RE: [dev] Looking for DXF in the source
Hi Daniel, *, On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Lidström daniel.lidst...@sbg.se wrote: I've read that OpenOffice supports DXF. So I would like to see this source. Where in the source archives can I find this source? http://pumbaa.ooodev.org:59145/source/search?path=*dxf* → goodies/source/filter.vcl/idxf ciao Christian Thank you Christian, this is exactly what I was looking for. /Daniel
[dev] Next Education Projeect IRC meeting : thursday 15th October
Hello, This is a reminder, The next IRC meeting will occur tomorrow, thursday 15th of October, 16:00 ( UTC), or 18:00 ( CEST hour, i.e. Paris Hamburg hour) Everybody is welcome and can attend at : Channel : #education.openoffice.org , server : irc.freenode.net For further information, please have a look at the agenda : http:// wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_IRC_meetings See you tomorrow ! Eric Bachard -- qɔᴉɹə
Re: [dev] Reminder: Make Sure your specifications are suitable for the WhatsNewGuide creation
Hi Bernd, On 10/13/09 18:07, Bernd Eilers wrote: Hi there! Just a quick reminder to specification writers: Specification documents are parsed for creating WhatsNew information included into ReleaseNotes HTML pages where some content from the specifications is being extracted for the ReleaseNotes of OOo-DeveloperSnapshots and OOo-Releases. Please make sure that your specification is suitable for this process. Start by using official templates for specification documents or specification wiki page. Further make sure to have a first paragraph in the abstract section of your specification that would be suitable as the text for the WhatsNew Information of ReleaseNotes. Especially do not start your abstract with text like This specification is about or similar text which would not be suitable for being included into the WhatsNew Information of the ReleaseNotes for a OOo-Release or OOo-DeveloperSnapShot. I have changed several specifications now and I think this process is suboptimal. The abstract has to serve two different purposes that not always fit together. One purpose is the overview about the specification. The other purpose is the WhatsNew-Info. For a new feature with an own new specification this might be quite ok, but several specifications do evolve as features are added. So they might describe more than one feature. Furthermore some features are spread over more than one specification. Checking the specifications with the mentioned checking process did take me some additional time and even though I have used the template there were several errors. There are still errors left and I have no idea how to fix them. The parsing seems to be very error prone (maybe this is caused by the problems you mention below). But the worst at this process is that it is so easy to forget about. Couldn't we instead introduce an extra section within the Feature Mail? This would be so simple, self describing, self reminding, easy to use and easy to parse. Thanks for the reminder for the current process! Ingrid You can than also check if your document or wiki page can still be parsed correctly for this process or wether on the contrary you might have corrupted the template with changes being incompatible to the parsing by using the Misc/CheckSpecification Menu Entry in EIS. Further make sure to have a correct link to the specification included when posting feature mails for your new features from within EIS. This reminder is being posted because the process is currently somewhat broken, manual reediting is being needed and some valuable information might be misssing in ReleaseNotes because of incompatible specification documents. Kind regards, Bernd Eilers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Reminder: Make Sure your specifications are suitable for the WhatsNewGuide creation
Hi Ingrid, +1 I would also preferr an additional explicit WhatsNewInformation Text field in the FeatureMail Information instead of the current handling of relying on being able to extract the first paragraph from the specification. In the past sometimes even the official template was changed in a way that broke the process and it´s probably easy to forget that only the first paragraph of the abstract goes into the WhatsNew Information of the release notes. Also there seems to be quite some inconsistency about handling specifications and new features: some i-teams write an additional new specification when changing something existing with only the change being specified in the new spec which fits with the current handling and some do just update already existing and already implemented specifications with new stuff which doesn´t fit the current handling well as you have said. If others agree to such a change I would like to implement something like that extra section within the Feature Mail as you have suggested with some kind of fallback to the old handling if the new field in the EIS FeatureMail Information is not being set. So what do others think? Kind regards, Bernd Eilers Ingrid Halama wrote: Hi Bernd, On 10/13/09 18:07, Bernd Eilers wrote: Hi there! Just a quick reminder to specification writers: Specification documents are parsed for creating WhatsNew information included into ReleaseNotes HTML pages where some content from the specifications is being extracted for the ReleaseNotes of OOo-DeveloperSnapshots and OOo-Releases. Please make sure that your specification is suitable for this process. Start by using official templates for specification documents or specification wiki page. Further make sure to have a first paragraph in the abstract section of your specification that would be suitable as the text for the WhatsNew Information of ReleaseNotes. Especially do not start your abstract with text like This specification is about or similar text which would not be suitable for being included into the WhatsNew Information of the ReleaseNotes for a OOo-Release or OOo-DeveloperSnapShot. I have changed several specifications now and I think this process is suboptimal. The abstract has to serve two different purposes that not always fit together. One purpose is the overview about the specification. The other purpose is the WhatsNew-Info. For a new feature with an own new specification this might be quite ok, but several specifications do evolve as features are added. So they might describe more than one feature. Furthermore some features are spread over more than one specification. Checking the specifications with the mentioned checking process did take me some additional time and even though I have used the template there were several errors. There are still errors left and I have no idea how to fix them. The parsing seems to be very error prone (maybe this is caused by the problems you mention below). But the worst at this process is that it is so easy to forget about. Couldn't we instead introduce an extra section within the Feature Mail? This would be so simple, self describing, self reminding, easy to use and easy to parse. Thanks for the reminder for the current process! Ingrid You can than also check if your document or wiki page can still be parsed correctly for this process or wether on the contrary you might have corrupted the template with changes being incompatible to the parsing by using the Misc/CheckSpecification Menu Entry in EIS. Further make sure to have a correct link to the specification included when posting feature mails for your new features from within EIS. This reminder is being posted because the process is currently somewhat broken, manual reediting is being needed and some valuable information might be misssing in ReleaseNotes because of incompatible specification documents. Kind regards, Bernd Eilers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Reminder: Make Sure your specifications are suitable for the WhatsNewGuide creation
Hi, If others agree to such a change I would like to implement something like that extra section within the Feature Mail as you have suggested with some kind of fallback to the old handling if the new field in the EIS FeatureMail Information is not being set. So what do others think? me as the main user of the output data (to generate the Release Notes for each release) can only support Ingrid's request. +1 Kind regards, Joost - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] Open office writer in IExplorer
Hi I would like to seek your help regarding my problem, I need to open an ODT file in internet explorer, currently its possible by javascript window.open(myfile.odt, ,toolbar=false,menu=false). But my requirement now is how can I HIDE the OO activeX controls toolbar menu as well as the right click command of the mouse. my requirement is very simple, just open the ODT file in browser as 1. Read only and cannot be copied / downloaded / save as / exported to other formats 2. Print the document (user role dependent so a separate button should be present to initiate this print command of OO) kindly advice what should i do since am new with OOP. Am using ASP.NET/ VB 2.0 and open office 3.0 many thanks and regards. Raffy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] Announcement: OpenOffice.org development switches to Mercurial as SCM
ANNOUNCEMENT OpenOffice.org developers, I'm very pleased to announce, that after five months of piloting, implementation and and testing, we are finally ready to switch OpenOffice.org development to Mercurial (hg) as our SCM (Source Code Management) tool. Mercurial is a modern and flexible distributed SCM tool with the fast and convenient merging capability which is so required for OOo development. We have chosen Mercurial out of the three major open source DSCM tools available (Git, Bazaar and Mercurial) because we believe that its combination of ease of use, flexibility and performance fits best with the overall OOo needs. We are well aware that a slightly different emphasis on the selection criteria might well have led to a choice of Git or Bazaar, which are both very capable DSCMs as well. Details: We'll switch the DEV300 development code line first, the OOO320 (OpenOffice.org 3.2 release code line) will follow later. We certainly don't want to interfere with the OOo 3.2 release. The DEV300 switch will happen around the 26th of October. The current DEV300 hg mirror repository on hg.services.openoffice.org will be elevated to *the* reference repository, where release engineering pushes released milestones. Simultaneously release engineering will stop to commit new milestones to the current Subversion (svn) trunk. Please stay tuned! During the course of the next two weeks I'll make a number of announcements regarding the switch to Mercurial: - where to find documentation - which will be the last svn based milestone - conversion of child workspaces to hg - conventions which we will use Regards Heiner -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien OpenOffice.org release engineer h...@openoffice.org jens-heiner.recht...@sun.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
