find some patterns that can lead to some process changes for AOO 4.1. You can find the 4.0.0 regressions in Bugzilla here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=400_regressionssharer_id=248521list_id=80834 Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[BUILD] Linux32 snapshot configure
Here is the current configure statement for the Linux32 bot - is this correct, and what changes would make it better? ./configure \ --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk \ --with-epm-url=http://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \ --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2; \ --enable-verbose \ --without-stlport \ --enable-category-b \ --enable-opengl \ --enable-dbus \ --enable-gstreamer \ --with-package-format=installed rpm deb \ --enable-bundled-dictionaries \ --with-lang=ast cs de el en-GB en-US es fi fr gd gl hu it ja km ko nl pl pt pt-BR ru sk sl ta zh-CN zh-TW ca eu he hi id lt sv th tr \ --with-vendor=Apache OpenOffice buildbot \ --with-build-version=%(today)s-Rev.%(got_revision)s \
Re: Some thoughts on quality
I apologize in advance if my note was note clear. I'm not at all interested in off-the-cuff opinions. We all have our opinions. But I'm only interested in fact-based analysis of the actual regressions reported in BZ. Specifically: what caused the actually defects that ended up in 4.0.0 and what could have been done to prevent it. General recommendations, like more time, not backed by specific analysis, are not very useful. And remember, there will never be enough time to improve quality with a suboptimal process. The goal should be (IMHO) to improve the process, i.e., work smarter, not harder. Regards, -Rob On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0. The fact that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows that we value quality. I'd like to take this a step further, and see what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do going forward to improve. Quality, in the end, is a process, not a state of grace. We improve by working smarter, not working harder. The goal should be to learn and improve, as individuals and as a community. Every regression that made it into 4.0.0 was added there by a programmer. And the defect went undetected by testers. This is not to blame. It just means that we're all human. We know that. We all make mistakes. I make mistakes. A quality process is not about becoming perfect, but about acknowledging that we make mistakes and that certain formal and informal practices are needed to prevent and detect these mistakes. But enough about generalities. I'm hoping you'll join with me in examining the 32 confirmed 4.0.0 regression defects and answering a few questions: 1) What caused the bug? What was the root cause? Note: programmer error is not really a cause. We should ask what caused the error. 2) What can we do to prevent bugs like this from being checked in? 3) Why wasn't the bug found during testing? Was it not covered by any existing test case? Was a test case run but the defect was not recognized? Was the defect introduced into the software after the tests had already been executed? 4) What can we do to ensure that bugs like this are caught during testing? So 2 basic questions -- what went wrong and how can we prevent it in the future, looked at from perspective of programmers and testers. If we can keep these questions in mind, and try to answer them, we may be able to find some patterns that can lead to some process changes for AOO 4.1. You can find the 4.0.0 regressions in Bugzilla here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=400_regressionssharer_id=248521list_id=80834 Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 14 August 2013 19:36, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote: Dear Rob The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps. Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates should not be avoided. TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and more stress testing oriented. Regards, Edwin On Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 19:59, Rob Weir wrote: We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0. The fact that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows that we value quality. I'd like to take this a step further, and see what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do going forward to improve. Quality, in the end, is a process, not a state of grace. We improve by working smarter, not working harder. The goal should be to learn and improve, as individuals and as a community. Every regression that made it into 4.0.0 was added there by a programmer. And the defect went undetected by testers. This is not to blame. It just means that we're all human. We know that. We all make mistakes. I make mistakes. A quality process is not about becoming perfect, but about acknowledging that we make mistakes and that certain formal and informal practices are needed to prevent and detect these mistakes. But enough about generalities. I'm hoping you'll join with me in examining the 32 confirmed 4.0.0 regression defects and answering a few questions: 1) What caused the bug? What was the root cause? Note: programmer error is not really a cause. We should ask what caused the error. 2) What can we do to prevent bugs like this from being checked in? 3) Why wasn't the bug found during testing? Was it not covered by any existing test case? Was a test case run but the defect was not recognized? Was the defect introduced into the software after the tests had already been executed? 4) What can we do to ensure that bugs like this are caught during testing? So 2 basic questions -- what went wrong and how can we prevent it in the future, looked at from perspective of programmers and testers. If we can keep these questions in mind, and try to answer them, we may be able to find some patterns that can lead to some process changes for AOO 4.1. You can find the 4.0.0 regressions in Bugzilla here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=400_regressionssharer_id=248521list_id=80834 Regards, -Rob I strongly believe that one of the things that went wrong is our limited possibility to retest (due to resources), when I look at our current manual I wonder about that as well. That's one reason it would be good to know how many of the confirmed regressions were introduced late in the release process, and thus missed coverage in our full test pass. testcases, a lot of those could be automated, e.g. with a simple UI macro, that would enable us to run these test cases with every build. It may sound like a dream but where I come from, we did that every night, and it caught a lot of regression bugs and sideeffects. This begs the question: Is the functionality of the regressions covered by our test cases? Or are they covered but we didn't execute them? Or we executed them but didn't recognize the defect? I don't know (yet). A simple start, if to request that every bug fix, is issued with at least one test case (automated or manual). Often there is, though this information lives in Bugzilla. One thing we did on another (non open source) project is to mark defects in our bugtracking system that should become test cases. Not every bug did that. For example, a defect report to update a mispelling in the UI would not lead to a new test case. But many would. Regards, -Rob rgds jan I. - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote: Dear Rob The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps. Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates should not be avoided. TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and more stress testing oriented. The number to consider here is how many defects were found and fixed during the 4.0.0 testing, before the general public users had access? I assume it was quite substantial. If so, the TestLink usage was effective. In other words, we might have found fewer bugs without using it. This is important to keep in mind: we want to prevent or find more bugs, but we're not starting from zero. We're starting from a process that does a lot of things right. I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. Greetings Raphael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[Extensions website] Timeline don't work
Hello list, For the last 3 recents OXT, timeline don't work: http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/search?query=sort_by=createdsort_order=DESC Download numbers seems to be not tracked. If you jump to SF.net, you got an error: The /17434 file could not be found or is not available. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 123038] Update bundled dictionaries for OpenOffice 4.0.1
Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org has asked for 4.0.1_release_blocker: Bug 123038: Update bundled dictionaries for OpenOffice 4.0.1 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123038 --- Additional Comments from Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Bundled dictionaries listed in main/extensions.lst should be updated for OpenOffice 4.0.1. This is an umbrella issue that will depend on other issues for the individual languages. Assigning to myself; I expect this to be done in the same timeframe for l10n updates (suggested: 6 September), so that volunteers can test localization and dictionaries at the same time. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Le 14/08/2013 21:01, Raphael Bircher a écrit : I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. +1. OOo used to have RC versions strongly advertised, it could go up to 6 RC before going final and it was very useful to spot the main bugs. Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Le 14/08/2013 21:29, Hagar Delest a écrit : Le 14/08/2013 21:01, Raphael Bircher a écrit : I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. +1. OOo used to have RC versions strongly advertised, it could go up to 6 RC before going final and it was very useful to spot the main bugs. And I forgot: the 2 main bugs (slow saving in MS Office formats and the Calc display issue under Windows) were reported in the forum only 2 days and 5 days after the release! and we have had many topics for both afterward. A RC would have clearly spared the hassle. See: http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63082 http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63161 Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote: Dear Rob The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps. Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates should not be avoided. TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and more stress testing oriented. The number to consider here is how many defects were found and fixed during the 4.0.0 testing, before the general public users had access? I assume it was quite substantial. If so, the TestLink usage was effective. In other words, we might have found fewer bugs without using it. In general, my feeling is that it's too early to do a retrospective and ask what was good, what needs to be improved? (to say it with SCRUM words ;-) ) Just after the first major release. We should look on the BZ query you have mentioned and see if there is one or more hotspots that should be improved fast. That's it. This is important to keep in mind: we want to prevent or find more bugs, but we're not starting from zero. We're starting from a process that does a lot of things right. I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. A public beta release is of course not the golden solution but could activate some power users that give us the feedback we want and need. So, +1 for going this way. After the 4.1 release is done we can see if this was much better - and ask ourself why? :-) Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Website]
Since a few weeks we get mails with just [Website] as subject. Just one word is not really meaningful to classify the mail content on the first view. So, I'm wondering from where they come from and how to improve this? Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 14/08/2013 21:29, Hagar Delest a écrit : Le 14/08/2013 21:01, Raphael Bircher a écrit : I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. +1. OOo used to have RC versions strongly advertised, it could go up to 6 RC before going final and it was very useful to spot the main bugs. And I forgot: the 2 main bugs (slow saving in MS Office formats and the Calc display issue under Windows) were reported in the forum only 2 days and 5 days after the release! and we have had many topics for both afterward. A RC would have clearly spared the hassle. See: http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63082 http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63161 Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. -Rob Hagar - 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: Some thoughts on quality
Le 14/08/2013 21:37, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : In general, my feeling is that it's too early to do a retrospective and ask what was good, what needs to be improved? (to say it with SCRUM words ;-) ) Just after the first major release. Well, I visit forums and contribute since OOo 2.0 and it's the first time we (volunteers in forums) advise to downgrade so often, even for a major upgrade (because of the slow saving time and the Calc display issue mainly). So there has been clearly a quality issue. About test case, it's strange that the 2 bugs above were not seen. Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 09:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Hagar Delesthagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 14/08/2013 21:29, Hagar Delest a écrit : Le 14/08/2013 21:01, Raphael Bircher a écrit : I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. +1. OOo used to have RC versions strongly advertised, it could go up to 6 RC before going final and it was very useful to spot the main bugs. And I forgot: the 2 main bugs (slow saving in MS Office formats and the Calc display issue under Windows) were reported in the forum only 2 days and 5 days after the release! and we have had many topics for both afterward. A RC would have clearly spared the hassle. See: http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63082 http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63161 Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. Déjà vu ;-) I remember that we had the same problem in the old project. Call it Developer Snapshot and you will have a few hundreads downloads with respective number of feedback. But call it (and announce it!) with a name that sounds more familar (like Early Access, Preview, Beta, RC) then we had much more. So, going public more early should bring us a higher number of feedback. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote: Dear Rob The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps. Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates should not be avoided. TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and more stress testing oriented. The number to consider here is how many defects were found and fixed during the 4.0.0 testing, before the general public users had access? I assume it was quite substantial. If so, the TestLink usage was effective. In other words, we might have found fewer bugs without using it. In general, my feeling is that it's too early to do a retrospective and ask what was good, what needs to be improved? (to say it with SCRUM words ;-) ) Just after the first major release. Memories are still fresh and programmers are looking at the relevant code. This is the best time to answer these questions. We should look on the BZ query you have mentioned and see if there is one or more hotspots that should be improved fast. That's it. That would be fine. I'm not suggesting anything radical. Gradual, but constant improvements are the way to high quality. This is important to keep in mind: we want to prevent or find more bugs, but we're not starting from zero. We're starting from a process that does a lot of things right. I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. A public beta release is of course not the golden solution but could activate some power users that give us the feedback we want and need. So, +1 for going this way. After the 4.1 release is done we can see if this was much better - and ask ourself why? :-) But several of the bugs in 4.0.0 should never have made it to even a beta. For example, the very slow saving in Excel format. What happened there? Sure, this could be fixed later in the process, in a beta, or in a 4.0.1 as we're doing now. But this really should have been detected and fixed much earlier in the process. What are betas good for? Betas are good for expanding the set of configurations. Platforms, languages, extensions, etc.But the informal tests done by real users tend to be shallow. Also, we have no way of determining what the test coverage is. In particular we have no basis for telling the difference between the coverage of a 2 week beta versus a 4 week beta. But with out formal test cases we can easily look at how many test cases were executed. We could even look at code coverage if we wanted to. Maybe if there was a way to record what features beta testers were using... Or even have a little survey where they report what platform they ran on, etc. But very slow saving to XLS files? A defect like that should have been caught by us before a beta and before a RC. We shouldn't expect to find bugs like that in a beta. Finally, I think we can all point to a similar open source project that has numerous betas, but still suffers from poor quality. So a public beta, by itself, is not sufficient. We need some upstream improvements as well, I think. But we should do a beta as well. But aim to have the highest quality beta we can, right? Regards, -Rob Marcus - 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: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 09:50 PM, schrieb Hagar Delest: Le 14/08/2013 21:37, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : In general, my feeling is that it's too early to do a retrospective and ask what was good, what needs to be improved? (to say it with SCRUM words ;-) ) Just after the first major release. Well, I visit forums and contribute since OOo 2.0 and it's the first time we (volunteers in forums) advise to downgrade so often, even for a major upgrade (because of the slow saving time and the Calc display issue mainly). So there has been clearly a quality issue. Sure, I don't want to deny this. However, IMHO it's too early to look at the big picture and try to find the black spots. About test case, it's strange that the 2 bugs above were not seen. That seems indeen one hotspot I mentioned. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Le 14/08/2013 21:39, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. I think that it was too difficult to get to the dev versions and it was too much complicated. There was no clear link to download a dev version (I had to rely on the url in the messages from the dev list). What I see (from a standard user point of view) for a RC: - When a dev version is almost done, rename it RC and make it known (blog and we would relay the announcement in the forums of course) - Have a link visible under the main download button of the download page (perhaps a similar button as a dedicated entry) - Make that RC installable in parallel with a stable version - No file association allowed for that RC by design The wiki page for the dev builds were too complicated and sounded to much beta to make the users confident in using them (when they managed to get on that page!). Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122881] OpenOffice Application icon invisible
Raphael Bircher rbirc...@apache.org has asked for 4.0.1_release_blocker: Bug 122881: OpenOffice Application icon invisible https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122881 --- Additional Comments from Raphael Bircher rbirc...@apache.org Ask for Release Blocker - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Website]
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Since a few weeks we get mails with just [Website] as subject. Just one word is not really meaningful to classify the mail content on the first view. So, I'm wondering from where they come from and how to improve this? These probably come from the contact page: http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html See: For problems with the www.openoffice.org website, please contact us via Development mailing list. That page covers contacts for reporting bugs, website and wiki problems, press, etc. But the very first link on the page is for support. I assume it requires an advanced degree in psychology to understand why someone would skip over that link and go to another. -Rob Marcus - 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: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 09:58 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharpel...@mail-page.com wrote: Dear Rob The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps. Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates should not be avoided. TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and more stress testing oriented. The number to consider here is how many defects were found and fixed during the 4.0.0 testing, before the general public users had access? I assume it was quite substantial. If so, the TestLink usage was effective. In other words, we might have found fewer bugs without using it. In general, my feeling is that it's too early to do a retrospective and ask what was good, what needs to be improved? (to say it with SCRUM words ;-) ) Just after the first major release. Memories are still fresh and programmers are looking at the relevant code. This is the best time to answer these questions. We should look on the BZ query you have mentioned and see if there is one or more hotspots that should be improved fast. That's it. That would be fine. I'm not suggesting anything radical. Gradual, but constant improvements are the way to high quality. Then this should be sufficiant IMHO. This is important to keep in mind: we want to prevent or find more bugs, but we're not starting from zero. We're starting from a process that does a lot of things right. I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. A public beta release is of course not the golden solution but could activate some power users that give us the feedback we want and need. So, +1 for going this way. After the 4.1 release is done we can see if this was much better - and ask ourself why? :-) But several of the bugs in 4.0.0 should never have made it to even a beta. For example, the very slow saving in Excel format. What happened there? Sure, this could be fixed later in the process, in a beta, or in a 4.0.1 as we're doing now. But this really should have been detected and fixed much earlier in the process. What are betas good for? Betas are good for expanding the set of configurations. Platforms, languages, extensions, etc.But the informal tests done by real users tend to be shallow. Also, we have no way of determining what the test coverage is. In particular we have no basis for telling the difference between the coverage of a 2 week beta versus a 4 week beta. But with out formal test cases we can easily look at how many test cases were executed. We could even look at code coverage if we wanted to. Maybe if there was a way to record what features beta testers were using... Or even have a little survey where they report what platform they ran on, etc. But very slow saving to XLS files? A defect like that should have been caught by us before a beta and before a RC. We shouldn't expect to find bugs like that in a beta. Of course. I've said nothing different. ;-) Finally, I think we can all point to a similar open source project that has numerous betas, but still suffers from poor quality. So a public beta, by itself, is not sufficient. We need some upstream improvements as well, I think. But we should do a beta as well. But aim to have the highest quality beta we can, right? Sure, the XLS bug has nothing to with this wouldn't happen with a Beta. As I answered to Hagar this is one hotspot that should be looked at closer. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 10:05 PM, schrieb Hagar Delest: Le 14/08/2013 21:39, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. I think that it was too difficult to get to the dev versions and it was too much complicated. There was no clear link to download a dev version (I had to rely on the url in the messages from the dev list). This was intended. We hadn't published the dev builds via Apache or SF mirrors but only on 2 people accounts. Apache policy says it's not allowed to publish them for a wider audience to save the servers from a high traffic load. It's the job of the mirrors to handle this. What I see (from a standard user point of view) for a RC: - When a dev version is almost done, rename it RC and make it known (blog and we would relay the announcement in the forums of course) - Have a link visible under the main download button of the download Both can be done, depending where the install files are located. page (perhaps a similar button as a dedicated entry) - Make that RC installable in parallel with a stable version - No file association allowed for that RC by design IMHO the last both points doesn't apply to a RC [1] as it wouldn't be a RC anymore. One of the RC attributes is to change it into the final release with, e.g., just a file name change. But this has to be done without any code changes. Otherwise you have to change code parts, build again, test again, ... ;-) But a Beta release could go this separated way. The wiki page for the dev builds were too complicated and sounded to much beta to make the users confident in using them (when they managed to get on that page!). Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
Am 08/14/2013 10:24 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/14/2013 10:05 PM, schrieb Hagar Delest: Le 14/08/2013 21:39, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. I think that it was too difficult to get to the dev versions and it was too much complicated. There was no clear link to download a dev version (I had to rely on the url in the messages from the dev list). This was intended. We hadn't published the dev builds via Apache or SF mirrors but only on 2 people accounts. Apache policy says it's not allowed to publish them for a wider audience to save the servers from a high traffic load. It's the job of the mirrors to handle this. What I see (from a standard user point of view) for a RC: - When a dev version is almost done, rename it RC and make it known (blog and we would relay the announcement in the forums of course) - Have a link visible under the main download button of the download Both can be done, depending where the install files are located. page (perhaps a similar button as a dedicated entry) - Make that RC installable in parallel with a stable version - No file association allowed for that RC by design IMHO the last both points doesn't apply to a RC [1] as it wouldn't be a RC anymore. One of the RC attributes is to change it into the final release with, e.g., just a file name change. But this has to be done without any code changes. Otherwise you have to change code parts, build again, test again, ... ;-) But a Beta release could go this separated way. The wiki page for the dev builds were too complicated and sounded to much beta to make the users confident in using them (when they managed to get on that page!). Marcus Sorry, forgot the link: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On 14 August 2013 20:39, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. It basically wasn't publicised. I knew about it because I actually went looking for it (goal: to put an image on the Wikipedia article of the 4.0 sidebar). It took a bit of ferreting about to find the prereleases. I've followed the list all this year, so I knew (a) it existed (b) what to ask about; the percentage of AOO users on the dev list is all but invisible. Suggestion 1: note prereleases on the blog and in the social media channels. Suggestion 2: do an RC for 4.0.1 as well. Even if you don't think there's a need to, and fully expect the RC to be byte-for-byte identical to the final release, people will appreciate being asked. The Cathedral and the Bazaar still applies. Release early, release often. You could have had six months' intense testing from users who were seriously interested. - d.
Re: [Website]
Am 08/14/2013 10:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Since a few weeks we get mails with just [Website] as subject. Just one word is not really meaningful to classify the mail content on the first view. So, I'm wondering from where they come from and how to improve this? These probably come from the contact page: http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html ah, thanks. See: For problems with the www.openoffice.org website, please contact us via Development mailing list. That page covers contacts for reporting bugs, website and wiki problems, press, etc. But the very first link on the page is for support. I assume it requires an advanced degree in psychology to understand why someone would skip over that link and go to another. Yes, especially because the hint with the dev@ link is one of the last options. So, it doesn't make sense to exchange it with others in the section as this would just move the problem to the l10n@ or bz@ mailing list. OK, seems to be the last remaining 2.5% that never can be improved. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Website]
Am 08/14/2013 10:32 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/14/2013 10:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Since a few weeks we get mails with just [Website] as subject. Just one word is not really meaningful to classify the mail content on the first view. So, I'm wondering from where they come from and how to improve this? These probably come from the contact page: http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html ah, thanks. See: For problems with the www.openoffice.org website, please contact us via Development mailing list. That page covers contacts for reporting bugs, website and wiki problems, press, etc. But the very first link on the page is for support. I assume it requires an advanced degree in psychology to understand why someone would skip over that link and go to another. Yes, especially because the hint with the dev@ link is one of the last options. So, it doesn't make sense to exchange it with others in the section as this would just move the problem to the l10n@ or bz@ mailing list. OK, seems to be the last remaining 2.5% that never can be improved. Proposal: Exchange the predefined mail subject (e.g. [Website]) with a more speaking wording like: I want to report a problem with the OpenOffice website I want to report a problem with the OpenOffice BugZilla I want to report a problem with the OpenOffice Wiki I want to report a problem with the Pootle translation service Maybe this will make it a bit more obvious for the user that her/his mail doesn't fit to the topic and could lead to think twice before hitting on [Send]. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/14/2013 10:05 PM, schrieb Hagar Delest: Le 14/08/2013 21:39, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. I think that it was too difficult to get to the dev versions and it was too much complicated. There was no clear link to download a dev version (I had to rely on the url in the messages from the dev list). This was intended. We hadn't published the dev builds via Apache or SF mirrors but only on 2 people accounts. Apache policy says it's not allowed to publish them for a wider audience to save the servers from a high traffic load. It's the job of the mirrors to handle this. What I see (from a standard user point of view) for a RC: - When a dev version is almost done, rename it RC and make it known (blog and we would relay the announcement in the forums of course) - Have a link visible under the main download button of the download Both can be done, depending where the install files are located. page (perhaps a similar button as a dedicated entry) - Make that RC installable in parallel with a stable version - No file association allowed for that RC by design IMHO the last both points doesn't apply to a RC [1] as it wouldn't be a RC anymore. One of the RC attributes is to change it into the final release with, e.g., just a file name change. But this has to be done without any code changes. Otherwise you have to change code parts, build again, test again, ... ;-) But a Beta release could go this separated way. Right. A release is a release is a release. The basic requirements for every release still apply: 1) 3 PMC +1 votes 2) Must include source files 3) Digital signatures, hash files, etc. But we can have a beta release, that follows these rules, and it would be acceptable. We can then host on the mirrors, publicize, etc. However, back to the original topic of this thread: We should look to see when the bugs we're fixing in 4.0.1 were added to the code. Not to blame or make anyone feel bad. But to understand. If these were late bugs then an earlier beta would not have found them. -Rob The wiki page for the dev builds were too complicated and sounded to much beta to make the users confident in using them (when they managed to get on that page!). Marcus - 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: [Extensions website] Timeline don't work
2013/8/14 FR web forum ooofo...@free.fr Hello list, For the last 3 recents OXT, timeline don't work: http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/search?query=sort_by=createdsort_order=DESC Download numbers seems to be not tracked. Actually the timeline works only for extensions hosted on the Extensions website. The reason is that we do not have any stats info for extensions served by third parties' sites, and those are indicated as Not tracked. we might want to eliminate the Timeline for those extensions in the future, though. Roberto If you jump to SF.net, you got an error: The /17434 file could not be found or is not available. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On 14 August 2013 23:10, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/14/2013 10:05 PM, schrieb Hagar Delest: Le 14/08/2013 21:39, Rob Weir a écrit : Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. I think that it was too difficult to get to the dev versions and it was too much complicated. There was no clear link to download a dev version (I had to rely on the url in the messages from the dev list). This was intended. We hadn't published the dev builds via Apache or SF mirrors but only on 2 people accounts. Apache policy says it's not allowed to publish them for a wider audience to save the servers from a high traffic load. It's the job of the mirrors to handle this. What I see (from a standard user point of view) for a RC: - When a dev version is almost done, rename it RC and make it known (blog and we would relay the announcement in the forums of course) - Have a link visible under the main download button of the download Both can be done, depending where the install files are located. page (perhaps a similar button as a dedicated entry) - Make that RC installable in parallel with a stable version - No file association allowed for that RC by design IMHO the last both points doesn't apply to a RC [1] as it wouldn't be a RC anymore. One of the RC attributes is to change it into the final release with, e.g., just a file name change. But this has to be done without any code changes. Otherwise you have to change code parts, build again, test again, ... ;-) But a Beta release could go this separated way. Right. A release is a release is a release. The basic requirements for every release still apply: 1) 3 PMC +1 votes 2) Must include source files 3) Digital signatures, hash files, etc. But we can have a beta release, that follows these rules, and it would be acceptable. We can then host on the mirrors, publicize, etc. There would likely be some restrictions on how many extra downloads are permitted. For example, the ASF mirrors probably could not cope with a set of betas of all the languages for all the OSes in addition to the current GA release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some thoughts on quality
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/14/2013 09:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Hagar Delesthagar.delest@laposte.**nethagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 14/08/2013 21:29, Hagar Delest a écrit : Le 14/08/2013 21:01, Raphael Bircher a écrit : I like the idea of a public beta. But consider the numbers. The 40 or so regressions that were reported came from an install base (based on download figures since 4.0.0 was released) of around 3 million users. Realistically, can we expect anywhere near that number in a public beta? Or is it more likely that a beta program has 10,000 users or fewer? I don't know the answer here. But certainly a well-publicized and used beta will find more than a beta used by just a few hundred users. The public beta is from my point of view realy important. Even you have only 10'000 Downloads of a beta, you have normaly verry experianced Users there, like power users from Companies. They provide realy valua feedback. So from my point of view, this is one of the moast important changes we have to do. For all Feature release a beta version. And don't forget, people are realy happy to do beta tests. but many of them are maybe not willing to follow a mailing list. +1. OOo used to have RC versions strongly advertised, it could go up to 6 RC before going final and it was very useful to spot the main bugs. And I forgot: the 2 main bugs (slow saving in MS Office formats and the Calc display issue under Windows) were reported in the forum only 2 days and 5 days after the release! and we have had many topics for both afterward. A RC would have clearly spared the hassle. See: http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=**63082http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63082 http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=**63161http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=63161 Maybe we need to call an earlier build the RC so it will get more attention? We had a complete test build that we were testing for over a month. But maybe it is ignored unless we call it an RC? In other words, there were many opportunities for users to help try 4.0 before it was released, but maybe there opportunities were not well known. Déjà vu ;-) I remember that we had the same problem in the old project. Call it Developer Snapshot and you will have a few hundreads downloads with respective number of feedback. But call it (and announce it!) with a name that sounds more familar (like Early Access, Preview, Beta, RC) then we had much more. So, going public more early should bring us a higher number of feedback. Marcus If this would help, then we should do it. Hopefully this will get users' attention more. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK When in doubt, cop an attitude. -- Cat laws
Re: [BUILD] Linux32 snapshot configure
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.comwrote: Here is the current configure statement for the Linux32 bot - is this correct, and what changes would make it better? ./configure \ --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/**java-6-openjdk \ --with-epm-url=http://www.**msweet.org/files/project2/epm-** 3.7-source.tar.gzhttp://www.msweet.org/files/project2/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \ --with-dmake-url=http://**dmake.apache-extras.org.** codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.**tar.bz2http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2 \ --enable-verbose \ --without-stlport \ --enable-category-b \ --enable-opengl \ --enable-dbus \ --enable-gstreamer \ --with-package-format=**installed rpm deb \ --enable-bundled-dictionaries \ --with-lang=ast cs de el en-GB en-US es fi fr gd gl hu it ja km ko nl pl pt pt-BR ru sk sl ta zh-CN zh-TW ca eu he hi id lt sv th tr \ --with-vendor=Apache OpenOffice buildbot \ --with-build-version=%(today)**s-Rev.%(got_revision)s \ OK, I'm not exactly sure why you're asking this -- I have meant to take a look at the build logs for the current instance since it has been failing, but no time yet -- but are you referring to the existing Linux 32 bot with your question or the newly proposed one? We have discussed using java 7 instead of 6. My recent build went fine but of course not thoroughly tested many aspects. Please -- --enable-verbose -- - MzK When in doubt, cop an attitude. -- Cat laws