[dev] Status OpenOffice.org 3.4
Hi all, * Release status* although we made good progress regarding the release relevant issues (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease34#release_relevant_issues) for OpenOffice.org 3.4 we missed the criteria for branch off the release branch. The biggest issue is still the amount of open regressions (we cut that amount in half but still have more than 25 open) so that we will do an fixing round of three weeks to achieve that goal. * Translation status* The DEV300_m101 build will be used to start translation for 3.4 as most translation changes will then be integrated. During the next three weeks of fixing the mentioned release relevant issue there will be no integration of any new stuff, possible exceptional requests will be handled by the release status meeting. * next steps* - we will concentrate fixing the release relevant issues within the next weeks, we will review the issue status on March 7th if we are ready for branch off. - please do not plan to integrate new stuff or re-factor code, we are now in stabilization phase. As the only exception I'm waiting for the finishing svg-import cws, as this feature has been long waited for, it's close for getting finished and it is not translation relevant. please bookmark http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease34#Detailed_schedule_for_OpenOffice.org_3.4 for the next milestones. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] OpenOffice.org 3.4 release and some changes
On 01/20/2011 10:42 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 01/19/11 13:58, Martin Hollmichel wrote: On 01/19/2011 12:51 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 01/19/11 12:19, Martin Hollmichel wrote: * branch off for release will happen after stabilization phase Stabilization phase might be an unlucky term here. I hope it is not meant to imply that there are phases where only select CWS (those stabilizing the to-be-branched-off release) are allowed into the DEV300 master. I think this is a one off we need to go through for the 3.4 release. But why is it better to put the 3.4 stabilization phase before 3.4 branch off, instead of after? the main point is to do the stabilization phase early, the actual branch off date is secondary beside this saves some work in Release Engineering, -Stephan Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] OpenOffice.org 3.4 release and some changes
Hi, let me suggest some changes for the release of 3.4, please see http://blogs.sun.com/ratte/entry/some_changes_for_the_openoffice for the changes and the reasons why. The changes in short form: * define criteria release relevant issues, only these issues will get 3.4 target milestone * remaining issue will get target milestone at the time of integration automatically * better transparency for issue by using unassigned ownership * branch off for release will happen after stabilization phase These changes will help to reduce the amount of rc's for the 3.4 release and make the release more predictable, hopefully :-) Affected by these changes are mainly QA and DEV people, setting keyword or fixing bugs and of course the members of the release status meeting, translation or documentation folks are not directly affected. feedback by the participants of the release status meeting is appreciated, especially we need an agreement of how to update e.g. following pages: http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/bug_writing_guidelines.html http://www.openoffice.org/scdocs/ddIssues_EnterModify.html#priority http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Showstopper http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease34 thank you for your support, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] OpenOffice.org 3.4 release and some changes
On 01/19/2011 12:51 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 01/19/11 12:19, Martin Hollmichel wrote: * branch off for release will happen after stabilization phase Stabilization phase might be an unlucky term here. I hope it is not meant to imply that there are phases where only select CWS (those stabilizing the to-be-branched-off release) are allowed into the DEV300 master. I think this is a one off we need to go through for the 3.4 release. For the following releases we should continuously track and work on the release relevant issues so that we don't need stabilization phases at all. This is one of the main objectives of that proposal. I also would be glad to see continuous integration efforts on the DEV codeline without any nomination process involved My vision would be: Use the proposed three week iterations to do continous integration and l10n and have every three week quite stable and localized OOoDev releases and have nightly builds in between. -Stephan Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] OpenOffice.org 3.4 release and some changes
Hi Jörg, IMHO this is already covered by A release relevant issue may be deferred to the next release if effort or risk estimation doesn't allow a fix in a reasonable time frame and has been qualified no to be a release_blocker. but maybe you're right and we need to be more specific, Martin On 01/19/2011 01:42 PM, Jörg Jahnke wrote: Hi Martin, your proposal is definitely a step into the right direction IMHO. Since in the past we've often had cases where a fix in one RC caused a regression in the next one, I'd also like to see the developer's risk estimation have an effect on whether an issue gets accepted as a showstopper or not. Therefore I'd like to modify your proposed list of showstopper criteria as follows: ... * keyword data_loss set _and_ Prio is P2, P3 or P4 _and_ the developer's risk estimation for breaking other functionality is medium * keyword regression has been set _and_ Prio is P2 or P3 _and_ the developer's risk estimation for breaking other functionality is low * keyword usability or accessibility _and_ Prio 2 _and_ the developer's risk estimation for breaking other functionality is low ... Regards, Jörg Am 19.01.2011 12:19, schrieb Martin Hollmichel: Hi, let me suggest some changes for the release of 3.4, please see http://blogs.sun.com/ratte/entry/some_changes_for_the_openoffice for the changes and the reasons why. The changes in short form: * define criteria release relevant issues, only these issues will get 3.4 target milestone * remaining issue will get target milestone at the time of integration automatically * better transparency for issue by usingunassigned ownership * branch off for release will happen after stabilization phase These changes will help to reduce the amount of rc's for the 3.4 release and make the release more predictable, hopefully :-) Affected by these changes are mainly QA and DEV people, setting keyword or fixing bugs and of course the members of the release status meeting, translation or documentation folks are not directly affected. feedback by the participants of the release status meeting is appreciated, especially we need an agreement of how to update e.g. following pages: http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/bug_writing_guidelines.html http://www.openoffice.org/scdocs/ddIssues_EnterModify.html#priority http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Showstopper http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Release_criteria http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease34 thank you for your support, Martin - 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] pdb files for official build
On 11/23/2010 01:16 PM, Knut Olav Bøhmer wrote: Hi, Is it possible to get the pdb files for the official build (3.2.1 and 3.2.0) generally speaking, I would say yes, maybe somebody @releng may have a look, if any sensitive data are included in the pdb files and can say about what amount of data we are talking about, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] OpenOffice.org Hackfest last week in Hamburg
Hi, I've written a few lines about last weeks OOo Hackfest in Hamburg : http://blogs.sun.com/ratte/entry/openoffice_org_hackfest_in_hamburg short version: about 25 people there, some new faces and it is considered to continue this on regular basis, the next slot may be end of February next year, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] external module stax and java baseline
Hi, I'm just wondering wether the external module stax is still needed at all anymore, it seems only needed if using JDK 1.5 and lower and not needed if using gcj. My suggestion is to raise Java baseline to 1.6 and remove external module stax, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] change log of jpeg library 8b
just fyi,
we're still using version 6b, this is the change log since that version,
maybe some expert want to recommend an update ?
Martin
CHANGE LOG for Independent JPEG Group's JPEG software
Version 8b 16-May-2010
---
Repair problem in new memory source manager with corrupt JPEG data.
Thank to Ted Campbell and Samuel Chun for the report.
Repair problem in Makefile.am test target.
Thank to anonymous user for the report.
Support MinGW installation with automatic configure.
Thank to Volker Grabsch for the suggestion.
Version 8a 28-Feb-2010
---
Writing tables-only datastreams via jpeg_write_tables works again.
Support 32-bit BMPs (RGB image with Alpha channel) for read in cjpeg.
Thank to Brett Blackham for the suggestion.
Improve accuracy in floating point IDCT calculation.
Thank to Robert Hooke for the hint.
Version 8 10-Jan-2010
--
jpegtran now supports the same -scale option as djpeg for lossless
resize.
An implementation of the JPEG SmartScale extension is required for this
feature. A (draft) specification of the JPEG SmartScale extension is
available as a contributed document at ITU and ISO. Revision 2 or later
of the document is required (latest document version is Revision 3).
The SmartScale extension will enable more features beside lossless resize
in future implementations, as described in the document (new compression
options).
Add sanity check in BMP reader module to avoid cjpeg crash for empty
input
image (thank to Isaev Ildar of ISP RAS, Moscow, RU for reporting this
error).
Add data source and destination managers for read from and write to
memory buffers. New API functions jpeg_mem_src and jpeg_mem_dest.
Thank to Roberto Boni from Italy for the suggestion.
Version 7 27-Jun-2009
--
New scaled DCTs implemented.
djpeg now supports scalings N/8 with all N from 1 to 16.
cjpeg now supports scalings 8/N with all N from 1 to 16.
Scaled DCTs with size larger than 8 are now also used for resolving the
common 2x2 chroma subsampling case without additional spatial resampling.
Separate spatial resampling for those kind of files is now only necessary
for N8 scaling cases.
Furthermore, separate scaled DCT functions are provided for direct
resolving
of the common asymmetric subsampling cases (2x1 and 1x2) without
additional
spatial resampling.
cjpeg -quality option has been extended for support of separate quality
settings for luminance and chrominance (or in general, for every provided
quantization table slot).
New API function jpeg_default_qtables() and q_scale_factor array in
library.
Added -nosmooth option to cjpeg, complementary to djpeg.
New variable do_fancy_downsampling in library, complement to fancy
upsampling. Fancy upsampling now uses direct DCT scaling with sizes
larger than 8. The old method is not reversible and has been removed.
Support arithmetic entropy encoding and decoding.
Added files jaricom.c, jcarith.c, jdarith.c.
Straighten the file structure:
Removed files jidctred.c, jcphuff.c, jchuff.h, jdphuff.c, jdhuff.h.
jpegtran has a new lossless cropping feature.
Implement -perfect option in jpegtran, new API function
jtransform_perfect_transform() in transupp. (DP 204_perfect.dpatch)
Better error messages for jpegtran fopen failure.
(DP 203_jpegtran_errmsg.dpatch)
Fix byte order issue with 16bit PPM/PGM files in rdppm.c/wrppm.c:
according to Netpbm, the de facto standard implementation of the PNM
formats,
the most significant byte is first. (DP 203_rdppm.dpatch)
Add -raw option to rdjpgcom not to mangle the output.
(DP 205_rdjpgcom_raw.dpatch)
Make rdjpgcom locale aware. (DP 201_rdjpgcom_locale.dpatch)
Add extern C to jpeglib.h.
This avoids the need to put extern C { ... } around #include
jpeglib.h
in your C++ application. Defining the symbol DONT_USE_EXTERN_C in the
configuration prevents this. (DP 202_jpeglib.h_c++.dpatch)
Martin
Re: [dev] 3.3 branch-off date
Am 17.06.2010 17:37, schrieb Jan Holesovsky: Hi, To my surprise, I just found out that the 3.3 now has a schedule: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=OOoRelease33diff=170047oldid=158489 Please, has it been announced anywhere? yes, some time ago in the release status meeting, minutes can be found here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2010-05-17 http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2010-05-31 sorry that this has not been promoted more widely, Martin [I share a CWS that I hoped to get to 3.3, but it is hard to make that happen now :-((] Thank you, Kendy - 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] Spanish NL Community requests for funding help on acquiring a local build box
Santiago Bosio wrote: Hi all, I'm collaborating with our project co-lead Alexandro Colorado on a complete revision of our spanish UI and Help content translations, because we have detected many errors and terminology inconsistencies across UI elements and mostly between UI and Help content strings. We have estimated that our plan will extend over some of the next upcoming releases, so we won't work on the current translation, because it will render even more confusing strings on the next releases, but we will make a separate revision, and integrate changes later, when the process is completed. For that, we need to generate on demand builds to test our progress. So far I've managed to make my own builds, but my hardware is a little too old, and the build process takes roughly 18 hours to complete. We are seeking to acquire a new build box (quadcore duo with 4 Gb RAM) in order to speed up these builds. We have estimated a cost of 1000 USD, and we are in conditions to fund half of this amount from our project resources. Alexandro told me that the dev project had also some money to help fund works related to the project, and that we could ask here to see if we cant get help for our needs. We know our problem is more related to l10n than to a development task, but we don't have other places to ask for this. So I submit to your kind consideration this request, to help us acquire our own build box. Santiago, we had quite comprehensive discussion of your request but the final say is that we are not going to support your request. This is because we don't want to have distributed offline build machine which serves only to specific tasks. We agreed that the Spanish version of OpenOffice.org is strategic for the overall success of the OpenOffice.org project, so please don't hesitate to do other reasonable requests to support the Spanish l10n project, greetings, Martin Best regards, Santiago Bosio - 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] Re: OpenOffice.org Product Development
eric.bach...@free.fr wrote: [...] the most important is to see whether there is or not a real democracy inside OpenOffice.org. requesting democracy is quite striking request and and issue where people might have different understandings: do you mean the meritocratic way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) or the egalitaristic (is this an English word ?) way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism). or as others [1] say: We are not voting on every decision. Good feedback, good data are welcome. I don't know if I'm that far going as Mark saying This is not a democracy since I think meritocracy is an established pattern in many Open Source projects. And I consider meritocracy as democratic shape. Martin [1] http://www.webupd8.org/2010/03/ubuntu-is-not-democratic.html Have a nice day, Eric Bachard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] Re: [l10n-dev] Re: [dev] Spanish NL Community requests for funding help on acquiring a local build box
Santiago Bosio schrieb: Pavel Janík escribió: Hi, On 18.3.2010, at 0:03, Alexandro Colorado wrote: The request is to partially fund the buildbox, so given the response, my guess is that most people are ok with this. Please let's try to approve the budget so we can move on. The platform would be on linux and will improve the spanish locale. I won't approve the machine just for one locale, sorry. I'd like to see similar system as is for the windows machine we approved a month ago or so. Pavel: I don't know what system you are talking about. Can you give me more details? 8 core, 12 GB RAM, 100 MBit connected Linux 64bit box, with virtualboxed based Windows instances running, Martin We need a platform where we can make our builds on demand. We have discussed different alternatives, but no one seems to fit. The buildbot infrastructure is something that resembles what we need, but we can't use it because we can't do our own CWS that modify directly the l10n files. And as I said, we can't do it also because if we work on the current translation we will introduce more confusing terms on the next releases, provided that this revision surely will span over some of them. We can't integrate changes from a partial revision. So, we need to make builds using a local working copy where we can control the SDF file used for l10n, without bothering others (like you :-), probably) to make us a build. I don't know if there are any other NL communities that have the same scenario as we do, or at least interested on having a platform like this. I would like to get a final answer from all budget deciders about this request to know how can we move forward. If it is a no, and it is decided to have a more open platform where all NL communities can be involved, we kindly ask this to be resolved on a short term. Best regards, Santiago PS: cross-posting to devel list, because this talk originated there. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] icu build problem on Windows 7
this works like a charme, thank you ause, I would like to see this in the master soon, we are then prepared to start a new Windows buildbot, Martin Hans-Joachim Lankenau wrote: hi! this change helped here: snip --- icu/createmak.cfg 2010-01-18 13:09:43.469543400 +0100 +++ createmak.cfg 2010-03-23 13:47:34.120672000 +0100 @@ -2,10 +2,7 @@ SOURCE=HEADER InputPath=INPUTPATH TARGET : $(SOURCE) $(INTDIR) $(OUTDIR) - tempfile.bat - @echo off TARGETPATH - [Deps] SOURCE=.\SOURCEFILE.EXT snip tschau... ause Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, during the setup of the new OpenOffice.org build machine I have this poblem: Microsoft (R) Program Maintenance Utility Version 9.00.21022.08 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. tempfile.bat 1 file(s) copied. i18n.mak(1046) : fatal error U1054: cannot create inline file 'tempfile.bat' Stop. NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'E:\solver\r\msvc9p\bin\nmake.exe' : return code '0x2' Stop. looks like that there's a timing problem since a couple of tempfile.bat are created and executed and in repeated builds the nmake stops at different stages. the Windows7 version is a 64bit one and running in a VirtualBox, anybody also experienced this problem ? Martin - 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
[dev] icu build problem on Windows 7
Hi, during the setup of the new OpenOffice.org build machine I have this poblem: Microsoft (R) Program Maintenance Utility Version 9.00.21022.08 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. tempfile.bat 1 file(s) copied. i18n.mak(1046) : fatal error U1054: cannot create inline file 'tempfile.bat' Stop. NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'E:\solver\r\msvc9p\bin\nmake.exe' : return code '0x2' Stop. looks like that there's a timing problem since a couple of tempfile.bat are created and executed and in repeated builds the nmake stops at different stages. the Windows7 version is a 64bit one and running in a VirtualBox, anybody also experienced this problem ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Spanish NL Community requests for funding help on acquiring a local build box
Hi Santiago, I think it's an good plan to verify localization (and terminology) as a early as possible.Are there any technical hurdles to import incremental localization updates from pootle and do frequent builds. Can this also easily be done for more languages than Spanish ? What would be your preferred platform for doing this ? Martin Santiago Bosio schrieb: Hi all, I'm collaborating with our project co-lead Alexandro Colorado on a complete revision of our spanish UI and Help content translations, because we have detected many errors and terminology inconsistencies across UI elements and mostly between UI and Help content strings. We have estimated that our plan will extend over some of the next upcoming releases, so we won't work on the current translation, because it will render even more confusing strings on the next releases, but we will make a separate revision, and integrate changes later, when the process is completed. For that, we need to generate on demand builds to test our progress. So far I've managed to make my own builds, but my hardware is a little too old, and the build process takes roughly 18 hours to complete. We are seeking to acquire a new build box (quadcore duo with 4 Gb RAM) in order to speed up these builds. We have estimated a cost of 1000 USD, and we are in conditions to fund half of this amount from our project resources. Alexandro told me that the dev project had also some money to help fund works related to the project, and that we could ask here to see if we cant get help for our needs. We know our problem is more related to l10n than to a development task, but we don't have other places to ask for this. So I submit to your kind consideration this request, to help us acquire our own build box. Best regards, Santiago Bosio - 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] Spanish NL Community requests for funding help on acquiring a local build box
Pavel Janík schrieb: Hi, On 15.3.2010, at 7:56, Martin Hollmichel wrote: I think it's an good plan to verify localization (and terminology) as a early as possible.Are there any technical hurdles to import incremental localization updates from pootle and do frequent builds. Can this also easily be done for more languages than Spanish ? What would be your preferred platform for doing this ? I'd like to see platform that allows: - to merge all available strings from all tools (Pootle, static URL, ...) to every milestone - build in all languages for all platforms, every milestone - publish all of them It is much easier to let computers work then let people think if they need or want a build and remember and change their decision everytime they decise to change their mind. that'a what I have in mind as well. I know that builds und their publishing can be automated I don't know enough about pootle and don't know what you mean by static URL but it sounds like a plan, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Call for Nominations for Community Council Seats
Hi, I nominate Eike Rathke as my successor for the code contributor representative position. Eike is co-lead of the Spreadsheet and L10N project and made tremendous contributions to the project in the last 10 years. It was a quite interesting time for past 6 years in the council but I think the time has come to step back for some fresh, new people. I'm looking forward to support the work of the council as a regular member of the project. Martin Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: [Apologies for duplicate post: this list was missed in Friday's general announcement. lsp] All, On behalf of the Community Council, I would like to announce the new round of elections for the Council and start the process by asking the OpenOffice.org Community members to nominate those they think would best contribute both to the Council and to OpenOffice.org. You may nominate yourself. Consider doing that. Or nominate someone you think has been particularly valuable for the project; he or she need not be a developer! This cycle, like the first one last year, is important. OpenOffice.org is ten this year and the eyes of the world are looking upon us with eagerness to see how we work with business, government, education, and individuals. Your voice, your input, your experience is needed to take OOo into its next decade. The rules for the process are detailed in a wiki on the subject.[0] I won't bore you by repeating them here; please visit the wiki page. Several categories of OpenOffice.org contributors make up the Council, for a total of ten persons. Those categories cover the breadth of OpenOffice.org and are detailed below. All but one, the permanent Sun/Oracle representative, are elected by community vote as stipulated in the Election Process Proposal. That seat is held by Stefan Taxhet. The terms of Pavel Janík, Martin Hollmichel and John McCreesh have reached their end and their seats are up for election. On behalf of all, I'd like to thank them for their long and immensely productive contributions to the Council! The seats open for election include a Native Language Confederation Representative (the seat now held by Pavel), a Code Contributor Representative (Martin) and Product Development Representative (John). Community members only vote for those who will represent the constituency: developers vote for the developer seat, product development for that seat, and so on. You will receive an email informing you of your constituency; this is based on your role in the Project. Details about the nomination: == The nomination process is normally allotted one week dated from this post; however, the last time we went through this, last year, we were asked to give more time for nominations, and so this time around, we are allowing two weeks for nominations commencing 1 March and ending 15 March at 24:00 UTC. We will be using tried and true technology for the actual voting: the Survey machine, and only Community Members will be allowed to vote. Results will be posted in accordance with the published Election Process Proposal and a copy of this message will also be posted to the wiki at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/call_for_nominations_201003.[1] A commissary will help coordinate the election process, and I'll serve in that role. The observers will be Sophie Gautier and Drew Jensen, as with last year's election. This announcement will be posted to the relevant public lists, as detailed in the Election Process wiki:dev@openoffice.org, d...@native_lang.openoffice.org, disc...@openoffice.org as well as d...@l10n.openoffice.org and project_le...@openoffice.org. Again, consider nominating yourself or someone equally interesting. We need energetic contributors who understand the Project and have a sense of its dynamic and potential. The world is changing--we know that-- and to make sure it changes for the better, join us on the Council. Louis [0] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/Election_Process_Proposal [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/call_for_nominations_201003 -- Louis Suarez-Potts, PhD Community Manager 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] Re: license question: np_sdk/mozsrc/npunix.c
Julius Davies schrieb: Hi, Anyone have a chance to look at these question? yes, we're currently looking into this, please expect an update soon, Martin yours, Julius On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Julius Davies juliusdav...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The [np_sdk/mozsrc/npunix.c] source file appears to be licensed under MPL-1.1. It's not tri-licensed under the usual GPL/LGPL/MPL combination most files are. Meanwhile [np_sdk/mozsrc/npwin.cpp] in the same directory is tri-licensed uner GPL/LGPL/NPL. I have two questions: 1. Do these files ever get combined together in a resulting binary file? 2. Could the MPL-1.1 licensed [np_sdk/mozsrc/npunix.c] source file cause license compatibility problem for OpenOffice, since it's GPL-incompatible according to the FSF? -- yours, Julius Davies 250-592-2284 (Home) 250-893-4579 (Mobile) http://juliusdavies.ca/logging.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] OOo site and services are down
collab.net is working to fix this, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] OOo site and services are down
Martin Hollmichel wrote: collab.net is working to fix this, up and running again, Martin Martin - 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] funding request for DevRoom on FOSDEM 2010
Juergen Schmidt wrote: Hi, FOSDEM 2010 is coming soon and we will have an OpenOffice.org DevRoom as well as OpenOffice.org stand there. The main reason for the DevRoom is to spread knowledge around ongoing development efforts as well as giving hints how to get started etc.. In short we try to attract developers. The plan is to sponsor the speakers from the development budget and some t-shirts and the stand crew from the marketing budget. For this reason i would like to request a funding of ~1500 Euro from the development budget for 6 speakers to cover their travel expenses. I assume http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Conferences/FOSDEM/2010/CFP refers to the details, in this case I support the request. Pavel, Thorsten have you further comments, questions ? Martin references: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Funding_And_Budgets http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Funding_And_Budgets/Developer Regards Juergen - 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] Automation-CAT0 tests in EIS are now mandatory
Bernd Eilers schrieb: Hi there! By request from the QA-Automation-Team the Automation-CAT0 tests in EIS are now mandatory. They must always be started on Windows and Linux and their state should be green before the CWS gets approved by QA or nominated. the wording is a bit unfortunate, the release team still accepts cws with no CAT0 test passed. The release team supports the efforts of the QA automation team that CAT0 test are required for those cws, where changes requires the adoption of the test suite and regressions can be detected. For changes outside this scope (also described in Mathias blog http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/about_contributing other ways of approving the cws might be more appropriate than the CAT0 tests. so please make use of the automated tests wherever there are useful, but please also use tools like the buildbots, code or peer review etc In the end the QA representative is responsible independent from how QA actually has been done. Martin . If those tests have not been run yet and other tests did deliver an OK status or where not mandatory to be execute the CWS will get the incomplete overall status. If you rerun individual automation tests make sure to review the result in QUASTE afterwards, QUASTE will then deliver the new calculated result status over all tests to EIS. 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] Mercurial-Implementation: OOo domain developer public keys
Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Heiner, On Friday 28 August 2009, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Please contact me if you have problems, suggestions etc. Actually, I have a suggestion ;-) Do you think - with the switch to Mercurial - would it be possible to stop using the 'CWS' and 'MWS' terminology, and instead switch to the commonly used 'feature branch' and 'release branch' terms? +1, Martin Thank you, Kendy - 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] Important Process for Mercurial Users
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Jan, Jan Holesovsky wrote: Hi Bernd, On Friday 31 July 2009, Bernd Eilers wrote: Everyone using a mercurial based CWS MUST enter the new milestone in EIS manually after rebasing the CWS to a new milestone using mercurial commandline or gui tools. Cannot this be automated? With git, all you'd need is to have a post-update hook on the server that does 'git describe' (finds the most recent tag that is reachable from a commit) on the CWS, and just gives the tag to the EIS. I suppose the same must be achievable with Mercurial, right? Yes, something like that is possible with hg. But it's somewhat wrong also because in most cases it's more relevant what's in your local working repository and that might be much more current than what you have in the outgoing rep. So the whole notion of the current milestone is somewhat unclear in a DSCM scenario. Haven't thought finally about it. There will be at least a command line method to update the milestone. what about this: tho code basis itself knows about it's milestone, it's in solenv/inc/minor.mk, so EIS should be able to grab that information from the hg repository directly. Martin Regards, Heiner - 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] Proposal : OOo4Kids as official part of OpenOffice.org Project
eric.bachard wrote: [please continue the discussion on the dev@openoffice.org mailing list] Hi all, Proposal : The OpenOffice.org Education Project proposes to drive the following experimentation : - create a dedicated branch in the OOo source code repository (means hosted by OOo Project) for a 7-12 years software, derivated from OpenOffice.org, and made and maintained by OpenOffice.org project. I like and support this idea, Formally : create a new branch, completely independent of , including milestones, like OOo does what do you mean by completly independent ? I would expect that this branch should kept in sync with OOo releases ? - work with schools and students to improve the software - innovate about performances and cooperate with the performance project in this area - (add your idea) Resources : to be defined, but the non profit association EducOOo ( http://www.educoo.org ) is already candidate to manage that (e.g.receive sponsoring for the software, machines for students, and so on). Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Development Roadmap
Per Eriksson wrote: Hello, Do we have a roadmap like this for the current versions and branches? http://development.openoffice.org/releases/oo_branches.pdf we do have http://development.openoffice.org/releases/ooo_roadmap.pdf which is more up to date, I will also provide a new one, Do we have one that summarizes our continued development from start to present? :-) no, but it would really nice to get one. This would be very nice to have and look at. Per Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Description of source tarballs
Per Eriksson wrote: Hello, I am currently updating the Getting it wiki page with some new information, and would like to know the following. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Getting_It I have added the extensions and testautomation tarballs in the article. Can somebody please send a good short description for these two? done for testautomation, I removed the entry for extensions because extensions are distributed separately. And also it is difficult to explain why only a small subset of the extensions are available as source in this source tar ball, I added information on how to get the source for extensions on the extensions.openoffice.org site some time ago. Would it be correct to remove the section about CVS in favour of Subversion? yes, I'm working to update the content for this on the tools project, thanks for the hint, Per Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Description of source tarballs
Joost Andrae wrote: Hi Per, I am currently updating the Getting it wiki page with some new information, and would like to know the following. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Getting_It I have added the extensions and testautomation tarballs in the article. Can somebody please send a good short description for these two? Would it be correct to remove the section about CVS in favour of Subversion? not yet because CVS is still used for OOo 2.4.x. But there should be a section describing the usage of SVN. I disagree, the main pages should contain a less information as need for doing a build for the most recent version, informations about older version should be moved to separate pages. Otherwise this will confuse newbies. Joost Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] OpenOffice running on Windows 7
Hi, With the release of Windows 7 later this year we expect again a huge amount of questions of our users if OpenOffice also runs on Windows 7. To my knowledge OpenOffice.org (2.4.x, 3.0.x, 3.1.x) installs and runs fine on Windows 7 RC. For that reason I suggest that we already add Windows 7 to the list of supported platforms in the system requirements (http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_30.html) and the download pages. I'm wondering which advanced efforts (integration of system dialogs, desktop integration, etc) might already be ongoing or planned for windows 7 ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] amount of stopper / regressions for 3.1 release
Mathias Bauer wrote: Ingrid Halama wrote: This is not sufficient. Heavy code restructurings and cleanups are not bound to the feature freeze date, Perhaps they should? And at least as far as it concerns me they are. yes, I also consider large amount or new, move or restructured code as a feature and had erroneously the expectation that this is already common sense. If all agree we should add this to the Feature Freeze criteria (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Feature_freeze) Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] amount of stopper / regressions for 3.1 release
*Hi, so far we have got reported almost 40 regression as stopper for 3.1 release, see query http://tinyurl.com slash cgsm3y . for 3.0 ( **http://tinyurl.com slash ahkosf ) we had 27 of these issues, for 2.4 (**http://tinyurl.com slash c86n3u** ) we had 23. we are obviously getting worse and I would like to know about the reasons for this. They are too much issues for me to evaluate the root cause for every single issue so I would like ask the project and qa leads to do an analysis for the root causes and to come with suggestions for avoiding them in the future. additionally there might be other ideas or suggestions on how to detect and fix those issues earlier in our release process. From my perspective one reason for the high amount of regression is the high amount of integrated child workspaces short before a feature freeze. In the moment the ITeam (the QA representative) does the nomination before feature freeze. As an immediate action (for the upcoming 3.2 release) from my side I will limit this freedom until 4 weeks before feature freeze, in the last 4 weeks before feature freeze, I or other members from the release status meeting will do the nomination of the cws for the upcoming release or decide to postpone it to the then coming release. ** Martin * - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] buildbot builds vs standard builds
Andre Schnabel schrieb: Hi Nils, Stephan Bergmann schrieb: During FOSDEM, Mechtilde told me about a problem the QA community is experiencing, namely that buildbot builds (of CWSs) are quite different functionality-wise from the standard builds (of milestones and releases, often done by Sun Hamburg Release Engineering). Those differences are especially apparent in Base, Mechtilde told me. This problem in some cases prevents easy testing of a CWS by the QA community, or even thorough testing of a CWS in real life by replacing a standard OOo build with a buildbot CWS build in (semi-)production use. I know that there were some issue regarding QA'ing buildbot builds in past. To get an idea what the real problem is, we should collect those issues in detail when they occur to find the root cause for them This is quite like going to the woods and look at each tree seperately to understand, what the wood is. yes, this is no fun. but the statement was namely that buildbot builds (of CWSs) are quite different functionality-wise from the standard builds. I think those trees need a look at. You know that we do at other occasion the dicussion when is an OpenOffice.org build an original OpenOffice.org (tm) build, so I consider the question functional differences as an essential one. you're right, we also need not to analyse the complete wood. Really, we should investigate into the concrete list of issues before thinking about any additional infrastructure. Sorry, this is the totally wrong way of thinking. hmm, I think we should think carefully about the next steps to do. As Thorsten mention in another mail, we still have different setups of the build environment (setsolar vs configure) if we want to merge both into a common one, we should about the way to go. Having the same setup of the build box available is one step, nonetheless we need to determine what the configure switches are to reflect the current settings of the actual 'setsolar' setup. last time I took a look into configure.in there were about 240 to 250 variables to set. many of them not boolean, but version dependent like the compiler version, so we can potentially have a very huge amount of different environment setup. I think it would help to have at least a raw picture what the dangerous settings of the environment really are. the correct way was: How can we get more people helping in development (here QA) by using existing infrastructure. this is in my understanding not excluding each other. We do not need *additional* infrastructure. that would be my hope also, We just want to use existing buildbots to help with cws testing. yes, lets start working on it, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] extending the OpenOffice BugBounty Programm
Hi, last year we initiated the bug bounty program (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/BugBountyProgram and references below). Obviously we failed in spreading the information about this program, the feedback was very low. Before we extend the program we want to be sure to make it this time better, I'm thinking of: * promoting it on the main page (www.openoffice.org) * add an item on contributung page (contributing.openoffice.org) * encourage people to blog about it * many other things are there any volunteers available interested in spreading the news ? Are there any other ideas to make the Program more attractive ? or should we stop this effort because it's hopeless ? Martin references: http://www.mail-archive.com/annou...@openoffice.org/msg00145.html http://freelancefundraiser.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/openofficeorg-achieves-ten-million-downloads-at-the-end-of-its-beijing-conference/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
[dev] source code download stats updated
Hi, I updated the download statistics of the src_core tarballs via bouncer to http://stats.openoffice.org/src_download.png . I'm really wondering which pages or which sites are still referencing 2.1.0 and 2.2.1 tarballs ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
Re: [dev] Re: testautomation the effects on the CWS process
Caolán McNamara wrote: On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 06:50 +0200, Helge Delfs wrote: However you might run these tests by yourself and it is of course acceptable to fix these tests if required. What's the (hopefully one line) way to run these tests myself ? Or is this a work in progress and not for use right now ? C. yes, you're right, having this in the build available via make would help for non feature cws if a developer has to decide to involve full blown QA or if he can stay with expedited cws approval process, e.g. with automated test and peer review. having now OOo sources and QA auto test sources aligned is a major step forward I think, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [releases] Re: OOo 3 backward compatibility and #93298
I already set target 2.4.2 for this issue, meaning issue is accepted, Martin NoOp wrote: On 10/07/2008 07:38 AM, Thorsten Ziehm wrote: Hi Nguyen, this problem is fixed for ods files with issue 87128 in OOo 2.4.1. Perhaps the same fix is possible for sxc files. In general the file format of OOo 3.0 is based on ODF 1.2, the file format of OOo 2.x is based on ODF 1.1. Therefore an update notification came up in OOo 2.x when you load a document which file format is higher/equal ODF 1.2. In the new file format nearly all new features are integrated and you will get a warning message in 2.x, that some features couldn't be displayed when you load a document which is based on OOo 3.x. So you will get many inconsistencies between 2.x and 3.x, but the user will get a notice by the warning and update information. That it is possible to save the new cell range of spreadsheets to older formats like ODF 1.0 (sxw) wasn't in the focus. This bug has to be fixed for OOo 2.4.2 in my opinion. Thorsten Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: Hello all, It seems that OOo3 is very vulnerable to backward compatibility tests. For example, a recent bug[2] has been found[1] and I am sure we will find more bugs like this if we have a serious test case. This time, Calc 2.4.1 *crashes* when loading a .sxc file saved by Calc 3.0 beta2. The issue is serious! What do you think? [1] http://www.nabble.com/Issue-93298-for-2.4.2-td19839142.html [2] Calc 2.4.1 crashes when loading a .sxc file saved by Calc 3.0 beta2 #93298: --- Additional comments from tora Mon Oct 6 14:28:57 + 2008 This behavior can be also observed with OOO300_m4. 1. Open i93298_timetable-tossy.sxc attached in this issue with OOO300_m4. 2. File - Save As 3. File type: ODF Spreadsheet (.ods) 4. Name it and press a button [Save]. 5. Open it with OOo 2.4.1. Results: 2.4.1 crashes. I just tested (linux), and when saved as an .ods from m9, 2.4.1 crashes as tora reports. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [discuss] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Becoming an (Incubator) Project
all, Let me do some additional comments regarding our current project setup since this is a project which not necessarily has to do with OpenOffice.org core technology or native lang projects. Currently the Incubator category has been set up to provide some space to test new ideas (see: http://projects.openoffice.org/incubator.html The Incubator category exists to provide a space for community members to test ideas. These ideas can be coding or not. It seems to be the expectation that the projects in Incubator should find their final destination either in Accepted Projects (http://projects.openoffice.org/accepted.html) or in Native-Lang Projects (http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html) or find their end sooner or later in /dev/null. Since the [EMAIL PROTECTED] project does not meet the criteria for being an accepted project (... projects that include core technical projects as well as key user information projects.) nor the criteria of a native lang project it seems not be that easy for me to just vote +1 without this lengthy comment. I think we need to revisit these guidelines and may invent a new category like OOo related projects. Candidates for this project might be the [EMAIL PROTECTED] but also the Extensions or the Education project. To encourage the creation of such projects I would like to see the conditions for those project at a low level. At the same time this also would mean that these project are also not in the scope of the Community Council Charter (http://council.openoffice.org/CouncilProposal.html). At this time many OpenOffice.org related projects are hosted anywhere (e.g. more than 100 on sourceforge) but not within the OpenOffice.org domain. I think it would help the overall OpenOffice.org project if we would introduce such new category for these projects. The current infrastructure on collab.net has some limitations (single database Issuetracker instance for all project) which makes the introduction of an independent category difficult but I guess this is just a technical problem and should be solvable in the one or other way. but under the current guidelines of the project I'm fine with voting for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] project becoming a regular incubator project of OpenOffice.org, Martin Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote: Hi OOo Folks, one or the other may already have heard of a pet project of mine, namely the [EMAIL PROTECTED]. One important milestone for this effort is becoming an Incubator Project. Hereby I officially like to announce, that I am heading for [EMAIL PROTECTED] becoming an Incubator Project. That means that later on I am going to ask you to show your interest and to vote for [EMAIL PROTECTED], this is required as of our policies, please find the details in http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html If you think that this desire is no valid, or otherwise flawed, please reply (either publicly or privately, at your convenience). To get your interest and hopefully your support, I would like to give the motivation: The [EMAIL PROTECTED] project aims to develop companion products for ODF and OpenOffice.org to extend their reach into the WWW. The first planned product is an ODF Wiki, allowing to edit server side ODF documents WYSIWYG with the OpenOffice.org application suite, providing HTML and ODF access via HTTP respectively WebDAV, actually making the WWW as easy editable as classical documents, such as text documents, spreadsheets, presentations or drawings. I already created some pages in the OOo Wiki around [EMAIL PROTECTED], where you can find all the details, including a screencast and installation instructions for the prototype, please have a look at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ODF%40WWW Thanks for listening and support Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [project leads] Re: [discuss] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Becoming an (Incubator) Project
eric b wrote: Hi Martin, Le 5 oct. 08 à 15:53, Martin Hollmichel a écrit : Reading : I think we need to revisit these guidelines and may invent a new category like OOo related projects. and Candidates for this project might be the [EMAIL PROTECTED] but also the Extensions or the Education project. and To encourage the creation of such projects I would like to see the conditions for those project at a low level. At the same time this also would mean that these project are also not in the scope of the Community Council Charter (http://council.openoffice.org/CouncilProposal.html). Can you please explain me more about the consequences for the OpenOffice.org Education Project ( and for the other mentionned of course ) of such a change ? since these are just my thoughts right now, there are for the moment no consequences at all. I was wondering, if the education project have the chance to get an accepted project at all, since the education does not directly deliver into Accepted Projects Category refers to those projects that include core technical projects as well as key user information projects. IMHO we need to have a discussion, once we have a new category introduced, if, and if yes, how these category get represented in the CC. Means no longer be considered as OOo Project (even an incubator one) , but sort of new category nobody knows anything, named OOo related project ? I have to admit, that OOo related is surely not a good choice, I hope that other come with better names. For me , Out of scope sounds something like dropped out of OpenOffice.org Project, or we don't want to manage that or worse. This is surely not what I intended with that discussion, but from my point of view there should be a roadmap for every project, how they will represented in the overall project, once they have been established. So at all, defining in which category a project will fit, leads to better expectation for the future of the project. In the moment, it is not clear to me, if the Education will ever have a chance to get an accepted project, so a discussion about the categories and how projects match to categories will hopefully help all project, so I think this discussion will help the Education project. Please explain me. I think projects like documentation, education, qa etc are quite important, maybe we need a better description for key user information projects or we'd might even better an own category for these kind of project to get represented in the CC, Thanks, Eric hth, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] charter discussion ?
Hi, I know that this does not address the concerns regarding the discussion who's electable for the council but I also think that this is not the main point to get the CC to get the work done. From my experience from the last years in the CC I just can say that I'm not able to follow _and_ to work on all the stuff we had on the agenda, what I would like to do is either to judge and vote about well prepared proposals or to work in just one area for the CC. And having the proposals is the harder work to do. But sceptic as I am, I don't think that we'll find people for the all above proposed Offices. And I just don't think that the proposed changes alone in the charter for making more people electable for the CC makes the work in CC better. regarding the new draft of the charter (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/Charter_Proposal) there is a paragraph 4.1.1 Three “Code Contributor Representatives” Three persons who represent the developers who actively contribute source code t the OpenOffce.org code repository. They communicate concerns and proposals of individual as well as corporate code developers. Typically they should be members of the core projects of OpenOffice.org. From my perspective with active code contributor a people described, who constantly contribute code to the project under the general rules of the project, meaning, being a doamin developer having commit access to the code, contributing code with the established child workspace processes and under the accepted term and conditions of the project (SCA, formerly known as JCA).Personally I would also expect that such described contributor also constantly takes over ownership of child workspaces. Is this something we can agree on as being an active code contributor for OpenOffice.org ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] charter discussion ?
sorry, for stepping in that lately. by looking at the current charter there are mainly two areas of work described for the Community Council: * legislative tasks like representation of the community, coordination with various entities, voting, doing proposals * judiciary tasks like arbitrate between different parties inside and outside the community. IHMO one big part is missing, the executive part and if I review the work of the CC this is the main issue within the CC: Doing the actual work, e.g. doing the new elections, make a proposal for something (budget, year plan, policies, etc.) is not making that progress we would like to see. The voluntary approach that the members of the CC are also doing the actual work does simply not work. Typically the current CC members have a lot of other jobs/work so I think most of them are already looking for what they can do less instead of taking over more responsibilities and work. I would propose to delegate the actual work to officers which are preparing proposal and let the CC make the final decisions. In that way we can establish subject matter experts which are willing and able to do the actual work and make the CC at the same time more effective. What I can think of that we establish at least following officers: * Exec Officer: preparing meetings, minutes, elections and other administrative stuff * a Secretary: minutes, invitations, etc. * Treasurer * Conference planning officer: planning and coordinating various conferences * Infrastructure Officer: * Engineering/Development Officer: * Localization and Internationalization Officer: * Legal Officer: legal issues, e.g. trademark policies etc. * public relations officer: other Offices (ODF, can be added as needed These Officers can be elected out of the community based on the principles of meritocracy. Officers then would have the right to speak in the CC. The Officers also would be the owner of the according budget.Officers can build working groups. I know that this does not address the concerns regarding the discussion who's electable for the council but I also think that this is not the main point to get the CC to get the work done. From my experience from the last years in the CC I just can say that I'm not able to follow _and_ to work on all the stuff we had on the agenda, what I would like to do is either to judge and vote about well prepared proposals or to work in just one area for the CC. And having the proposals is the harder work to do. But sceptic as I am, I don't think that we'll find people for the all above proposed Offices. And I just don't think that the proposed changes alone in the charter for making more people electable for the CC makes the work in CC better. Martin Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Martin, I notice, at: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council_Minutes#Minutes there is a section: [snip] Work on modification of the CC charter The draft for the proposal is now on the wiki. Martin will bring the discussion on the charter to the dev@ list in order to get more feedback from developers (core and non core developers) about the interest of that group to get involved in issues not related to source code. AI: Martin to bring the discussion on dev@ [snip] The draft proposal is here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/Charter_Proposal is there already a thread discussing this ? Thanks, Michael. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] OOo 2/3 still using gpc?
I think I will not release 3.1 without i75026 getting fixed (Remove dependency on GPC), since this is not opensource we need to remove it. Martin Thorsten Behrens wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:31:27PM +0900, Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: It seems that OOo 2.x uses agg ( 2.3 BSD license if I am not mistaken ) Yeah, but that's disabled for ~all builds - at least the Linux distros I know don't build it. agg_conv_gpc.h doesn't use GPC's source code but it claimed to be *BASED* on GPC's algorithm. Can anyone double check that it is OK to use this code in OOo? agg_conv_gpc.h only _uses_ gpc (if it would be there. which it isn't, unless you copied it into the source tree). Agg is dead for OOo, since it moved to GPL. Cheers, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C compiled programs.
JiangChuang wrote: Dear everyone, I'm building OpenOffice.org(OOH680_m12) for the platform of ARM on the ScratchBox environment. I've got the following error message: /home/arm/ooo_OOH680_m12_src/libxml2 - mkdir ./unxlngr.pro/misc/build/libxml2-2.6.17/ It might also help just to use an up to date version of libxml2, we are using 2.6.17 from January 2005, current version is 2.6.36 from April this year. The current version might offer better support for your platform. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] OOO300 release branch has been created
Hi, based on DEV300_m28 the release branch OOO300 for the OpenOffice.org 3.0 (and then following 3.0.1 release) has been created. for the 3.1 development code line DEV300 direct nomination by the QA Reps is enabled again, please resync your cws for 3.1 with DEV300_m28 now, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] extensions, confused...
Hi, Extensions can be used to achieve some modularization of the OpenOffice.org code base and should be used to reduce the build time and dependencies of the core OpenOffice.org builds. For that reason we introduced different aliases to support the differentiation of the core and extensions. To my knowleadge there are at least three open issues: 1. move the pdf import extension into an extension only module (90061) 2. move the report designer extension into an extension only module (90062) 3. do we need the extensions make a prerequisite of the postprocess module ? Once these issue are solved, we going to switch from OpenOffice2 to OpenOffice3 alias plus an additional alias for the extensions (Extensions3) Martin c) Checking out OpenOffice.org What is now the canonical way to check out OpenOffice.org ? is it meant to be with alias OpenOffice3 ? i.e. we have the alias Extensions3 for scext sdext swext tomcat apache-commons reportdesign jfreereport we have the alias OpenOffice3 which has ... sccomp, sdext, reportdesign, reportdesign in it So swext and friends do not appear in the OpenOffice3 (or OpenOffice2) alias, so they don't get checked out, but they are referenced in the build.lsts. So in practice is seems to be to check out *both* OpenOffice3 and Extensions3 to get the full tree required to build C. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] open OOo 3.0 issues
Hi, there are just 6 weeks left until code freeze for the OOo 3.0 release, in the moment we have more than 1200 issues open for that release. We will not be able to get all of these issues fixed in time, so please: Developers: * please fix your issues as soon as possible, this will avoid the usual accumulation before code freeze and you also avoid not getting QA resources short before code freeze, please speak with your QA representative for timely coordination. * review your issues if there are really relevant for 3.0 release QA:: * please identify the important issues for your project, please use the dev mailing lists of the projects to ensure that those bugs ge treated accordingly. * also identify those issue which can be deferred to a later release * be sure that the keywords (regression, crash, etc) are set accordingly in behalf of the release status meeting team, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] OpenOffice.org install/deinstall times on Windows
Olaf Felka wrote: Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, since we are required to do a manual deinstallation of OpenOffice.org Developer Snapshot because of issue http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88381 Office crashes after update installation with m7 it became quite obvious that our installation times seem significant high compared to other applications. I need on my Dual Core, 1GB Ram, WinXP Laptop about 12-14 minutes to install OpenOffice (BEA300_m2), the deinstallation of BEA300_m1 even took lot longer time (~30 minutes ?). Is it only me experiencing this ? Do I need to be more patient ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I needed 2:30 for installation and 1:50 for uninstall. I've done this on a VMWare session with XP-SP2 configured with 512 MB Ram. I would guess it might depend on some system configuration because you are not the only one who has this effect. But we have no clue what causes MSI to install that slow yes, already displaying the content of Add or Remove Program in the Windows Control Panel is painfully slow, it takes several minutes to populate that list, Groetjes, Olaf Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [marketing] README for OOo 3.0 Beta
dead line for updating the readme is today and nobody has provided any input yet ? Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: John McCreesh wrote: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, I'm wondering if the README file on http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/readme.html and included in the installation set is still valid for the 3.0 release. I'd like to suggest that we create a wiki page to get a new readme for the upcomping beta release. deadline for this is April 17th to get it included into the beta. Good call Martin - thanks. Would you like to open a page off http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease30 - there will be some marketing input, but also a lot of engineering input too... I created http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease30_Readme with the content of the old readme, feel free to work on this now, Thanks - John Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [marketing] README for OOo 3.0 Beta
John McCreesh wrote: Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, I'm wondering if the README file on http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/readme.html and included in the installation set is still valid for the 3.0 release. I'd like to suggest that we create a wiki page to get a new readme for the upcomping beta release. deadline for this is April 17th to get it included into the beta. Good call Martin - thanks. Would you like to open a page off http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease30 - there will be some marketing input, but also a lot of engineering input too... I created http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease30_Readme with the content of the old readme, feel free to work on this now, Thanks - John Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [tools-dev] Windows Compiler Versions
Martin Hollmichel wrote: There are also the Windows (Platform SDK's, also available as free download) * v5.0 ( just SDK header and Libraries) * v6.0 comes additionally with the C/C++ Compiler 14.00.50727 for x86 * v6.1 comes addtionally with the C/C++ Compiler 15.00.20706 for x86, this one is the compiler also available with Visual Studio 9.0 Beta. As for some feature for Windows Vista at least the SDK v6.0 is rquired, I would like to propose: - after the creation of the OOH680 code line for 2.4 release, we switch from 2003 to 2005 Compiler as default for the Developer Snapshots on the SRC680 code line. If that seems to be feasible, drop the support of the 2003 Compiler after 3.0 release. Is there any need to continue the support of the older SDK's ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Quarterly review meetings for identifying important issues and enhancements
Hi, in the past there were several complaints raised that some defects and also requirements got not the right priority. In fact we've got a long list of RFE in IssueTracker (either assigned to requirements or bh) and it is not obvious if there is ongoing work on these issues or not. Also it is often not that transparent how decision making on spending resources to that issues is made. The OpenOffice.org project leads agreed to support the proposal http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Quarterly_Review to introduce quarterly review meetings to identify the most important issues and request for enhancements. please use the dev@openoffice.org mailing list for feedback and watch that list for announcements for the schedule of the various review meetings, Martin Proposal: Quarterly reviews Quarterly review meetings should identify the most important issues and enhancements and establish a plan for their resolution. The outcome or agenda of those meetings may look like this: 1. Status of the project 1. what are the most severe issues in the current release 2. which are the most requested (or needed) features (in the press, user forums, issues, other feedback) 2. short term planning 1. which defect needs to go into the next release 2. which features will be worked on for the half year. 3. which issues needs an assignment 3. mid/long term planning 1. which features/bugfixes needs to be addressed in the next two/three years 2. unassigned feature/bugixes The outcome of these items should be a prioritized list of issues, in case of not being able to assign the resources the escalation path should be look like this: 1. Project Lead of the project 2. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Engineering Steering Committee (ESC) 4. Community Council (CC) To come to a balanced assessment of issues there should be a least in those meetings: - the project lead - a qa lead - if available one representative from user experience - if available one representative for user base (user forum or user mailing list maintainer and/or a marketing rep) - if available representative from marketing project - if available: more developer and qa folks pr any other contributing members of the OpenOffice.org project I suggest to start with our main, visible projects like Writer, Calc, Impress and Base and see later if we need to involve also other projects in this effort. I would like to encourage these teams to organize those meetings within the first two weeks of the each quarter (next slot would be April 1-14th) Implementation of Review It is almost impossible to get a slot defined where all parties together at a time for an irc meeting. To involve as much poeple as possible there might be an offline phase before an online meeting: * call for important issues on the project mailing list dev@project.openoffice.org and put them into the wiki * irc meeting to check if all important issues are raised and sort out the unimportant ones * call for review the list and suggest a priorization of issues on the mailing list and put the result into the wiki * irc meeting to confirm the priorization * send out the result to dev@openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] New License and Contributor Agreement
Michael Meeks wrote: Also, there are some improvements possible wrt. Section 7 - eg. how does updating modules in external projects (eg. boost under BSD) fit with this clause ? is that something only Sun can do ? [ eg. (hypothetically) how could Fridrich commit an updated version of libwpd ? ]. we're working on a revamp of the external project homepage to give guidelines for all these kind of questions, please stay tuned for a some more couple of days, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] source code for extensions and CVS modules
Hi, I would like to reming every developer of extensions for OpenOffice.org to do a clear separation of the code getting into the actual extension and code that might be necessary to package with the Office installation set. To support our modularization effort, I will not add any extension module to the OpenOffice2 alias in CVS. I'm going to introduce a separate alias for extensions. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen Pulsifer wrote: What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of course you continue to be the owner of the code you contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he contributed... Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment. I think Frank is talking about http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf section 2: 2. Contributor hereby assigns to Sun _joint_ ownership ... Contributor retains the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes. ... what is your point here ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html Martin Allen Pulsifer wrote: Heck, even the FSF does that... You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial license? Please direct me to the web page at fsf.org that says this. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Probable GPL violations - Butler Office Pro
weekendadventure wrote: Well, that might be different then. It is not what I had been told happened with Ooo but if you are correct that might make a difference. Please read http://about.openoffice.org/index.html for information about the historical backgrounds, So you are saying that they already owned the source and then released it for opensource development? Even so, they could not claim ownership of code developed by individuals who were not compensated. They may own the original source but cannot claim ownership of the newer code unless they compensate for the work. Please see http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/guidelines.html for the joint copyright assignment, also http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html might answer some of your questions, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Probable GPL violations - Butler Office Pro
Hi Charles, * you see this in the screenshots on their website * you can download a trial version ** this trial version claims that on my box that a newer version of butler office is installed :-) ** The Windows version identifies itself in the about box as a build 9095 (OOE680m6). The Mac version as build 9161 (OOF680m18). I assume that also people who paid for the office also get no access to the source code. The included license looks weired, I will have a deeper look into it. Martin Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello Kevin, ButlerPro is not one of our contributors. However, I'd be curious to know how you can see that they're using the OpenOffice.org codebase. Best Regards, Charles-H. Schulz. Kevin Ogden a écrit : http://www.butlerofficepro.com/ http://www.butlerofficepro.com/ebay It's certainly a modified version of OpenOffice. They don't mention OpenOffice nor do they provide source. Right down to the soffice.bin executable in the OS X package. Also check out http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-2008-Office-Pro-for-Mac-Microsoft-Vista-XP_W0QQitemZ190187536162QQihZ009QQcategoryZ80241QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem They openly bash open source software on this page yet their product is based on it. I've had an unsuccessful discussion with them on this if you all would like me to forward it to the list. The only contact info on the page was the customer service e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have a feeling it's just a guy or 3 in a basement because the reply was instantaneous and whoever it was didn't seem like a typical customer service rep. He was a bit more knowledgeable than a typical customer service rep. If I'm wrong and they do contribute code back, my apologies. I certainly haven't seen anything however. I just felt the need to point this out. --Kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] [releases] Minutes for release status meeting
Hi, please find the latest minutes on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-10-23 status in short: please be aware of the Code Freeze date for 2.3.1 on Thursday this week (October 25th). All important fixes should be included here so that we can push out that version for broader review, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Mirroring the OpenOffice CVS repository
Generally it should be possible to use cvsup for mirroring the OpenOffice.org CVS Repository (cvsup.services.openoffice.org), A supfile may look like this: *default umask=2 *default host=cvsup.services.openoffice.org *default base=. *default prefix=. *default release=cvs *default delete use-rel-suffix cvs Martin Steven Swanson wrote: I'm interested in creating a copy of the openoffice cvs repository for use in a research project. We are studying storage systems and would like to use interaction with a large cvs repository as workload. Is there a way that we could rsync or otherwise transfer the whole cvsroot to one of our servers? Thanks. -steve == Dr. Steven Swanson Assistant Professor University of California, San Diego Computer Science Engineering 9500 Gilman Drive #0404 La Jolla CA 92093-0404 http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/users/swanson/ On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Joachim Lingner wrote: Marten Feldtmann wrote: All I would like to have is a way to implement: anObject.SupportsInterfacesNamed(com.sun.star.reflection.XTypeDescription) which may returns true or false and this via UNO calls and not via BASIC special calls (to use it under OLE). XInterface.queryInterface is differently implemented depending on the language which one uses. The interface to use in order to get information about implemented interfaces is com.sun.star.lang.XTypeProvider. So you need to query first for this interface. XTypeProvider.getTypesreturns a sequencetype. The type object is different for the various language bindings. For example, using the Automation bridge it is a IDispatch object which simply has a name property. Using C# it is a System.Type. --Jochen I thought, that perhaps queryInterface might help me, but I do not understand type and how to get the type for a name like com.sun.star.reflection.XTypeDescription ? Marten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Release status meeting minutes 2007-09-24
Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-09-24 * 2.1 Release Status OOo 2.3 * 2.2 Release Status OOo 2.3.1 * 2.3 RE duties Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Release status meeting minutes 2007-09-10
Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-09-10 * 1.1 Release Status OOo 2.3 * 1.2 RE duties Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Release status meeting minutes 2007-09-03
Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-09-03 * 1.1 Release Status OOo 2.3 * 1.2 proposal for introducing OOo 3.x target * 1.3 RE duties Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies
Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Martin, On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies#Build_Configurations | A CWS must be built on at least two platforms in the product version | (Windows and one UNIX platform) How will we ensure that non-Hamburg based CWSs can be built on these platforms and install sets be made available? I'm not sure about this. The intention is to avoid build breakers in the master build so I would expect that the install set for non product build must be made available. I would like to ask for comment from Release Engineering if they still need to have these rule applied. I guess it can be modified into: if any product/non product dependent code has been modified do build for nonproduct and product builds, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies
Mathias Bauer already pointed out that a operational build bot system is essential and solves the problems you mention here, we need to make this a priority, Martin 2) IMO, requiring that the developer of the cws make the binary install set available to the QA personnel has the following downside. On Linux platform, there is an issue of ABI compatibility due to gcc versioning as well as system library dependencies. When I build on my machine, I do build using gcc 4.1.0 and make use of external system libraries. This means that, even if I am able to provide an installation set for the QA personnel by uploading it to an FTP/Web server, my install set may not run on QA person's (Linux) machine. To me, it is just as well workable (or better?) to check the integrity of a cws at source code level, and have both the developer and the QA build the same cws on both ends. I'm personally not seeing any advantage of requiring the developer to build and provide the binary install sets for QA, especially on Linux platform. I do agree the the developer of a cws should ensure buildability of that cws before handing it to the QA, and buildbot can play a major role here. But I don't agree with the install set requirement. --Kohei - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Cann't use dmake to build openoffice in cygwin
Hi, it looks like that you missed to source the winenv.set.sh script before typing dmake, Martin Openoffice Development schrieb: Dear Sir's and Madam's Please let me first introduce myself I'm an electronic engineer who likes to play with software. Most of the time with the Microsoft Tools, please don't shoot ;-). Now I'm trying to do something with openoffice. I have read the document form Mathias Bauer and I'm trying to build it. I got configure in config_office to work and now I'm typing dmake in SRC_ROOT dmake. First it complained it couldn't find /share/startup/startup.mk so I copied this directory from the checkout sources from openoffice. Now it comes it with the next error with the options -v -d I have directed the errors to an textfile. My knowledge from linux command line tools stops really here can someone please enlight me ?. Thank you very much. Yours, Timo Hartong The Netherlands dmake: Openning [/share/startup/startup.mk] for read (success) dmake: Openning [/share/startup/config.mk] for read (success) dmake: Closing [/share/startup/config.mk] dmake: Openning [/share/startup/local.mk] for read (fail) dmake: Openning [/share/startup/unix/macros.mk] for read (success) dmake: Openning [/share/startup/unix/cygwin/macros.mk] for read (success) dmake: Closing [/share/startup/unix/cygwin/macros.mk] dmake: Closing [/share/startup/unix/macros.mk] dmake: Openning [/share/startup/unix/recipes.mk] for read (success) dmake: Openning [/share/startup/unix/cygwin/recipes.mk] for read (fail) dmake: Closing [/share/startup/unix/recipes.mk] dmake: Openning [project.mk] for read (fail) dmake: Closing [/share/startup/startup.mk] dmake: Openning [makefile.mk] for read (success) dmake: Closing [makefile.mk] dmake: Making [__.NULLPRQ] dmake: Updating [__.NULLPRQ], (1 0) dmake: Set [__.NULLPRQ] time stamp to 1184259517 dmake: Making [.INIT] dmake: Updating [.INIT], (1184259517 0) dmake: Set [.INIT] time stamp to 1184259517 dmake: Infering prerequisite(s) and recipe for [build_all] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.o] for [build_all] dmake: Trying prerequisite [RCS/build_all,v] for [build_all] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all,v] for [build_all] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.sh] for [build_all] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.c] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.p] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.s] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.cl] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.e] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.r] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.F] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.f] for [build_all.o] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.y] for [build_all.c] dmake: Trying prerequisite [build_all.l] for [build_all.c] dmake: Time stamp of [build_all] is 0 dmake: Changed to directory [instsetoo_native/prj] dmake: Time stamp of [build_instsetoo_native] is 0 dmake: Making [check_modules] dmake: Updating [check_modules], (1 0) echo Checking module list Checking module list perl /bin/build.pl --checkmodules build -- version: 1.157 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] proposal for change of cws policies
Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experience team and Thorsten for the QA team we review the existing Child Workspace policies on http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/child_workspace_policies.html. With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies The main difference compared with the old policies are * How to group task goes now much more in detail to make more clear in which cases what people are needed to review the work on a child workspace. * added more links to documentation on how to approve a CWS * removed superfluous wording and sentences. I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. If these changes get accepted I propose to exchange the Level of impact in the EIS application accordingly to the new categorization of cws in the policies. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] proposal for change of cws policies
Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experience team and Thorsten for the QA team we review the existing Child Workspace policies on http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/child_workspace_policies.html. With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies The main difference compared with the old policies are * How to group task goes now much more in detail to make more clear in which cases what people are needed to review the work on a child workspace. * added more links to documentation on how to approve a CWS * removed superfluous wording and sentences. I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. If these changes get accepted I propose to exchange the Level of impact in the EIS application accordingly to the new categorization of cws in the policies. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Valgrind Tasks: Handling of (seemingly) unfixable problems
Rene Engelhard wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nikolai Pretzell wrote: There has been occurred the question what to do with Valgrind Tasks (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ValgrindTasks) that cannot be fixed for whatever reason (third party code, false positives, problem not found ...). IMHO the reasoning for third party code doesn't make sense. That stuff should be fixed in them anyway (and be it not in OOo but the external stuffs upstream itself). So if you have a error: tell upstream. If you have a fix, too: send it upstream (and eventually add it to the tree if it's important). I think Nikolai's focus was about issue handling was about how to deal with those issues in OpenOffice.org's bug tracking system so his proposal is fine for me. But you're also right, ask the external project to fix those issues (via patch or issue report), I would be happy to treat this as a rule for thirdparty code. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Hi, guys! I am from shanghai china. An OOo developer. Want to do some coding things for OOo.
Paul, paul.yang wrote: Hi, OOo developed team manager: I am an OOo developer working for one chinese company. We are developing our own chinese version office suite based on OOo. I have been coding on OOo nearly one year! Now, want to do some works for OOo. this sound great, welcome to the project, How could I start. Could I get one openoffice mail account like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my name is paul.yang). and then submit some bugs , next fix it! please use http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/Join to register for an account in the project, I am looking forward to receiving your reply, thank you so much! :-) Best regards! Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Can we do more regression testing?
Joerg Sievers wrote: - if a resource file is broken or missing the office will crash if you open the affected dialog; that's what these resource tests are doing: Open all dialogs once, click on every button and leave all dialogs with Cancel - a list of business cards, a list of colors, a list of filters, a name of filters, list of OLE objects ... is this list the same as we expect? If not the user of an office application would run into trouble to use it, e.g. he can not insert a chart, a formula etc. - main functionality like loading and saving documents in different formats is being tested; editing, cut, copy paste in different formats; inserting images; Do we have some statistics in which areas we have what amount of regressions ? For example I would think that regression caused by broken resources doesn't occur that much any more, are also easy to find by broad testing. On the other hand I could image that regressions in document layout do occur much more often and would be reported much more later than broken resources ? What about Wizards, System Integration, OLE, foreign formats, where do we have the biggest problems ? Can we use there more faster tests than we have with the testtool ? The collected tests, which should be rock solid, have had these goals in the past. Be sure that we do nothing special because also the literature [1] and well known software quality sites [2] recommending these steps. HTH Jogi [1] Software Test Automation; FewesterGraham [2] http://www.stickyminds.com Cu, Jogi http://qa.openoffice.org/qatesttool http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Jsi - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Can we do more regression testing?
Jörg Jahnke schrieb: Hi, one of the questions is whether it would be acceptable for everyone to run a small regression test-suite prior to the QA-approval of a CWS. These tests would probably run several hours, depending on the hardware being used, and therefore cost time and hardware-resources. Do you think it's worth it? I think it's not primarly the matter of running the regression-suite before QA approval but to have a small set of meaningful regression tests available ? Thanks, Jörg Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Can we do more regression testing?
it's not primarly the matter of running the regression-suite before QA approval but to have a small set of meaningful regression tests available ? The problem with such tests not being mandatory is that, sooner or later, some tests would break. That again would lead to a state where the user of the tests could not be sure whether a broken test-case means that he introduced a bug or whether he just encountered an old problem that broke the test-cases before. He would have to start a tedious search to find out the cause of the problem - just like the testers have to do nowadays. And then people would simply not use the tests because the efforts are too high... I still think that making a test mandatory is not the first step in the process. I would like to name these requirements with this priorities: 1. Test should be repoducible and generate easy to read and unambigious logs with clear error codes. 2. Test should be run within approx. 1 hour. 3. Test should cover 20% of the functionality of each application (typically used function) 4. Test should be mandatory. IMHO we don't need to care about 2.) if we know that we cannot address 1.) Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Can we do more regression testing?
Thorsten Ziehm wrote: Why 1 hour? Why not one night or 24 hours or so? It is only machine power and resources you need for it. ok, I'd also be ok with half an hour or 4 hours. The problem with longer testruns is, that you will have to deal with more task in parallel the longer automated test will last. At least I then will loose some open ends because of too many context switches. I'm fine if QA-test will last longer in some cases but this should be not the default case. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] enhancement and feature with target 2.3 with no cws set yet
Hi, the following issues of type enhancement or feature have not yet a child workspace assigned. please register your issues in child workspaces to make planning doable, the 2.3 code line will be closed for new stuff on July 5th, Martin Id Owner Summary TypeStatus Target Prio i60352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Underline text' icon, fixes to colour and alpha ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P4 i69231 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Performance issue with creating installation sets ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i73876 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gtk: fpicker AutoExtension toggle is unpleasant ... ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i76857 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Disallow Edit database file when Base is not installed ENHANCEMENT REOPENED OOo 2.3 P3 i77381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Update Information Server must respect support for zipped content transfer FEATURE RESOLVED/FIXED OOo 2.3 P3 i77023 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Update internal neon to more recent version ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i68097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author-defined logical navigation of page objects in presentations ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i77412 [EMAIL PROTECTED] enhance headless plugin's virtual device to support META_FLOATTRANSPARENT_ACTION requirements ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i75636 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Slide Animation could not be Aborted/Skipped ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i76912 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zoom minimum is at 5% ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i73506 [EMAIL PROTECTED] default mapping of languages for given locales ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i76855 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add option to ignore document stored printer setting ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i71618 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Borders from 3D charts are not dashed in Excel ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i75061 [EMAIL PROTECTED] allow adding fo commands in menus and toolbars ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i73864 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Extension Manager UI: Allow switching installation target ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i75137 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crystal theme: improve icons for print preview ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P4 i74990 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support for Russian localization in testtool environment ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i73813 [EMAIL PROTECTED] BASIC-IDE: Allow copy/paste of localised resources to documents ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i74223 [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNO AWT based Grid-Control ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i74117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding runtime checks to static_int_cast ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i70529 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Create a more meaningful message at occuring online connection problems ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i60822 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Autocorrect file for Afrikaans ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i68831 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Optimized icons for Crystal theme ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i67588 [EMAIL PROTECTED] WW8: Word outline numbering names change ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i69282 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make extensions warning-free ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i75648 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inserted links overflow on following text ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i75595 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Implement tooling for recommendation files FEATURE NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i23626 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Autodoc: Broken spacing in generated HTML ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i50135 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Deleting newline deletes formatting on subsequent line (when in empty paragraph) ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i60427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ux-ctest: Function to insert page number is missing FEATURE STARTED OOo 2.3 P2 i72032 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crash-reporter should be extended to gain a measure of the stability of OOo FEATURE STARTED OOo 2.3 P2 i70294 [EMAIL PROTECTED] make new default buttons availble through UNO toolkit ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i72942 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allow passing URLs with custom schemes on soffice command line ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i60747 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Slovak spellchceker for OO.org ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i76182 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Need section on how to add local specific dictionaries ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i73120 [EMAIL PROTECTED] InsertInsert Object toolbar redesign FEATURE STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i72655 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Units of rulers on Writer can be in characters and lines ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i73117 [EMAIL PROTECTED] InsertInsert Object toolbar redesign - Writer FEATURE NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i73123 [EMAIL PROTECTED] InsertInsert Object toolbar redesign - Calc FEATURE NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i71737 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Repaint of metafile from charts with bitmaps show ugly black rectangles inbetween ENHANCEMENT NEW OOo 2.3 P3 i76708 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Draw/Impress: Drag Drop of Graphics from Desktop to Presentation Creates Linked Image ENHANCEMENT STARTED OOo 2.3 P3 i58985 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Help doesn't pop up with help for tab on
Re: [dev] Code reviews ?
Nikolai Pretzell wrote: Martin Hollmichel schrieb: Nikolai talked some weeks ago about how helpful code reviews are (http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/code_reviews). [...] here:http://www.chipx86.com/blog/?p=222 or if people knows about other cool tools for doing reviews ? Thank's, Martin, for bringing this up again. In Hamburg we do such (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Code_Reviews#Example:_Leightweight_Code_Reviews_within_OOo) reviews for more than three month now, and there occurred a few effects I like especially: - the Coding Standards (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Cpp_Coding_Standards) get really fast into the fingers, because we get in contact with them each week, - there appeared to be several things to be learned from the co-developers, regarding as well their programming skills in general, as their problem domain specifically, - I get to know parts of the Office code, I never saw before, which helps my understanding of the project as a whole. After the current experience we would highly encourage any developer in the OOo-community to try out such reviews, and even to make them a regular habit. Inspired by Joerg Jahnkes great page about regression tests (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Steps_towards_regular_automated_regression_testing), I set up a wiki page http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Steps_towards_regular_code_reviews to focus the activities towards code reviews. ok, we are talking here about two different aspects of code review, the educational and the approval one. Both are quite important but should treated in different ways. I think doing code review in the public with the help of collaboration tools (webex, skype/voip, http://cld.blog-city.com/netbeans_collaboration_project___collablets_and_codeaware_to.htm, collab.netbeans.org) could be a major step forward getting new developer into the project. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Code reviews ?
Hi, Nikolai talked some weeks ago about how helpful code reviews are (http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/code_reviews). I'm a fan of such reviews especially in the release phase and I'm wondering if somebody already played with the tool described here:http://www.chipx86.com/blog/?p=222 or if people knows about other cool tools for doing reviews ? It would be nice to have for certain cases code reviews in place instead or in addition of our automated tests, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] two problems in the release work
liutao wrote: Hi all, 2. The sent crash report dialog, which contains some crash information, cannot be shown when crash occur in the ooo_OOE680_m6_src but it can be shown in m120. What is the reason? with OpenOffice.org 2.1 release a new switch for configure was introduced: --enable-crashdump (Enable the crashdump feature code, the default is no) Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] OpenOffice.org build DVD available (aka o3-build)
Hi, I just uploaded a new image of the o3-build (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/O3-build) DVD. Although documentation on the disc is in very early stage, I appreciate feedback for this, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [releases] 2.2.0 Release Date
Hi, this has now been confirmed, please see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-20 we are expecting the next rc available for download on Thursday, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: same procedure as last week :( QA folks did a good job again :) , please see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-19 for the details. We're now heading March 28th for release. Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, again, we also classified 75299 as a stopper, so we will have m13 for next rc, we will leave out m12 as rc. March 21st has become unlikely as release date, I expect some more days delay, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-12 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 21th, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-05 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 14th, Martin John McCreesh wrote: On Fri, March 2, 2007 07:24, Martin Hollmichel wrote: We will talk about the new release date in the next Release status meeting next monday, Can we have a quick posting to this list please with the result for those of us who can't attend the meeting. Thanks - John Martin Rail Aliev wrote: Hi, AFAIK we are waiting 2.2rc3 to be released these days. I don't think that 1-2 days are enough for release preparations. Shouldn't we need to change the release date on wiki? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease22 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [releases] 2.2.0 Release Date
Hi, again, we also classified 75299 as a stopper, so we will have m13 for next rc, we will leave out m12 as rc. March 21st has become unlikely as release date, I expect some more days delay, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-12 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 21th, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-05 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 14th, Martin John McCreesh wrote: On Fri, March 2, 2007 07:24, Martin Hollmichel wrote: We will talk about the new release date in the next Release status meeting next monday, Can we have a quick posting to this list please with the result for those of us who can't attend the meeting. Thanks - John Martin Rail Aliev wrote: Hi, AFAIK we are waiting 2.2rc3 to be released these days. I don't think that 1-2 days are enough for release preparations. Shouldn't we need to change the release date on wiki? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease22 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [releases] 2.2.0 Release Date
Hi, Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-12 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 21th, Martin Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-05 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 14th, Martin John McCreesh wrote: On Fri, March 2, 2007 07:24, Martin Hollmichel wrote: We will talk about the new release date in the next Release status meeting next monday, Can we have a quick posting to this list please with the result for those of us who can't attend the meeting. Thanks - John Martin Rail Aliev wrote: Hi, AFAIK we are waiting 2.2rc3 to be released these days. I don't think that 1-2 days are enough for release preparations. Shouldn't we need to change the release date on wiki? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease22 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: [releases] 2.2.0 Release Date
Hi, please find the latest minutes of the release status meeting here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-03-05 In short: the new estimated release date for 2.2 will be March 14th, Martin John McCreesh wrote: On Fri, March 2, 2007 07:24, Martin Hollmichel wrote: We will talk about the new release date in the next Release status meeting next monday, Can we have a quick posting to this list please with the result for those of us who can't attend the meeting. Thanks - John Martin Rail Aliev wrote: Hi, AFAIK we are waiting 2.2rc3 to be released these days. I don't think that 1-2 days are enough for release preparations. Shouldn't we need to change the release date on wiki? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease22 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Release Status meeting minutes
Hi, the latest release status minutes can be found at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-01-29 Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] new metaissue for tracking 2.2 release
Hi, I opened http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73858 for tracking potential stoppers of the OOo 2.2 release, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] already too many Issues with target 2.2.1
Hi, as discussed on releases we're going to introduce a bugfix release 2.2.1 end of May, begin of June (http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/BrowseList?list=releasesby=threadfrom=1594200). We agreed on fixing only the important bugfixes only. We discussed this during the latest release status meeting (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-01-22) that all issues with target 2.2.1 needs to get reviewed by the Release status meeting. Important issue means that the issue get considered as major regression to 2.2 release or has been defined as a must have by the release status meeting. So the default target for regular defects is OOo 2.3 in this moment. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Release Status meeting minutes
Hi, the latest release status minutes can be found at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2007-01-15 code freeze will be in less than 10 days, January 25th. At the moment we still have about more than 40 cws scheduled for integration before code freeze. It is likely that we will not be able to do more than 20-25 integrations in the next week, please try to reschedule your cws to a later release or try to get the approval for this this week (until Jan. 19th. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] latest release status meeting minutes
Hi, latest release status meeting minutes are available on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2006-12-04 more participation from other projects (marketing, native-lang, qa) would be appreciated, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] How to reduce the barieres to contribute to OOo? Some suggestions and proposals from inside Sun ....
Hi, 3. Developer Code Line: Lets open up the current SRC680 code line for continuous CWS integration with CWSs nominated by the corresponding QA-Reps. Nowadays, each and every CWS will be nominated by the Release Manager, which is Martin Hollmichel. To ease integration, this nominations should be handled by QA-Reps from now on, meaning that we'll have a switch from ready for QA to nominated leaving out the approved by QA. As the QA-Rep could be from the OOo QA project, Suns QA or someone else who is able to check implementations and changes, it will be much easier to get things integrated fast (or in other words in the next mile stone right after passing QA). For each release, we should open a release code line as we do today. Instead of having Martin nominating all CWSs on such release code lines (..., OOD680, OOE680), this should be done by the OOo project leads and the Release Committee (which has to be reanimated beforehand). This change is going to be active on November 29th, please also see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2006-11-27 Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Another error while building ooo_src680_m193
Hi, for best build experience on Linux I recommend http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/O3-build Martin Hans-Joachim Lankenau wrote: hi! #i64134#? tschau... ause Pema Geyleg wrote: Hi all, Thanks to Christian and Hans for pointing me to the http://mail1.druknet.bt/Redirect/www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71438 for my earlier error. Now I m getting the following error. /srv/projects/openoffice/ooo_SRC680_m193_src/solver/680/unxlngi6.pro/lib/libaudi o.a(ConnSvr.o): In function `GetAuthorization': /srv/projects/openoffice/ooo_SRC680_m193_src/nas/unxlngi6.pro/misc/build/nas-1.6 /lib/audio/ConnSvr.c:1981: undefined reference to `XauDisposeAuth' /srv/projects/openoffice/ooo_SRC680_m193_src/nas/unxlngi6.pro/misc/build/nas-1.6 /lib/audio/ConnSvr.c:1832: undefined reference to `XauGetBestAuthByAddr' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status dmake: Error code 1, while making '../unxlngi6.pro/lib/libvclplug_gen680li.so' '---* tg_merge.mk *---' ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while making /srv/projects/openoffice/ooo_SRC680_m19 3_src/vcl/util dmake: Error code 1, while making 'build_instsetoo_native' '---* *---' I tried searching for the same error in issuzilla but had been unsuccessful. Thanks in advance for the help. Many Thanks Pema Geyleg DIT,MoIC. Thimphu,Bhutan. +++ Get a free DrukNet e-mail account and stay in touch http://www.druknet.bt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] any taker on tools-customize-keyboard dialog ?
Hi, I just stumbled across issue Customize field badly-spaced, can't adjust, http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71464. I can imagine that a possible adjustment of the design of that dialog is not too difficult for newbies to step in (http://graphics.openoffice.org/source/browse/graphics/svx/source/dialog/cfg.cxx) and also would be a good example that it might be possible to change UI without involvement by Sun ? (by following the new spec template in the wiki, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:Specification) any takers on this ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] new project: Windows Vista support
Hi, we just started a little new project Windows Vista support. Goal of this project is to make OpenOffice.org ready for running on Windows Vista. Vista is offering some new features an Application can make use of. Some of them are listed on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/WindowsVista. For a more complete list of Vista features you can visit www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready. Another good stating point are the Windows Vista Logo Programs (works with Windows, certified for Windows Vista and their test specification (linked in the wiki). We are looking for people which would like to participate in this project. Possible tasks are: * Review and create requirements * Run and test OpenOffice.org on Vista * Develop for SystemIntegration for Vista. A new platform Windows Vista have been created in IssueTracker to track efforts for this port. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] How to reduce the barieres to contribute to OOo? Some suggestions and proposals from inside Sun ....
Hi, Nils Fuhrmann wrote: [...] 2. Release Committee: Lets revive the OOo release committee. Initially, I like to nominate todays release status meeting (Uwe Luebbers, Martin Hollmichel, Mathias Bauer, Bettina Haberer) and Pavel Janek as members of this committee. Today, the Release Status Meeting agrees on priorities for releases, on integration and re-targeting of CWSs and Issues and other stuff around our releases, and is staffed with members of different functional groups. This is in line with the idea of the former release committee which we already had in past. All this should be done by the the release committee as a official OOo forum in future. We would like to see the current team to work on a official transition to the release committee again. please also see latest minutes for that (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2006-11-06) The original idea was to have at least one member of all functional groups on board. Currently we have actively participating: Engineering: Mathias Bauer, Kai Ahrens QA: Uwe Luebbers, Thorsten Ziehm User Expericence: Bettina Haberer Release Manager: Martin Hollmichel, Pavel Janik I would also would like to see participating: OOo QA ( Andre, Joost ? ) Release Engineering Localization (Pavel, Rafaella ?) Marketing (John ?) Documentation more Development (other than Sun's ?) A typical agenda will look like this: * review of current release schedule * review of open issues * review of localization status * preparation of promotion stuff for release. * coordination and planning for next milestones, releases. Is there anything I left out ? Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] release status meeting minutes 2006-10-16
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2006-10-16 Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] release status meeting minutes 2006-10-09
This is somewhat misleading, people might have time and like to work on OOo during holidays (at least when family affairs start becoming boring ;-) and get CWSs ready-for-QA those days, hoping they will be included in 2.2, but Hamburg QA most certainly will not be available between the years to approve them. I suggest to shift the freeze date to either a date before Christmas or one week after New Year. It might be true that we will have only limited resources for QA at that time, but I don't see the need to shorten the time frame for those Teams which are willing to work at that time. Eike Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] release status meeting minutes 2006-10-09
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#2006-10-09 Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] OOo 2.0.4 status meeting
August 28th, 15pm - 15.30pm Participants: Mathias Bauer, Uwe Luebbers, Martin Hollmichel, Bettina Haberer This group meet on Mondays 3pm German time on regular basis, please contact me if there is the need to raise any issues for the next release in this forum, we try to move to irc then or at least try to put your issues onto our agenda. In case you get this email as private copy as well, we think you need to take action on this mail. * RE this week: SRC680 - Ivo, OOD680 - Heiner, OOD680m3 to start Wednesday 30th. OOD680m3 will the be the release candidate for 2.0.4 release. issue count for 2.0.4 went down to 0, so we are almost ready to release. just a few cws are awaiting their QA approval for integration. Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] OOo 2.0.4 status meeting
August 21st, 15pm - 15.30pm Participants: Mathias Bauer, Uwe Luebbers, Martin Hollmichel, Bettina Haberer This group meet on Mondays 3pm German time on regular basis, please contact me if there is the need to raise any issues for the next release in this forum, we try to move to irc then or at least try to put your issues onto our agenda. In case you get this email as private copy as well, we think you need to take action on this mail. * RE this week: Oliver, Heiner, OOD680m3 to start Thurssday 10th or Friday 11th. issue count for 2.0.4 went down to 15 last week. Most of them are related to (expected) l10n issues, cleanup of issues in cws localization12 is still ongoing. OOD680m2 will start ASAP because of issue 68828 (japanese help with wrong encoding). we need for the fix a new milestone with localization12 already integrated. We still have some stoppers open (68776, animated gifs, 68046, API problem) and cws warningfixes03 (build breakage), cws hro08, so that we target OOD680m3 for release candidate by the end of this week. Initial inactivity time (IIT) for patches is increased, the owner of the high scores will get a ping. http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/iit_index.html some discussion about user ctest issues: some of them are controversial. In the moment we have 92 ux-ctest issues open. We agreed that is would be helpful to get additional information from consultants for the priorization of these issues. Bettina H. will take care of this. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re-opening a milestone that has been announced as ready for CWS usage?
From technical perspective there seem to be no difference between milestone and step anymore, Martin Pavel Janík wrote: From: Martin Hollmichel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:51:44 +0200 Issues should always be fixed on the next milestones, I agree with this. But an idea: in the past we have seen several step milestones as well. So if the issue is critical enough, can't we just make *new* (next) step milestone with only the critical fix added and make it available faster than usual? This can fix the We have to wait a week for fixed milestone reply. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] OOo 2.0.4 status meeting
August 7th, 15pm - 15.15pm Participants: Kai Ahrens, Uwe Luebbers, Martin Hollmichel, Bettina Haberer This group meet on Mondays 3pm German time on regular basis, please contact me if there is the need to raise any issues for the next release in this forum, we try to move to irc then or at least try to put your issues onto our agenda. In case you get this email as private copy as well, we think you need to take action on this mail. * RE this week: Ivo, Ruediger, Heiner, OOD680m1 to start Thurssday 10th issue count for 2.0.4 went down to 63 from 144 last week, which seems to be a bit hight just 3 days after code freeze date but a number of them are related to (expected) l10n issues. OOD680m1 will start on Thursday with a few cvs declared as stoppers (also see http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/showdependencytree.cgi?id=68046), OOD680m2 will start Thurday 17th, which is last cws integration, will include localization12 (updated localizations), so that we still expect the release candidate for Tuesday 22. Initial response time (IRT) for patches has been decreased, http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/irt_index.html Initial inactivity time (IIT) for patches is still on the same level, http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/iit_index.html The Patchreports now includes nice grpahs, it's worth to take a look on them. The demand for branching off OOD680 is not that high as expected, so we are planning the branch around August 3rd to 10th, candidates for early integration for 2.0.5/2.1 are cws writercorehandoff, configdbbe and hcshared01. Martin PS: SRC680m182, which will be the start for OOo 2.1 release is planned for Monday, 14th. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Issue type: PATCH or ENHANCEMENT?
Hi Kai, in most cases the type PATCH should only used for contribution from developers which don't can't commit to CVS by theirselfes. Once a patch got reviewed and accepted, the type should be changed to ENHANCEMENT or FEATURE if this is the case. Martin Kai Backman wrote: What is the official policy on how to decide if the issue type for something you are writing should be PATCH or ENHANCEMENT? If the work is part of a CWS which one should it be? What if the issue first has a patch attached but then that patch gets included into a CWS? What if you are fixing a bug and not enhancing something? K - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
