review requested: [Issue 105098] [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible : [Attachment 84803] Patch for drag n drop bug with rev #2
Manik has asked for review: Issue 105098: [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=105098 Attachment 84803: Patch for drag n drop bug with rev #2 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84803&action=edit --- Comment #21 from Manik --- Created attachment 84803 --> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84803&action=edit Patch for drag n drop bug with rev #2 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
review canceled: [Issue 105098] [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible : [Attachment 84802] Patch for drag n drop bug
Manik has canceled Manik 's request for review: Issue 105098: [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=105098 Attachment 84802: Patch for drag n drop bug https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84802&action=edit - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
review requested: [Issue 105098] [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible : [Attachment 84802] Patch for drag n drop bug
Manik has asked for review: Issue 105098: [Mac] inserting files (e. g. images) into a document by drag & drop isn't possible https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=105098 Attachment 84802: Patch for drag n drop bug https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84802&action=edit --- Comment #20 from Manik --- Created attachment 84802 --> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84802&action=edit Patch for drag n drop bug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on an aoo-win7
Hi all, there has been build success at 2015-06-18 10:04 and build failure at 2015-06-19 05:05 and today. But there had not been any commits in the time between the two builds. So what has changed? Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
bugzilla notice for commit http://svn.apache.org/r1685665
Hi all, the associated bug https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126367 has not got a commit notice. Is there something wrong with my commit message? Or is the service down (again)? Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header
Hi Jan, hi Jürgen, as I wrote, license headers in main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project are indeed missing. They were not included in the patch. They are no real binaries, but xml-files. Do they need a license at all? I see other .classpath or .project files listed in rat-excludes. But the files main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs are listed in https://svn-master.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/rat-excludes So I do not know, why the Rat Report reports missing licenses for them. Is there a problem having a dot in the name of a subdirectory? Or is there an error in the way how they are listed in rat-excludes? Kind regards Regina jan i schrieb: Hi. Newest rat report still shows the same 6 files as being a problem. http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html rgds jan i. On 18 June 2015 at 20:19, jan i wrote: Thanks for applying the patch. I will check the next RAT-Scan to see if the files sill appear. rgds jan I. On 18 June 2015 at 19:36, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi Jan, jan i schrieb: HI. did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that are a problem (a probably should be deleted): Unapproved Licenses: /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains the lines Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath === Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/xml Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project === Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/xml and Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath === Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/xml Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project === Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. svn:mime-type = application/xml so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not notice the consequence. The files main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs +main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit message of r1684976. Kind regards Regina rgds jan i. On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi Jürgen, is it OK to commit the patch? if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was committed in the first place. If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files in trunk without the proper ALv2 license. Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files. I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have sideeffects. No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I explained before these files are part of the started but currently stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ... Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for OOXML parsing ... Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be filtered out as some other things as well. Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more clean for future purpose. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -
Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header
Hi. Newest rat report still shows the same 6 files as being a problem. http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html rgds jan i. On 18 June 2015 at 20:19, jan i wrote: > Thanks for applying the patch. > > I will check the next RAT-Scan to see if the files sill appear. > > rgds > jan I. > > > On 18 June 2015 at 19:36, Regina Henschel wrote: > >> Hi Jan, >> >> jan i schrieb: >> >>> HI. >>> >>> did anybody note the rat-scan output, seems we have 6 files still that >>> are >>> a problem (a probably should be deleted): >>> >>> Unapproved Licenses: >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaOOXMLParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath >>> >>> /home/buildslave19/slave19/openofficeorg-nightly-rat/build/main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project >>> >> >> I had submitted the patch from Gavin McDonald. But that patch contains >> the lines >> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.classpath >> === >> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. >> svn:mime-type = application/xml >> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/JavaPartManager/.project >> === >> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. >> svn:mime-type = application/xml >> >> and >> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.classpath >> === >> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. >> svn:mime-type = application/xml >> Index: main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.project >> === >> Cannot display: file marked as a binary type. >> svn:mime-type = application/xml >> >> so for those no change exists in the patch. I read that, but did not >> notice the consequence. >> >> The files >> >> main/ooxml/source/framework/OOXMLViewer/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs >> +main/ooxml/source/framework/SchemaParser/.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs >> >> should have entries in rat-excludes, at least I see that in the commit >> message of r1684976. >> >> Kind regards >> Regina >> >> >> >>> rgds >>> jan i. >>> >>> >>> On 16 June 2015 at 08:27, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote: > On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel > wrote: > > Hi Jürgen, >> >> is it OK to commit the patch? >> >> if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was > committed > in the first place. > > If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files > in > trunk without the proper > ALv2 license. > > Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files. > > I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have > sideeffects. > > No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I explained before these files are part of the started but currently stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ... Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for OOXML parsing ... Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be filtered out as some other things as well. Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more clean for future purpose. Juergen - 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 >> >> >
