Wrong regression test cases
Hi, from time to time there is a suspect that there are errors in test case descriptions, currently I know: Issue 124523 - Testcase requires not existing feature wildcards https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124523 Issue 124535 - Wrong Test description for hyperlinks in Writer TOC https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124535 Is there any systematic review for the testcases? How should we proceed if errors have been found? CU Rainer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: the right Accessibility configuration
On 28/03/2014 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Hello Jacopo, ... Are you saying that you can't even launch OpenOffice the first time? For the record, this could be related to this bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124573 Fixes were committed over the last 24 hours to trunk (last: revision 1583887), so either you wait for the next snapshot (it will likely be copied to the AOO410 branch soon) or you try with a daily trunk build with a higher revision number. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extension Manager Add Crashes
On 04/02/2014 01:20 AM, Steele, Raymond wrote: Following up again with more information. At runtime, when the RuntimeException is thrown on line 249 nFunctionIndex = 3 pTypeDescr-nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex = 0 That means that the given pTypeDescr has not been initialized fully (see the comment about the three levels of initialization for typelib_InterfaceTypeDescription in typelib/typedescription.h), presumably because there was some error finding the UNOIDL type data (either compiled comprehensively into the cppumaker-generated headers, or obtained from .rdb files). The initialization of nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex would happen in typelib_typedescription_initTables called from complete (both in cppu/source/typelib/typelib.cxx). Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
Hi, FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!! Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1 release. We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix some further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a first RC based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot of time in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS and Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is still ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and the release relevant bits are the source release. The RC builds can be found as always under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going into this release can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html. I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the fixed issues. Especially the issues related to translation updates/fixes should be verified by native speakers. A related RAT scan can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the languages we have released with AOO 4.0.1. The patches are intended for private use only and of course for testing but not for the release. It's the first time that we prepared a complete set of patches and we have to test the functionality a little bit more. The related full install sets are prepared for patches in the future and can release patches in the future as well if they work as expected. By the way I have upgraded AOO 4.0.1 (en-US) on my Windows laptop with the msp to AOO 4.1 ;-) I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. We have not fixed and integrated all requested showstoppers because they were not all showstoppers from my perspective and we should take into account that we have limited resources in the project able to fix issues. We focused on issues that are obviously showstoppers and on those who are relevant for most of our users. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
I hope that nobody have a problem with the revision number ...666 and the build date April 1th ;-) I find it funny and you can expect a very hot version ... On 4/2/14 3:16 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!! Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1 release. We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix some further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a first RC based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot of time in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS and Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is still ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and the release relevant bits are the source release. The RC builds can be found as always under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going into this release can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html. I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the fixed issues. Especially the issues related to translation updates/fixes should be verified by native speakers. A related RAT scan can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the languages we have released with AOO 4.0.1. The patches are intended for private use only and of course for testing but not for the release. It's the first time that we prepared a complete set of patches and we have to test the functionality a little bit more. The related full install sets are prepared for patches in the future and can release patches in the future as well if they work as expected. By the way I have upgraded AOO 4.0.1 (en-US) on my Windows laptop with the msp to AOO 4.1 ;-) I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. We have not fixed and integrated all requested showstoppers because they were not all showstoppers from my perspective and we should take into account that we have limited resources in the project able to fix issues. We focused on issues that are obviously showstoppers and on those who are relevant for most of our users. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.1.0_release_blocker denied: [Issue 121193] Alt+Arrow Cmd+Arrow move cursor in the opposite directions, in RTL text editing
j...@apache.org has denied Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org's request for 4.1.0_release_blocker: Issue 121193: Alt+Arrow Cmd+Arrow move cursor in the opposite directions, in RTL text editing https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121193 --- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org no showstopper, will be fixed on trunk asap - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.1.0_release_blocker denied: [Issue 124556] Broken SDK environment
j...@apache.org has denied Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org's request for 4.1.0_release_blocker: Issue 124556: Broken SDK environment https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124556 --- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org no showstopper, easy work around available, will be fixed on trunk asap - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
Traditional Chinese not found yet. Should I wait for a while? On 2014/04/02 21:16, Jürgen Schmidt said: Hi, FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!! Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1 release. We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix some further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a first RC based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot of time in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS and Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is still ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and the release relevant bits are the source release. The RC builds can be found as always under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going into this release can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html. I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the fixed issues. Especially the issues related to translation updates/fixes should be verified by native speakers. A related RAT scan can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the languages we have released with AOO 4.0.1. The patches are intended for private use only and of course for testing but not for the release. It's the first time that we prepared a complete set of patches and we have to test the functionality a little bit more. The related full install sets are prepared for patches in the future and can release patches in the future as well if they work as expected. By the way I have upgraded AOO 4.0.1 (en-US) on my Windows laptop with the msp to AOO 4.1 ;-) I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. We have not fixed and integrated all requested showstoppers because they were not all showstoppers from my perspective and we should take into account that we have limited resources in the project able to fix issues. We focused on issues that are obviously showstoppers and on those who are relevant for most of our users. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
4.1.0_release_blocker denied: [Issue 124509] MacOSX 64 crash in the scripting environment due to getenv(PATH) returning a null value
j...@apache.org has denied r...@apache.org's request for 4.1.0_release_blocker: Issue 124509: MacOSX 64 crash in the scripting environment due to getenv(PATH) returning a null value https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124509 --- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org no showstopper for AOO 4.1, we will try to fix it asap on trunk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.1.0_release_blocker canceled: [Issue 87182] Crash on formatting OLE Draw object
Armin Le Grand armin.le.gr...@me.com has canceled Armin Le Grand armin.le.gr...@me.com's request for 4.1.0_release_blocker: Issue 87182: Crash on formatting OLE Draw object https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=87182 --- Additional Comments from Armin Le Grand armin.le.gr...@me.com Not needed for release - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
On 02.04.2014 17:12, imacat wrote: Traditional Chinese not found yet. Should I wait for a while? As Jürgen wrote, the Linux builds are still being uploaded. Languages starting with a-g are already available for 64bit Linux, other languages and 32bit Linux will follow in a couple of hours. What's most important and what the vote is about is the source revision. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2014 um 17:12 schrieb imacat: Traditional Chinese not found yet. Should I wait for a while? you use Linux, correct? Yes please try again later, as mentioned the Linux Upload is ongoing and because of the deb and rpm and 32 and 64 Bit version it takes longer ;-) On 2014/04/02 21:16, Jürgen Schmidt said: Hi, FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!! Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1 release. We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix some further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a first RC based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot of time in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS and Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is still ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and the release relevant bits are the source release. The RC builds can be found as always under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going into this release can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html. I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the fixed issues. Especially the issues related to translation updates/fixes should be verified by native speakers. A related RAT scan can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the languages we have released with AOO 4.0.1. The patches are intended for private use only and of course for testing but not for the release. It's the first time that we prepared a complete set of patches and we have to test the functionality a little bit more. The related full install sets are prepared for patches in the future and can release patches in the future as well if they work as expected. By the way I have upgraded AOO 4.0.1 (en-US) on my Windows laptop with the msp to AOO 4.1 ;-) I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. We have not fixed and integrated all requested showstoppers because they were not all showstoppers from my perspective and we should take into account that we have limited resources in the project able to fix issues. We focused on issues that are obviously showstoppers and on those who are relevant for most of our users. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Extension Manager Add Crashes
Thanks. I'll take a stab at it, although I am not too sure I understand. Raymond -Original Message- From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.second...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:41 PM To: Steele, Raymond Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org; michael.me...@suse.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Extension Manager Add Crashes On 04/02/2014 01:20 AM, Steele, Raymond wrote: Following up again with more information. At runtime, when the RuntimeException is thrown on line 249 nFunctionIndex = 3 pTypeDescr-nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex = 0 That means that the given pTypeDescr has not been initialized fully (see the comment about the three levels of initialization for typelib_InterfaceTypeDescription in typelib/typedescription.h), presumably because there was some error finding the UNOIDL type data (either compiled comprehensively into the cppumaker-generated headers, or obtained from .rdb files). The initialization of nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex would happen in typelib_typedescription_initTables called from complete (both in cppu/source/typelib/typelib.cxx). Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.org or the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider (computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? Roberto Thanks Marcus Then we can exclude requester that we don't want (e.g., malware distributors). Also in time frames with Beta or RC releases it can help us to steer who is able and when it is possible to download OpenOffice like we want to see until the real release date is reached. Thanks Marcus Sure, sites could still copy all binaries being voted upon and offer them locally, but this would require a more significant effort. on their side. And more HDD space and more own bandwith - which is also not what they want. Marcus
Re: New Bug reporters March 2014
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Rainer Bielefeld rainerbielefeld_ooo...@bielefeldundbuss.de wrote: Hi, in March 2014 we have got 47 new AOO Bug reporters, who reported all together 55 bugs: Great news that these folks volunteered! Welcome everybody! No Reports Account --- 04anu6j...@gmail.com 03karlo.s...@gmail.com 02j.nitsc...@ok.de 02overcomer@gmail.com 02shlap...@henrico.k12.va.us 0173wa4...@sc.rr.com 01aeneum...@gmx.net 01agnies...@unity3d.com 01alexander.re...@googlemail.com 01alwynwelling...@gmail.com 01a...@luycx.com 01bobti...@earthlink.net 01bugzillaopen...@gmail.com 01claircou...@yahoo.co.uk 01daveun...@sbcglobal.net 01djpi...@hotmail.com 01edkni...@centurytel.net 01elke.dou...@free.fr 01galearn...@gmail.com 01gregpe...@hotmail.com 01gus.h...@gmail.com 01gwmcc...@charter.net 01halst...@gmail.com 01jak.badd...@hotmail.com 01kg.hammarl...@gmail.com 01lawall...@gmail.com 01leonb...@gmail.com 01lu...@crossimp.com 01lughnas...@seznam.cz 01majella.paul...@gmail.com 01marih...@qq.com 01maryfai...@hotmail.com 01mcleo...@gmail.com 01openoff...@margull.de 01p.jungw...@gmx.net 01paulp...@optonline.net 01pbd62...@icloud.com 01philip.mar...@outlook.com 01sandra.il...@yahoo.com 01szurketest...@gmail.com 01t_p_ander...@hotmail.com 01thesim...@gmail.com 01tio.mad...@hotmail.com 01turner_jm...@live.com 01voro...@gmail.com 01wegwe...@gmx.de 01wojciech.halicki.pis...@gmail.com Thank you all for your initiative. If you have any questions concerning your Bugzilla bug reports please feel free to add me to CC in the bug report. Best Regards Rainer Bielefeld - 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: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.orgor the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider ( computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? Roberto Roberto -- thanks for all this investigation. Should we assume that this caution should only be applied to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/milestones/ assuming this area would always be used for betas? Thanks Marcus Then we can exclude requester that we don't want (e.g., malware distributors). Also in time frames with Beta or RC releases it can help us to steer who is able and when it is possible to download OpenOffice like we want to see until the real release date is
Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
Am 04/02/2014 06:52 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.orgor the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider ( computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? Roberto Roberto -- thanks for all this investigation. Should we assume that this caution should only be applied to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/milestones/ assuming this area would always be used for betas? Without other opinions I would assume the same. For Beta or any other pre-final releases this would help. However, the problem remains when it comes to a final release that is located one subdir up in .../files/: We want to protect the release builds until we have really announced it officially. So, IMHO it has to be a more generic solution like the staging-bit or a substitute text (see my other mail to
Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
Am 04/02/2014 06:20 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.org or the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: Great :-) One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider (computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? I'm pretty sure that these kind of downloaders do not care about disclaimers - less then ever when located somewhere else. ;-) So, either we disable the entire download for the specific timeframe or at least a text as substitute (like This release is not yet public. Please stay tuned and come back when it is announced.). But this text has then to be on Sourceforge in the same location. I'm wondering if the staging bit can help as best solution. I would expect that the new location is not public *and* not known *and* not useable/functional for the normal non-admin user *until* we remove the bit. Am I right? Thanks Marcus Then we can exclude requester that we don't want (e.g., malware distributors). Also in time frames with
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
Am 04/02/2014 04:45 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: I hope that nobody have a problem with the revision number ...666 and the build date April 1th ;-) I find it funny and you can expect a very hot version ... What a mere chance. :-) Marcus On 4/2/14 3:16 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!! Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1 release. We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix some further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a first RC based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot of time in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS and Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is still ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and the release relevant bits are the source release. The RC builds can be found as always under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going into this release can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html. I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the fixed issues. Especially the issues related to translation updates/fixes should be verified by native speakers. A related RAT scan can be found under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the languages we have released with AOO 4.0.1. The patches are intended for private use only and of course for testing but not for the release. It's the first time that we prepared a complete set of patches and we have to test the functionality a little bit more. The related full install sets are prepared for patches in the future and can release patches in the future as well if they work as expected. By the way I have upgraded AOO 4.0.1 (en-US) on my Windows laptop with the msp to AOO 4.1 ;-) I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. We have not fixed and integrated all requested showstoppers because they were not all showstoppers from my perspective and we should take into account that we have limited resources in the project able to fix issues. We focused on issues that are obviously showstoppers and on those who are relevant for most of our users. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
2014-04-02 21:15 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 04/02/2014 06:20 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.orgor the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: Great :-) One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider ( computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? I'm pretty sure that these kind of downloaders do not care about disclaimers - less then ever when located somewhere else. ;-) So, either we disable the entire download for the specific timeframe or at least a text as substitute (like This release is not yet public. Please stay tuned and come back when it is announced.). But this text has then to be on Sourceforge in the same location. Yes, that's doable in the way Kay described. And yes, we would add the text and disable downloads. I'm wondering if the staging bit can help as best solution. I would expect that the new location
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC
Am 04/02/2014 03:16 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: I plan to start a vote for this RC later today and let it run until Sunday night, means enough time to test and evaluate the bits careful. Linux binaries will be available tomorrow latest. OK, as the bar for accepted showstoppers is now getting very high, I'll disable the public Beta download before the wekeend - if nobody objects. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Keysigning Party at ApacheCon
http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/PgpKeySigning Good idea for anyone who wants to be better tied into the web of trust, e.g., Release Managers, security team, etc. Good idea for everyone, really. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
Am 04/02/2014 09:22 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-04-02 21:15 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 04/02/2014 06:20 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.orgwrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini: 2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Rob Weir wrote: http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/ Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting thread email? Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do not care to be careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately. We can be successful only if we manage to block their downloads. They link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge side) to deny all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.orgor the sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release. For me this sounds like a great idea. Maybe we should start with denying all download requests that some from these bad websites. @Roberto: Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort for you? Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could help to stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software. @Roberto: Maybe you haven't seen this up to now. Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread before. It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude some domains / IP addresses from downloading our software? I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message. - chip.de - computerbase.de - softpedia.com This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the future. Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-) *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version is not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block will be removed. @all: I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see until the official release. What you think? I don't know. Won't this just cause confusion? They point to the files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird errors and spend an hour trying to debug it. We don't want to needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm. Is there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like, This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially released. Links to these files are disallowed until the release is officially approved or something like that? To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best as possible. +1 This seems sufficient to me. @Roberto: Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released and published? Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings: Great :-) One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider ( computerbase.de) serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow (not direct to a mirror). The first two cases are things we can't control. In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not recommended. How does that sound? I'm pretty sure that these kind of downloaders do not care about disclaimers - less then ever when located somewhere else. ;-) So, either we disable the entire download for the specific timeframe or at least a text as substitute (like This release is not yet public. Please stay tuned and come back when it is announced.). But this text has then to be on Sourceforge in the same location. Yes, that's doable in the way Kay described. And yes, we would add the text and disable downloads. Just to be sure, is this limited to a special subdir like
volunteer
Hi, my name is Tiago and I am Brazilian. I would like to work with you as a translator, I can translate into Portuguese and help you to create a grammar and spelling corrector. Best regards -- Paz do Senhor Tiago Leichsenring
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Extension Manager Add Crashes
I now understand what is described below (except the UNOIDL and .rbd stuff) and see all of this in the code, but I am still lost for a solution. Is there anything that I may be able to modify to get this working? -Original Message- From: Stephan Bergmann [mailto:stephan.bergmann.second...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:41 PM To: Steele, Raymond Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org; michael.me...@suse.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Extension Manager Add Crashes On 04/02/2014 01:20 AM, Steele, Raymond wrote: Following up again with more information. At runtime, when the RuntimeException is thrown on line 249 nFunctionIndex = 3 pTypeDescr-nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex = 0 That means that the given pTypeDescr has not been initialized fully (see the comment about the three levels of initialization for typelib_InterfaceTypeDescription in typelib/typedescription.h), presumably because there was some error finding the UNOIDL type data (either compiled comprehensively into the cppumaker-generated headers, or obtained from .rdb files). The initialization of nMapFunctionIndexToMemberIndex would happen in typelib_typedescription_initTables called from complete (both in cppu/source/typelib/typelib.cxx). Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: volunteer
Hi Tiago, Welcome to AOO community! Could you also subscribe the Localization Mailing Listhttp://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#localization-mailing-list-public? Thank you. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Tiago Leichsenring tiagolei...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, my name is Tiago and I am Brazilian. I would like to work with you as a translator, I can translate into Portuguese and help you to create a grammar and spelling corrector. Best regards -- Paz do Senhor Tiago Leichsenring -- Best Regards, Steve Yin
Bedienung Apache-Cms
Hallo, Da ich gerade etwas Zeit habe habe ich mir das Apache-Cms angesehen und habe testweise versucht auf der Seite: http://www.openoffice.org/de/about-ooo/about-mailinglist.html Die Tabellenüberschrift: Aktuelle deutschsprachige Mailingliste bei apache.org In: Aktuelle deutschsprachige Mailinglisten bei apache.org Zu ändern. Vom cms bekomme ich folgende Rückmeldung (ich bin joesch): Congratulations joesch! You've now published the ooo-site website. The revision number of your commit was 904628. Fragen: Bin ich überhaupt an der richtigen Stelle des cms? Wann werden solche Änderungen wirksam? Da ich denke das dauert Stunden? Tage?, ist die weitergehende Frage wodurch ich Kenntnis erhalte das eine Änderung überhaupt aktzeptiert wird also das es zwar technisch noch dauern mag das sie veröffentlicht wird aber der Veröffnentlichung amnsich nichts mehr entgegensteht? Oder gilt eine Änderung automatisch deshalb als aktzeptiert weil ich sie als Committer mache? Gruß Jörg projektinterne Diskussionen der deutschsprachigen AOO-Community To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Bedienung Apache-Cms
Moin Moin On 02.04.2014 10:06, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hallo, Da ich gerade etwas Zeit habe habe ich mir das Apache-Cms angesehen und habe testweise versucht auf der Seite: http://www.openoffice.org/de/about-ooo/about-mailinglist.html Die Tabellenüberschrift: Aktuelle deutschsprachige Mailingliste bei apache.org In: Aktuelle deutschsprachige Mailinglisten bei apache.org Zu ändern. Vom cms bekomme ich folgende Rückmeldung (ich bin joesch): Congratulations joesch! You've now published the ooo-site website. The revision number of your commit was 904628. Fragen: Bin ich überhaupt an der richtigen Stelle des cms? Wann werden solche Änderungen wirksam? Da ich denke das dauert Stunden? Tage?, ist die weitergehende Frage wodurch ich Kenntnis erhalte das eine Änderung überhaupt aktzeptiert wird also das es zwar technisch noch dauern mag das sie veröffentlicht wird aber der Veröffnentlichung amnsich nichts mehr entgegensteht? Oder gilt eine Änderung automatisch deshalb als aktzeptiert weil ich sie als Committer mache? Ich habe die entsprechenden Commits gesehen. Ich sehe auch die Änderung auf der entsprechende Webseite. Gruss, Oliver. Gruß Jörg projektinterne Diskussionen der deutschsprachigen AOO-Community To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org projektinterne Diskussionen der deutschsprachigen AOO-Community To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Bedienung Apache-Cms
Hallo Marcus, From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] hier mal der grobe Ablauf wie das mit dem Editieren funktioniert: Danke. Das hat schon mal alles geklappt, auch wenn ich noch ungeübt bin und die Bedienung deshalb etwas ungewohnt ist. Ich habe jetzt als ersten sinnvollen Edit die Beschreibung der neuen dev-Liste auf: http://www.openoffice.org/de/about-ooo/about-mailinglist.html ergänzt. Ich empfehle dringend, die Commits über die commits@ ML zu verfolgen. Dann sieht man, *wann* die Commits angekommen sind und *ob* alles soweit OK ist. Manchmal geht es nach Sekunden - es kann aber auch schonmal Minuten dauern (siehe meine Commit-Mails um 20:20 und 20:23 Uhr). Ich muß mich zunächst für die commit-ML anmelden und habe im Moment den Commit ohne die Liste gemacht. Ist das Listenarchiv wirklich so lahm das ich Minuten nachdem meine Änderung schon produktiv erreichbar ist noch keine Mail im Archiv (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/) angekommen ist? Du musst mindestens 3 Mails sehen: 1. Commit, die eigentliche Änderungen als Diff. Die sehe ich im Archiv 2. Staged, das Bauen im Staging-Bereich. 3. Publish, das finale Veröffentlichen der Änderungen. Von denen sehe ich im Archiv Garkeine? Sind die irgendwo anders? Oder woran erkenne ich die? Gruß Jörg projektinterne Diskussionen der deutschsprachigen AOO-Community To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org
