Re: [QA][Test Report] Weekly Status Update as of 20140214

[Yuzhen Fan]

Oliver, thanks for the comment, please see my reply below.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for the status report.
>
> I have a question about the given query - see below.
>
>
> On 17.02.2014 12:19, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We continue doing the AOO 4.1 Function Verification test(FVT), here is the
>> weekly update (2/10 - 2/14):
>>
>> *Test execution:*
>>
>> 1. Template validation - Ongoing
>> Question: A new .odp is created with the template when try to open .otp
>> file, is it intended?
>> Issue: only the first slide in template is available for apply to the
>> existing presentation in AOO
>>
>> 2. Existing feature on 3 APP testing - Ongoing
>> We have assigned 817(673 as of 1/24) test executions to about 39(28 as of
>> 1/24) volunteers, and completed about 39.4%(23% as of 1/24) in execution
>> (461 test executions done, 250 as of 1/24). We get 11 more test execution
>> volunteers since Jan 24, although the target date to complete FVT is moved
>> to Feb 24, we need to remind volunteers in this week
>>
>>
>>  TotalNot RunPassedFailedBlockedCompleted [%]
>> Debian Linux 64bit5673610387.5
>> MacOS X2091444914231.10
>> Redhat Linux 32bit69670202.90
>> Redhat Linux 64bit2771439832448.38
>> Ubuntu Linux 64bit167111479033.53
>> Windows 72091097522347.85
>> Windows 81821274114030.22
>> Total11697083461031239.4
>>
>> *Defect summary:*
>>
>> 1. Summary of resolved issues in Bugzilla, about 28 issues are (severity =
>> blocker or critical)
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&;
>> list_id=125237&namedcmd=AOO_Need_Verify_4.1&remaction=run&
>> sharer_id=249289
>>
>>
> Which issues are shown by this query?
> Looking at the search criteria it is not clear to me.
> The search criteria are:
> - Status = RESOLVED
> - Resolution = FIXED, DUPLICATE, IRREPRODUCIBLE, WONTFIX, MOVED
> - Version = 4.1.0-dev
> -- Why only issues reported on this version?
>
-- You are right and I update the query with "Target Milestone = 4.1.0" or
"Target Milestone = AOO 4.1" , as we verify the issues solved for AOO 4.1

> - Status changed after 2011-07-01
> - Issue Type != Patch or Task
> -- Why are these issues excluded?
>
-- For testers, we will verify bugs existed and solved in product, as my
understanding: "Task" is expected to be handled by developers and "Patch"
would be selected for tester's verification on demand.

> - Product != qa
>
> My search criteria for issue solved for AOO 4.1 would be
> - Status = RESOLVED
> - Target Milestone = 4.1.0
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
>  *Issues & quality highlight:*
>>
>> 1. We need to remind test execution volunteers to complete their
>> assignments before Feb 24, as it is one week left
>> 2. We have execution gap in FVT test as lack Mac text execution volunteers
>> in testing, have sent the call in forum for test execution volunteers on
>> Mac and other platforms(except Linux Redhat 64bit)
>>
>> *Volunteer status: *
>>
>> 1. 11 new test execution volunteers(total 39 so far) joined on FVT
>> execution work since Jan 24
>> 2. Need defect volunteers to verify high priority issues in Bugzilla (see
>> above in Defect summary)
>>
>> *Plan for next week:*
>>
>> 1. Continue to do FVT test on Mac, Linux and Windows
>> 2. Start to verify high high priority issues
>> 3. Continue to do template validation
>>
>> Thanks you all for effort since Jan 24, we have one week left to FVT
>> target
>> date(Feb 24), let's continue and make progress next week!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yu Zhen
>>
>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Yu Zhen

Re: deleted files still showing in repository "browse" -- help!

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Andre Fischer  wrote:

> On 19.02.2014 09:07, Andre Fischer wrote:
>
>> On 18.02.2014 23:06, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> In this repository --
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/
>>> content/documentation/online_help/helpauthoring/
>>>
>>> I did an svn "delete" yesterday on all files  named
>>> OOo2HelpAuthoring-.html
>>>
>>> Just the ones followed by a number, not the others, and not the "png"
>>> files.
>>> Yet, they are still showing in the web browse of the repository. In my
>>> local repo, even deleting the whole directory, followed by an svn update
>>> yields the correct files. So, does anyone know why these files are still
>>> "stuck" like this in the web browse mode?
>>>
>>
>> You still need an svn commit to, well, commit your local changes to the
>> svn server.
>>
>>  and, oops! I didn't realize svn "delete" wouldn't prompt me for a log
>>> message so there was none. :/
>>>
>>
>> That is strange, svn delete should not need a log message.  But the
>> following svn commit should.
>>
>
> Sorry, I did not read the rest of the thread.  Not quite awake.


It happens... :}

Got this straightened out finally with more tricks!  re--checkout, re
delete, commit. I dunno... I think there may also be a number of file
limitation or something.



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


-- 
-
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
 for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
   -- James Mason

Re: More annoying FUD

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 19 February 2014 17:58, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> Since Italo claims his comparison is with Microsoft then I wonder what % 
> complete they require? I'd guess you would need an NDA to find that one out.

Maybe. One could ask :-)
louis

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

Re: Windows 8.

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 02/19/2014 10:09 PM, schrieb Peter Carr:

Can Open Office be used on a computer running Windows 8 or 8.1?.
If so is there any known incompatibility issues?.


I'm not a Windows 8 user but at least the system requirements [1] state 
that AOO 4.0.1 is compatible with Windows 8.


[1] http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo40.html

HTH

Marcus


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

Re: More annoying FUD

[jan i]

On 19 February 2014 23:54, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:04 PM, jan i wrote:
>
> > On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
> >>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts  >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  hi,
> 
> 
>  On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >>
> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >>
> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
> >>
> >> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >>
> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing
> a
> >> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >>
> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
> >> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought
> to
> >> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >> greater results.
> >>
> >> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
> >> We
> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it
> yet.
> >>
> >> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >>
> >> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >> translation.  LO has only 13.
> >>
> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >>
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >>
> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >
> >
> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >
> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> > am<
> 
> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >
> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
> >> I
> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
> >> that
> > project."
> >
> > In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
> >> impressive
> > list of languages LO is claiming.
> >
> 
>  :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>  When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>  insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>  meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>  does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>  we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>  left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>  acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>  today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>  tomorrows to come.
> 
>  Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>  marketing lard, are at stake.
> 
> >>>
> >>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and
> LO
> >>> have different release policies and so be it.
> >>>
> >>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> >>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far
> more
> >>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
> >>>
> >>
> >> How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
> >> volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
> >> been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
> >> touched in over a year.
> >>
> > @rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle
> languages,
> > no need to  give me the sales talk.
> >
> > You are correct for our production versions, but  It seems you have not
> > been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
> > and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
> > LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> >> ones we have in SVN:
> >>
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
> >>
> >> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> >> Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
> >> active translations with another proj

Re: Windows 8.

[Dave Barton]

 Original Message  
From: Peter Carr 
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:09:18 -0500

> Can Open Office be used on a computer running Windows 8 or 8.1?.
> If so is there any known incompatibility issues?.

Yes it can be used on both. I am using it on XP, Vista, 7, 8 & 8.1
computers and have not encountered any difference in operation or
performance.

Dave



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

Re: More annoying FUD

[Dave Fisher]

On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> 
 hi,
 
 
 On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>> 
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>> 
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>> 
>> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>> 
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>> 
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>> 
>> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>> 
>> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>> 
>> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation.  LO has only 13.
>> 
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>> 
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>> 
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> 
> 
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> 
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am<
 http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> 
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> project."
> 
> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
> 
 
 :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
 When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
 insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
 meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
 does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
 we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
 left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
 acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
 today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
 tomorrows to come.
 
 Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
 marketing lard, are at stake.
 
>>> 
>>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>> 
>>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>> 
>> 
>> How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
>> volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
>> been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
>> touched in over a year.
>> 
>> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
>> ones we have in SVN:
>> 
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>> 
>> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
>> Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
>> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
>> not very fair.
>> 
> 
> Here's what I'd call a fair comparison.  Use the criterion that OOo
> used for shipping a supported language -- 90% UI completion.  By that
> criterion LO has 47 "complete" translations and AOO has 42.  This is
> not a very large difference.

I like this it highlights how the two projects have differing priorities. If we 
lowered our bar and they raised theirs we are roughly equal.

Since Italo claims his comparison is with Microsoft then I wonder what % 
complete they require? I'd guess you would need an NDA to find that one out.

Regards,
DAve

> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
>>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant

Re: More annoying FUD

[Dave Fisher]

On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:04 PM, jan i wrote:

> On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
>>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts >> wrote:
>>> 
 hi,
 
 
 On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir 
>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>> 
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>> 
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>> 
>> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>> 
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>> 
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>> 
>> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
>> We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>> 
>> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>> 
>> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation.  LO has only 13.
>> 
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>> 
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>> 
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> 
> 
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> 
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am<
 
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> 
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
>> I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
>> that
> project."
> 
> In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
>> impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
> 
 
 :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
 When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
 insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
 meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
 does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
 we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
 left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
 acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
 today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
 tomorrows to come.
 
 Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
 marketing lard, are at stake.
 
>>> 
>>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>> 
>>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>> 
>> 
>> How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
>> volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
>> been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
>> touched in over a year.
>> 
> @rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle languages,
> no need to  give me the sales talk.
> 
> You are correct for our production versions, but  It seems you have not
> been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
> and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
> LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.
> 
> 
> 
>> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
>> ones we have in SVN:
>> 
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>> 
>> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
>> Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
>> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
>> not very fair.
>> 
>>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something
>> I
>>> would like us to have.
>>> 
>> 
>> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template.  If we had
>> MDText support for P

Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website

[Andrea Pescetti]

Forwarding the answer to Graeme. Andrea

On 19/02/2014 Alexandro Colorado wrote:

Where did you download the software from. Only OpenOffice.org site is the
official download site. Not any other one.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Graeme Charters
wrote:


I have downloaded OpenOffice to my sister-in-law's HP mini (I think on 8th
February 2014). She ended up with the "*Start.MySearchDial.com
"* redirects virus on her machine.

Nothing else has been downloaded onto her machine in recent times so I do
not think it can have come from any other source. With hindsight I now
recall that the process seemed not to be as simple and straightforward as
on previous occasions when I have downloaded OOO.

I hope this info will help you be aware of the problem.

Graeme Charters







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

Windows 8.

[Peter Carr]

Can Open Office be used on a computer running Windows 8 or 8.1?.
If so is there any known incompatibility issues?.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website

[Alexandro Colorado]

Where did you download the software from. Only OpenOffice.org site is the
official download site. Not any other one.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Graeme Charters
wrote:

> I have downloaded OpenOffice to my sister-in-law's HP mini (I think on 8th
> February 2014). She ended up with the "*Start.MySearchDial.com
> "* redirects virus on her machine.
>
> Nothing else has been downloaded onto her machine in recent times so I do
> not think it can have come from any other source. With hindsight I now
> recall that the process seemed not to be as simple and straightforward as
> on previous occasions when I have downloaded OOO.
>
> I hope this info will help you be aware of the problem.
>
> Graeme Charters
>



-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

Re: More annoying FUD

[jan i]

On 19 February 2014 21:55, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts  >wrote:
> >
> >> hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
> >> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >> >> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
> >> >>
> >> >> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >> >>
> >> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> >> >> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
> >> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
> >> >> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
> >> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> >> >> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >> >> greater results.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.
>  We
> >> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >> >> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >> >> translation.  LO has only 13.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >> >>
> >> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >> >
> >> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> >> > am<
> >>
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >> >
> >> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office,
> I
> >> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by
> that
> >> > project."
> >> >
> >> >  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an
> impressive
> >> > list of languages LO is claiming.
> >> >
> >>
> >> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
> >> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
> >> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
> >> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
> >> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
> >> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
> >> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
> >> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
> >> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
> >> tomorrows to come.
> >>
> >> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
> >> marketing lard, are at stake.
> >>
> >
> > before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
> > have different release policies and so be it.
> >
> > But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> > doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
> > complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
> >
>
> How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
> volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
> been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
> touched in over a year.
>
@rob, I think I am one of those that really knows how we handle languages,
no need to  give me the sales talk.

You are correct for our production versions, but  It seems you have not
been on pootle for a while. With genLang ALL our sdf files are converted
and available on the test project I have made. So when I compare po files
LO/AOO-genLang I compare all we have with all they have.



> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> ones we have in SVN:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>
> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
> not very fair.
>
> > They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something
> I
> > would like us to have.
> >
>
> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template.  If we had
> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>

Well as I wrote earlier in another thread we do have 

Re: More annoying FUD

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
>> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>> >>
>>> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>> >>
>>> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>>> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>>> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>>> >> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>>> >>
>>> >> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>> >>
>>> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>>> >> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>>> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>>> >> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>>> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>>> >> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>>> >> greater results.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
>>> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>>> >> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>> >>
>>> >> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>>> >> translation.  LO has only 13.
>>> >>
>>> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>> >>
>>> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>>> >
>>> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>>> > am<
>>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>>> >
>>> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
>>> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
>>> > project."
>>> >
>>> >  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
>>> > list of languages LO is claiming.
>>> >
>>>
>>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>>> tomorrows to come.
>>>
>>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>>
>>
>> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
>> have different release policies and so be it.
>>
>> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
>> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
>> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>>
>
> How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
> volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
> been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
> touched in over a year.
>
> If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
> ones we have in SVN:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/
>
> Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
> Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
> active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
> not very fair.
>

Here's what I'd call a fair comparison.  Use the criterion that OOo
used for shipping a supported language -- 90% UI completion.  By that
criterion LO has 47 "complete" translations and AOO has 42.  This is
not a very large difference.

-Rob


>> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
>> would like us to have.
>>
>
> We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template.  If we had
> MDText support for Pootle we could do more.
>
>> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
>> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>>
>
> Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?
>
>> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
>> marketing, and in general accepted

Re: More annoying FUD

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, jan i  wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>>
>> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>> >>
>> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>> >>
>> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> >> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>> >>
>> >> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>> >>
>> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> >> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>> >>
>> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>> >> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> >> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> >> greater results.
>> >>
>> >> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
>> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>> >>
>> >> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> >> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>> >>
>> >> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> >> translation.  LO has only 13.
>> >>
>> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>> >>
>> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>> >>
>> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>> >
>> >
>> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>> >
>> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
>> > am<
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
>> >
>> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
>> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
>> > project."
>> >
>> >  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
>> > list of languages LO is claiming.
>> >
>>
>> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
>> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
>> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
>> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
>> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
>> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
>> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
>> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
>> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
>> tomorrows to come.
>>
>> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
>> marketing lard, are at stake.
>>
>
> before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
> have different release policies and so be it.
>
> But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
> doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
> complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)
>

How closely did you look?  We only put languages in Pootle where a
volunteer has requested them.  LO has 20 translations that have never
been edited. Some are at 0% complete.   Many more that have not been
touched in over a year.

If you want apples-to-apples comparisons then you should look at the
ones we have in SVN:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/

Both projects have their share of incomplete, neglected translations.
Nothing wrong with that.  But comparing the one project's list of
active translations with another project's list of inactive ones is
not very fair.

> They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
> would like us to have.
>

We've been doing this in SVN, via a website template.  If we had
MDText support for Pootle we could do more.

> If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
> same, at least not without having looked at the facts.
>

Maybe we're not looking at the same facts?

> So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
> marketing, and in general accepted.
>

Again, if you are not looking at the same facts and do not know that
you are not looking at the same facts then you have been deceived ,
not just subjected to marketing.

Regards,

-Rob

> And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
> translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.
>
> rgds
> Jan Iversen.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Don
>>
>> best
>> louis
>>
>> -

Re: More annoying FUD

[jan i]

On 19 February 2014 20:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

> hi,
>
>
> On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
> >>
> >> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
> >>
> >> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> >> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
> >> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> >> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
> >>
> >> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
> >>
> >> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> >> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
> >> 15% complete UI translations ?!
> >>
> >> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
> >> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
> >> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> >> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> >> greater results.
> >>
> >> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
> >> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
> >>
> >> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> >> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
> >>
> >> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> >> translation.  LO has only 13.
> >>
> >> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
> >>
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
> >>
> >> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
> >
> >
> > More recently posted on the blog by the author:
> >
> > "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> > am<
> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/#comment-6950
> >
> > Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> > have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> > project."
> >
> >  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> > list of languages LO is claiming.
> >
>
> :-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
> When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
> insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
> meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
> does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
> we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
> left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
> acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
> today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
> tomorrows to come.
>
> Let's be as ruthlessly real uras possible. Money decisions, not
> marketing lard, are at stake.
>

before we we get too far out on theoretical claims. It is true we and LO
have different release policies and so be it.

But has anyone looked at their po files, I just spent a couple of hours
doing so, and reality is that they have many languages that are far more
complete that ours (see https://translations.documentfoundation.org/)

They also have the web site templates in pootle, very elegant, something I
would like us to have.

If we claim they compare oranges and apples we should not start doing the
same, at least not without having looked at the facts.

So, yes maybe LO takes the statement to the limit, but that is called
marketing, and in general accepted.

And yes I am still very frustrated about the fact that translators have to
translate the same text twice. THAT would be a good answer to the blog.

rgds
Jan Iversen.





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

Re: willing to donate openoffice Base template

[Alexandro Colorado]

You can use OpenTemplate.org
http://opentemplate.org/index.php?xcontentmode=634

You can host your templates freely.


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:27 AM, John C. Pratt  wrote:

> Hello, I would like to donate
>
> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/family-address-book-birthday-remindersto
> Open Office, and I am willing to remove all branding.
>
> My problem is this: I can't continue to host the download of this any more;
> I need a new way to offer it. Can you host it? (The problem is that there
> is no category for Base for templates, and you require that non -oxc
> extensions be hosting offsite. What can I do?
>
> I am willing to donate it but I understand that there may not be enough
> interest to maintain it.
>
> --John
>



-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

Re: willing to donate openoffice Base template

[Alexandro Colorado]

Cant we just add the filetype to the template site? I would think this
would be easier. That said, I am just thinking logically I am not sure how
drupal handle filetypes to offer to visitors.


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Roberto Galoppini <
roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2014-02-17 14:27 GMT+01:00 John C. Pratt :
>
> > Hello, I would like to donate
> >
> >
> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/family-address-book-birthday-remindersto
> > Open Office, and I am willing to remove all branding.
> >
> > My problem is this: I can't continue to host the download of this any
> more;
> > I need a new way to offer it. Can you host it? (The problem is that there
> > is no category for Base for templates, and you require that non -oxc
> > extensions be hosting offsite. What can I do?
> >
> > I am willing to donate it but I understand that there may not be enough
> > interest to maintain it.
> >
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>  Actually for historical reason the Template website has been designed for
> managing only Write, Calc and Impress templates. The best way to handle
> this maybe to create a project page on SourceForge and we'll take care of
> creating the page on the Template site. It seems like many in the past went
> this way, and considering that now SourceForge is managing the Template
> site the end-user experience will be just like for every other template.
>
> If you do not want to create a SourceForge project for that just let me
> know, you might send me your template and I'll take care of handling the
> upload.
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
> >
> > --John
> >
>



-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

Re: More annoying FUD

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

hi,


On 19 February 2014 14:05, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>>
>> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>>
>> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>
>> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>
>> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation.  LO has only 13.
>>
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
>
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> project."
>
>  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
>

:-) Your language undoes their claim. This claim of theirs is not new.
When we were doing OOo, we claimed, too, >100 languages, until I tried
insisting that we really needed to clarify what language support
meant. (Something similar occurs with format support.) Further, it
does not matter much if a language is localized to, say, Klingon (as
we tried), only to have it be forgotten by tomorrow's children and
left unmaintained. It's a truth about open source that seldom goes
acknowledged, that what counts is not what you did yesterday or even
today but what others will do with all that over the stretch of
tomorrows to come.

Let's be as ruthlessly real as possible. Money decisions, not
marketing lard, are at stake.


> Don

best
louis

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

Re: More annoying FUD

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>>
>> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>>
>> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
>> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
>> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
>> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>>
>> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>>
>> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
>> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
>> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>>
>> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
>> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
>> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
>> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
>> greater results.
>>
>> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
>> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>>
>> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
>> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>>
>> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
>> translation.  LO has only 13.
>>
>> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>>
>> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/
>
>
> More recently posted on the blog by the author:
>
> "italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
> am
> Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
> have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
> project."
>
>  In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
> list of languages LO is claiming.
>

The point that we also have an impressive list of incomplete
translations as well:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/

The main difference is that we don't release incomplete translations,
while LO does.

-Rob

> Don

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

Re: More annoying FUD

[Donald Whytock]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> http://www.italovignoli.org/2014/02/language-support-of-office-suites/
>
> Don't you love it when they come up with these false comparisons?
>
> If you look a little bit closer you see that they are releasing and
> counting languages where the UI is only 15% translated.  So yes, if
> you are willing to release incomplete work then you can claim to
> "support" more languages.  But what kind of support is this?
>
> A specific example:  Tartar (15% UI translated)
>
> I thought OOo had a requirement for 80% completion before releasing a
> translation.  With AOO we made the requirement be 100%.  LO releases
> 15% complete UI translations ?!
>
> Of course, we shouldn't judge their release criteria.  That is their
> business (and their users) not ours.  But when they make false
> comparisons in a table, comparing apples-to-oranges, then we ought to
> note it.  It is not fair to claim lower standards are the same as
> greater results.
>
> Another example:  They've released Hebrew support at 90% complete.  We
> have Hebrew support at 96% complete, but we have not released it yet.
>
> Another example:  Our Icelandic translation (unreleased) is 95%
> complete.  Theirs (released) is only 88%.
>
> Another example:  We have 36 languages at 100% complete UI
> translation.  LO has only 13.
>
> Look at the data and make your own comparisons:
>
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/
>
> https://translations.documentfoundation.org/projects/libo_ui/


More recently posted on the blog by the author:

"italovignoli February 19, 2014 at 2:12
am
Although the comparison was between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office, I
have updated the table to reflect the situation at AOO provided by that
project."

 In all fairness, even if they're not complete, it's still an impressive
list of languages LO is claiming.

Don

Re: Paste screenshots in AOO writer 4.1 bêta

[Armin Le Grand]

Hi Guy,

checked for

#123922#, but looks good. Could also be #124085#, will check that. In the 
meantime found a workaroundin Writer (just in case), but I will first try to 
find the cause...

On 19.02.2014 02:38, Guy Waterval wrote:

Hi Armin,

OK, many thanks.
But it's not a priority, I have notified it because it was a little change
between the two versions and I didn't know if it was important or not. The
workaround is easy with the Paste special command.


From my POV it is a priority; there is a workaround, but I think its 
not acceptable that all AOO users (number?) would have to do that 
instead of the more simple CTRL-V. Thanks for finding it so quickly, and 
I would say it is important :-)




A+



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

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Trace Output

[Steele, Raymond]

Thanks for the response. I am recompiling now.  At first build,  I removed 
--enable-debug and --enable-symbols, but I was still receiving the debug trace 
output at run in the terminal window and the installation set was 8.3G. How big 
is the installation supposed to be? I think earlier versions were less than 
600M. Now, I removed --disable-strip-solver, hopefully, this build is clean.

Raymond

-Original Message-
From: Andre Fischer [mailto:awf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:43 AM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Trace Output

On 18.02.2014 16:56, Steele, Raymond wrote:
> I configured the OpenOffice build without debug and disabled symbols, but I 
> am still getting 'trace' output in the terminal when I run ./soffice. How do 
> I disable this?
>
> Raymond
>
>

Can you give us an example?  With that we can find the place in the source and 
understand why it is still printed.

-Andre


-
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: EXTERNAL: Re: dmake clean

[Steele, Raymond]

Yes, we have made many local modifications. Gladly, we had the backup. Couldn't 
a check be placed in the make file to ensure $INPATH  is set?

-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:49 PM
To: OOo Apache
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: dmake clean

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Steele, Raymond wrote:

> I see in the Makefile:
>
> clean .PHONY
>
> -rm -rf */$(INPATH)
> -rm -rf solver/*/$(INPATH)
>
> I am going to make an assumption that I performed the dmake clean and 
> $INPATH was not set, therefore  rm -rf */ was performed
>
> From: Steele, Raymond
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:58 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: dmake clean
>
> I am not sure why, but I just did a dmake clean in ../main and once if 
> finished all the module directories including source was deleted.
> Thankfully, I had a backup.  Can anyone explain this?
>
> Raymond
>
>
Hello Raymond --

Yes, an incredibly annoying thing and one I have experienced as well.

 If you "source" your env script and THEN do "dmake clean", only the bits 
generated toward the native build will disappear. The clean script does a MUCH 
bigger remove if you don't do that first. The first time this happened to me, I 
freaked a bit, but as I hadn't made any local mods, an svn update got 
everything back.

 It's good that you had a backup since I'm assuming you made local mods that 
you wanted to keep.  The build doc needs a bit of updating to help others avoid 
this pitfall.


Happy coding!

--
-
MzK

"Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,  for they are unfailing 
ingenious in that respect."
   -- James Mason

Re: HOW-TO use Microsoft Access databases from within OpenOffice.org 1.1

[Regina Henschel]

Hi,

Gabriel schrieb:

HOW-TO use Microsoft Access databases from within OpenOffice.org 1.1


I need help using Access *.mdb files with OpenOffice 4.0.1 on Windows
8 (Stupid, I know. Win2K does not support touchscreen)



Please have a look at
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Connecting_to_Microsoft_Access

It was written for older Windows versions, but it might work on Windows 
8 too. I haven't got Window 8 and cannot test it myself.


It would be nice, if you feed back, what works for you and what not, and 
what has to be changed for Windows 8.


Kind regards
Regina



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

Re: Paste screenshots in AOO writer 4.1 bêta

[Guy Waterval]

Hi Armin,

OK, many thanks.
But it's not a priority, I have notified it because it was a little change
between the two versions and I didn't know if it was important or not. The
workaround is easy with the Paste special command.

A+
-- 
gw


2014-02-19 3:30 GMT+01:00 Armin Le Grand :

> Hi,
>
> this may have to do with my changes to #123922#, see [1] I will check
> this...
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123922
>
>
> On 18.02.2014 05:36, Guy Waterval wrote:
>
>> Hi André,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer
>>
>> 2014-02-18 11:32 GMT+01:00 Andre Fischer :
>>
>>  On 18.02.2014 10:08, Guy Waterval wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi all,

 I dont know if this issue is relevant or not, just for info.
 I generally use greenshot to make screenshots and copy them from
 greenshot
 to the clipboard before pasting them in Writer.
 http://getgreenshot.org/
 I have noticed a little issue with writer in the latest bêta AOO 4.1
 under
 Windows 7.0 (not tested in other OS).
 In Impress, Draw and Calc all is OK, but not in Writer,  the command
 Paste
 or Ctr+V gives no results (in AOO 4.01 it was OK).
 If I make screenshots with the simple Windows Printscreen command, all
 is
 OK, also in Writer.
 So, only to indicate a change noticed between AOO 4.01 and AOO 4.1 bêta,
 not obligatory a bug.

  What does Edit->Paste Special list as available data formats?
>>>
>>>  Only bitmap, and I just notice that the Paste special command is OK in
>> Writer, only the "normal" Paste command doesn't give any results,
>> For other modules, the two commands (normal and special) are OK.
>>
>> A+
>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: US_inprogress folder went missing during the build

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,
On 18.02.2014 14:39, LOH KOK HOE wrote:

Hello guys,
I just update my workspace and the build has now run successfully. This
round I did the build without option -P. I wasn't sure whether the build
is cause by the option -P or my workspace could be rather old.
THanks @!



First, cool that you managed it and did not give up.

Second, sorry that I did not replied to your personal mail at which you 
attached the log file. I simply did not find the time.

I think that the update of your workspace fixed the problem.
Looking at the log and also at your below given error message the debian 
packages contain the version string '4.0.0'. As we are currently on our 
way to release 4.1.0 the version string in the debian packages should be 
'4.1.0'. This is the reason why I think that the update of your 
workspace solved the problem.
Could you please have a look at names of the debian packages which you 
have built in your successful run?


Best regards, Oliver.



On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:47 PM, LOH KOK HOE mailto:huahsi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

@Regina
I did build with -P option for the reason to speed up the building
process. This is the command I use in the build: "build --all -P2 --
-P2", and then I did also try "build --all", result still the same.
I didn't configure any thing including the "--with-lang" option. So
I leave it default. FYI, my development PC consist of Ubuntu 13.04
64bit, i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz with 8GB RAM.
:o)


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Regina Henschel
mailto:rb.hensc...@t-online.de>> wrote:

Hi,

I build for Windows, but perhaps there are similar problems on
Linux:

Do you try to build with option -P ? I found, that -P4 does
never work for me, but building without that option works.

What is your value for --with-lang in configure? It seems to me
that wrong values are not detected before packing.

Kind regards
Regina

LOH KOK HOE schrieb:

I have remove the unxingx6.pro  and
rebuild, error still persist. I'm having
this error being shown during the build:

**__
ERROR: Saved logfile:
/home/kokhoe/workspace/aoo-__trunk/main/instsetoo_native/

unxlngx6.pro/Apache___OpenOffice/deb/logging/en-US/__log_AOO410_en-US.log


**__
Thu Feb 13 21:52:37 2014 (00:08 min.)
dmake:  Error code 255, while making 'openoffice_en-US.deb'

1 module(s):
   instsetoo_native
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/home/kokhoe/workspace/aoo-__trunk/main/instsetoo_native/__util

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume
the build by
running:

build --all:instsetoo_native



On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittm...@googlemail.com
> wrote:

Hi,


On 12.02.2014 15:18, LOH KOK HOE wrote:

As I following the

guideline

on


building the AOO, I got following error shown in the
log file, the log
file were locate at /main/instsetoo___native/
unxlngx6.pro/Apache___OpenOffice/deb/logging/en-US

directory, and the file
name was "log_AOO410_en-US.log".


**__**__***
ERROR: More than one new package in directory
/home/kokhoe/workspace/aoo-__trunk/main/instsetoo_native/

unxlngx6.pro/Apache___OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US___inprogress/DEBS


(
/home/kokhoe/workspace/aoo-__trunk/main/instsetoo_native/
unxlngx6.pro/Apache___OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_

inprogress/DEBS/openoffice-__writer-4.0.0-1-linux-3.8-x86_

64.deb/home/kokhoe/workspace/__aoo-trunk/main/instsetoo___native/
unxlngx6.pro/Apache___OpenOffice/deb/install/en-US_

Re: I have posted 3 wiki for OOXML export

[Andre Fischer]

On 19.02.2014 02:30, shzh zhao wrote:

1. shape export
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Shape+Export+in+OOXML+Export
2. DrawingML shape export
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/DrawingML+export+in+OOXML+export
3. UT method in OOXML export
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/UT+method+in+OOXML+Export

VML shape export will be added later.


Great.  Thanks for the information.  Especially the idea about using POI 
as a test tool is interesting.


-Andre



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

Re: deleted files still showing in repository "browse" -- help!

[Andre Fischer]

On 19.02.2014 09:07, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 18.02.2014 23:06, Kay Schenk wrote:

In this repository --

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/documentation/online_help/helpauthoring/ 



I did an svn "delete" yesterday on all files  named
OOo2HelpAuthoring-.html

Just the ones followed by a number, not the others, and not the "png"
files.
Yet, they are still showing in the web browse of the repository. In my
local repo, even deleting the whole directory, followed by an svn update
yields the correct files. So, does anyone know why these files are still
"stuck" like this in the web browse mode?


You still need an svn commit to, well, commit your local changes to 
the svn server.



and, oops! I didn't realize svn "delete" wouldn't prompt me for a log
message so there was none. :/


That is strange, svn delete should not need a log message.  But the 
following svn commit should.


Sorry, I did not read the rest of the thread.  Not quite awake.



-Andre










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

Re: deleted files still showing in repository "browse" -- help!

[Andre Fischer]

On 18.02.2014 23:06, Kay Schenk wrote:

In this repository --

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/documentation/online_help/helpauthoring/

I did an svn "delete" yesterday on all files  named
OOo2HelpAuthoring-.html

Just the ones followed by a number, not the others, and not the "png"
files.
Yet, they are still showing in the web browse of the repository. In my
local repo, even deleting the whole directory, followed by an svn update
yields the correct files. So, does anyone know why these files are still
"stuck" like this in the web browse mode?


You still need an svn commit to, well, commit your local changes to the 
svn server.



and, oops! I didn't realize svn "delete" wouldn't prompt me for a log
message so there was none. :/


That is strange, svn delete should not need a log message.  But the 
following svn commit should.


-Andre








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

Re: Question on building OpenOffice

[Andre Fischer]

On 19.02.2014 00:22, Reem Elnagar wrote:

Hi :)

I had a problem while building open office it was written in the step by step 
building guide in Ubuntu 
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step 
to write the command

source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh
but when I did that I got " No such file or directory" can anyone tell what 
went wrong ?
Thanks in advance :)

This file is created when configure runs without error. Please check the 
output of configure to see if there where any errors.


If you are on a 32 bit system, then the file name is slightly 
different.  Does a

ls main/Linux*.Set.sh
list anything?

-Andre


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