[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: sc/qa
sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters_test3.cxx |8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) New commits: commit 4bb809f4d1d4316d9723fe6d3c8064c3d974392c Author: Joel Puronaho AuthorDate: Tue Jun 13 15:40:22 2023 +0300 Commit: Ilmari Lauhakangas CommitDate: Sat Oct 14 08:17:52 2023 +0200 tdf#141908: CppUnittests: replace usage of sal_Int32 with colors Change-Id: I2835feb65d65dbfd7f0c23ac1e99b66d803c05ff Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/153646 Tested-by: Jenkins Tested-by: Ilmari Lauhakangas Reviewed-by: Ilmari Lauhakangas diff --git a/sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters_test3.cxx b/sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters_test3.cxx index 7980e8083559..a88cc136d870 100644 --- a/sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters_test3.cxx +++ b/sc/qa/unit/subsequent_filters_test3.cxx @@ -1348,12 +1348,12 @@ CPPUNIT_TEST_FIXTURE(ScFiltersTest3, testTdf151818_SmartArtFontColor) uno::UNO_QUERY); uno::Reference xPortion(xPara->createEnumeration()->nextElement(), uno::UNO_QUERY); -sal_Int32 nActualColor{ 0 }; +Color nActualColor{ 0 }; xPortion->getPropertyValue("CharColor") >>= nActualColor; // Without fix the test would have failed with: -// - Expected: 4478058 (0x44546A) -// - Actual : 16777215 (0xFF), that is text was white -CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(sal_Int32(0x44546A), nActualColor); +// - Expected: rgba[44546aff] +// - Actual : rgba[], that is text was white +CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(Color(0x44546A), nActualColor); // clrScheme. For map between name in xlsx and index from CharColorTheme see // oox::drawingml::Color::getSchemeColorIndex()
Joel Dowdy License Statement
All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under the MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: helpcontent2
helpcontent2 |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit 006884d7928c6b32cf0bb3f48e31bbac87d1d5ea Author: Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> Date: Wed Oct 26 13:02:16 2016 -0700 Updated core Project: help 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939 tdf#103397 - added example for Transpose function Added a simple example to the help for transpose() function Added tablehead style to example rows/columns Change-Id: I464983d480cb237a53e033005057a1faef0b9193 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/30334 Reviewed-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br> Tested-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br> diff --git a/helpcontent2 b/helpcontent2 index 433c4c0..578e1e3 16 --- a/helpcontent2 +++ b/helpcontent2 @@ -1 +1 @@ -Subproject commit 433c4c0477c6dfcde68ed5b1eb98f1811095f050 +Subproject commit 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939 ___ Libreoffice-commits mailing list libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits
[Libreoffice-commits] help.git: source/text
source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp | 123 +- 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) New commits: commit 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939 Author: Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> Date: Wed Oct 26 13:02:16 2016 -0700 tdf#103397 - added example for Transpose function Added a simple example to the help for transpose() function Added tablehead style to example rows/columns Change-Id: I464983d480cb237a53e033005057a1faef0b9193 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/30334 Reviewed-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br> Tested-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br> diff --git a/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp b/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp index 3a8e014..842121a 100644 --- a/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp +++ b/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ Syntax MDETERM(Array) Array represents a square array in which the determinants are defined. -You can find a general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page. +You can find a general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page. @@ -632,11 +632,128 @@ Syntax TRANSPOSE(Array) Array represents the array in the spreadsheet that is to be transposed. - +You can find a general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page. Example In the spreadsheet, select the range in which the transposed array can appear. If the original array has n rows and m columns, your selected range must have at least m rows and n columns. Then enter the formula directly, select the original array and press Shift+Command+Enter Shift+Ctrl+Enter. Or, if you are using the Function Wizard, mark the Array check box. The transposed array appears in the selected target range and is protected automatically against changes. + + + + + + + A + + + B + + + C + + + D + + + + + 1 + + + 2 + + + 3 + + + 4 + + + 5 + + + + + 2 + + + 6 + + + 7 + + + 8 + + + 9 + + + + +The above table is 2 rows, 4 columns. In order to transpose it, you must select 4 rows, 2 columns. Assuming you want to transpose the above table to the range A7:B10 (4 rows, 2 columns) you must select the entire range and then enter the following: + +TRANSPOSE(A1:D2) + +Then make sure to enter it as matrix formula with Shift+Command+Enter +Shift+Ctrl+Enter. The result will be as follows: + + + + + + + A + + + B + + + + + 7 + + + 2 + + + 6 + + + + + 8 + + + 3 + + + 7 + + + + + 9 + + + 4 + + + 8 + + + + + 10 + + + 5 + + + 9 + + + @@ -1145,4 +1262,4 @@ - \ No newline at end of file + ___ Libreoffice-commits mailing list libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: wrong NEEDINFO / INVALID cleaning
I see what I did wrong. That being said, the few corner cases I'm not horribly concerned about (as the first example shows4+ months with no response). I'll be more careful next time - if I ever do it again. Best, Joel On 05/09/2016 01:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that the automatic cleaning of long standing NEEDINFO bug > reports has itself some bug. Several bug reports in NEEDINFO state are > closed as INVALID without warning comment and without a sufficient > latence period. > > For example: > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68846 > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69650 > > Best regards. > JBF ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: wrong NEEDINFO / INVALID cleaning
That would be my mistake. Apologies. On 05/09/2016 01:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that the automatic cleaning of long standing NEEDINFO bug > reports has itself some bug. Several bug reports in NEEDINFO state are > closed as INVALID without warning comment and without a sufficient > latence period. > > For example: > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68846 > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69650 > > Best regards. > JBF ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] new keyword needUITest
On 04/27/2016 11:24 AM, Markus Mohrhard wrote: > Hey, > > can we add a new keyword needUITest to bugs that are purely in the UI? > > It would help me track bugs that can not be tested right now and would > need a test later. Done. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] regression keyword
On 04/22/2016 01:23 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: > Hello, All, > > I was surprised to read in "QA/BugTriage" > <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage#Keywords> ... > > Use the keyword regression if the previous minor version or > bugfix release works correctly. Please do not mark older bugs > as regressions. > > Is this restriction to *recent* regressions right? Whoa...yeah that seems really wrong and not at all what we've been doing. This goes to show that the wiki still needs a lot of cleanup :-/ Thanks for catching this. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise
> Kendy felt it maybe difficult and wanted to know if it was possible to > do this from the bugzilla end so that it would be automatic. Probably easier solution is that 2 or 3 of you just monitor this link routinely (has keyword, does not have UX in mailing list): https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email1=libreoffice-ux-advise%40lists.freedesktop.org=1=notequals=needsUXEval_type=allwords_id=604822_format=advanced=--- Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] NEW Ping latest run
On 04/16/2016 12:44 AM, Tommy wrote: > hi there, just a few minutes ago I did a new run of the NEW BUGS > UNTOUCHED FROM MORE THAN 1 YEAR ping. Thanks Tommy! I will *try* to write a blog post with a couple pretty graphs/charts in about 3 weeksno promises, life is pretty hectic right now. If you remember, ping me in 3 weeks to remind me :) Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise
On 04/17/2016 02:11 PM, Yousuf 'Jay' Philips wrote: > maybe difficult and wanted to know if it was possible to > do this from the bugzilla end so that it would be automatic. Not by default - it would require some hacking of bugzilla. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise
On 04/17/2016 08:13 AM, Yousuf 'Jay' Philips wrote: > Hi All, > > The design team would like a 'needsUXEval' keyword added to the > keywords field, so that ux-advise bugs can be assigned that keyword > instead of having ux-advise assigned in the component field, so for > example it would be easy to search bugs in Draw that require ux-advise. > > QA members that would be assigning this new keyword rather than the > component should be aware that they would have to add the ux-advise > mailing list email to the CC list, as that isnt automatically being > set with the use of the keyword. Question: Are QA members still just pushing to NEW? Are we leaving in UNCONFIRMED with some reasonable expectation that UX will tackle them? Currently we just immediate toss the bug to NEW without confirming to get them out of the UNCONFIRMED stack. Personally, I think that this is preferred because without this QA members will: (1) be seeing these bugs over and over again with no insight as to whether they are valid; (2) New QA members might be confused and just push them to NEW and confirm without knowing UX methods; (3) it might leads to QA members bickering over the best UX practice when this is a job for UX, not QA. Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise
Hi, > The design team would like a 'needsUXEval' keyword added to the > keywords field, so that ux-advise bugs can be assigned that keyword > instead of having ux-advise assigned in the component field, so for > example it would be easy to search bugs in Draw that require ux-advise. Done > > QA members that would be assigning this new keyword rather than the > component should be aware that they would have to add the ux-advise > mailing list email to the CC list, as that isnt automatically being > set with the use of the keyword. I doubt people will remember to do this - but, it's your workflow. Should I delete the component? Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Getting LibreOffice Writer 5.0.6 bibisected regression free against LibreOffice 4.4.0
Hi All, Was tested by Cor and Terrence and closed as WFM. One down :) Best, Joel On 03/29/2016 12:24 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen > <bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: >> LibreOffice Writer has only 8 unresolved, fully confirmed, triaged and >> bibisected regressions today. So getting LibreOffice Writer "bibisected >> regression clean" for 5.0 should be doable. By priority IMHO the remaining >> unresolved issues are: >> >> - tdf#94063: critial, all platforms > If this is considered critical, can someone please help with not just > bibisecting but actually bisecting it? > > Thanks, > > Miklos > > > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: libreoffice...@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Getting LibreOffice Writer 5.0.6 bibisected regression free against LibreOffice 4.4.0
Hi All, Was tested by Cor and Terrence and closed as WFM. One down :) Best, Joel On 03/29/2016 12:24 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen > <bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: >> LibreOffice Writer has only 8 unresolved, fully confirmed, triaged and >> bibisected regressions today. So getting LibreOffice Writer "bibisected >> regression clean" for 5.0 should be doable. By priority IMHO the remaining >> unresolved issues are: >> >> - tdf#94063: critial, all platforms > If this is considered critical, can someone please help with not just > bibisecting but actually bisecting it? > > Thanks, > > Miklos > > > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Contact from LibreOffice-Box website
To me it just sounds like a bugShould ask on the user list to see if anyone knows tricks or workarounds but if it's a bug, they'll just have to report it and wait (and it could be a long time before it's fixed). On 03/03/2016 01:00 AM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: > Hi all, > maybe someone can take care of this and aswer to her. > > > Am 02.03.2016 um 19:34 schrieb katiem...@aol.com: >> >> Salutation - Ms. >> Name - margaret >> Surname - hardy >> Email - katiem...@aol.com >> Your Text - in a desperate attempt to convert appleworks and >> microsoft word excel files to my new mac i tried your product - it >> works for some but not all. the problem is that the print page shows >> horizontal and vertical layouts but it only prints the horizontal >> even though i check the vertical box. >> > > ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Blitz on Base bugs
Hi Alex, > I've always had a problem with bulk email bug reminders, and this has > definitely pushed my patience over my limit - for me, it only makes > sense if one understands the context behind the number of bugs reported > and tailors the reminder policy accordingly. I accept that we may not > have the resources or desire to do that, but regretfully, this policy > has pushed me to announce my immediate withdrawal from any further QA > work, certainly at least for the time being. Turning off email notifications is relatively easy in bugzilla, as is creating a filter in email to filter results to a specific folder where they can either be purged after some period of time or handled when you have time to look at them. Just my two cents. It's unfortunate to see you go (at least temporarily) but I accept the decision of course. Thanks for the hard work and contributions :) Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [QA] Need someone having Excel
On 01/07/2016 12:20 PM, Gérard Fargeot wrote: > The reporter first, yhen Joel close yhe bug report. > I'm not sure this is a good idea. The screenshot provided by Miroslav show > that Excel handles functions in the same way whether the argument either Just to clarify, I closed it after someone else already closed it as FIXED ;) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] bibisecting post 5.0 regressions
Hi All, How do I bibisect bugs after 5.0 max? I don't see a 5.1 max. I see the dbgutil version but I don't see instructions on how to use that version nor is it entirely clear what versions it covers (is it covering 5.1 -> master?). I tried the typical "git bisect start latest oldest" on it and that failed: joel@joel-Studio-1737:~/Documents/Work/Non-Profit/Libre-Office/bibisect/lo-linux-dbgutil-daily$ git bisect start latest oldest Already on 'master' Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'. Thanks Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Hunting for LibreOffice Android Viewer
Sounds great. Just one point here is that there really isn't a lot of effort going into fixing Android bugs right nowso finding the bugs is one step but just know that there are very few volunteers working on Android thus the bug reports may go untouched for some time. Best, Joel On 12/26/2015 01:33 PM, Gülşah Köse wrote: > > Hi > > LibreOffice Turkish contributors are going to come together for bug > hunting for LibreOffice android viewer on 29th Dec at 13.00 UTC. > > Regards > > > > -- > /Gülşah Köse/ > _about.me <http://about.me/gulsahkose>_ > > > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: help request on proposed VCL code patch
On 12/14/2015 06:46 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Was Caolan's commit, you said you would test "not before this weekend" > (a month ago), and to please poke you again "by Sunday" but nobody > poked you. (The poke fell through the list of things *I* have to do.) > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2015-November/071038.html Ah yes. My mistake (thanks for the reference.hundred+ emails a day makes things get buried). Is a test still really needed or is the regression thereand therefore we're past the stage of testing? Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: help request on proposed VCL code patch
On 12/14/2015 06:13 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Do you think you can take a look at it "fast" or should we revert? I don't remember why/how I was involved with this? Did I say I would test it and somehow it fell through the list of things that I have to do? What should I "look at"? Was it my commit? Is there something I can do to fix it? I'm happy to test in a couple hours but need a bit more guidance. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: cui/uiconfig
cui/uiconfig/ui/optadvancedpage.ui |6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) New commits: commit 6fb1da55085ec37ca6ffde5d9bbc73585b26dee5 Author: Joel <jmadero@gmail.com> Date: Sun Dec 13 11:04:42 2015 -0800 tdf#81519 Clarifying advanced options (unstable vs. limited) minor update to clarify unstable features against macro (limited) features Change-Id: I30c782144e5dff3c300cfcf431c745597f0c3db2 Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/20688 Tested-by: Jenkins <c...@libreoffice.org> Reviewed-by: Samuel Mehrbrodt <samuel.mehrbr...@cib.de> diff --git a/cui/uiconfig/ui/optadvancedpage.ui b/cui/uiconfig/ui/optadvancedpage.ui index 35e081b..7f15f19 100644 --- a/cui/uiconfig/ui/optadvancedpage.ui +++ b/cui/uiconfig/ui/optadvancedpage.ui @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ 6 -Enable experimental features +Enable experimental features (may be unstable) True True False @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ -Enable macro recording (limited) +Enable macro recording (may be limited) True True False @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ True False -Optional (Unstable) Options +Optional Features: ___ Libreoffice-commits mailing list libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Drop-down boxes are broken for the whole LibreOffice.
On 12/04/2015 11:27 AM, m.a.riosv wrote: > > I have no rights to do it. > > For this I mail in the list, so it can be comment and if it was right set up > as blocker. > > Sounds good the "Ultra-critical", but I don't know if there are already > enough labels. You should most definitely have rights. Changing that now. Please verify that you have the rights now :) Make sure to comment when updating priority/severity so people know your thought process :) Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Drop-down boxes are broken for the whole LibreOffice.
On 12/04/2015 08:22 AM, m.a.riosv wrote: > Hi Regina, thanks for the info. > > I think it should be set up as blocker. Then set it as a blocker :) But recognize that "blocker" literally has no meaning (we don't block releases). Ultra-Critical may be a better term. Either as Critical or Blocker I suspect it'll be fixed relatively fast. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
On 12/01/2015 03:19 PM, Pedro wrote: > jmadero wrote >> On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote: >>> What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed >>> for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I >>> think also that a long list of version is confusing. > I think the problem here is that a compromise is not possible. > > It is absurd that the version list has 115 items !!! > > LibreOffice_versions.ods > <http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n4168006/LibreOffice_versions.ods> > > > LibreOffice/TDF absolutely needs a user friendly Bug Submission Assistant > where users can report bugs they found in the stable releases of the live > branches (currently 4.4, 5.0 and 5.1). This would reduce the list to less > than 15 options... So . . . I think this is a completely separate issue and one that perhaps we can discuss tendering somethingif I worked with you on this front could you compromise and agree that bugzilla can stay as is with current policies in place? Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote: > Hi Joel, > Le 01/12/2015 17:53, Joel Madero a écrit : >> >> > Tommy's proposal was to simplify BZ approach on a user point of view. It > is intimidating to go further when you're not sure what version you are > using, and RC, beta are not clear things for users. > What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed > for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I > think also that a long list of version is confusing. > I'm not doing enough QA currently to have a firm opinion on Tommy's > proposal, but I understand his request to shorten the 6 month period in > this way. I just wonder in terms of # of versions - how many are we talking about? 3-5 versions removed 2-3 months earlier? Given there area lot of versionsI'm just not sure if we'll see real gains from the proposal and there is a real possibility for loss. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Building or bibisecting
On 12/01/2015 08:52 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > I don't bibisect - one of the reasons being that last time I tried, > bibisecting on OSX required one to go through the pain of Gatekeeper > every *** time you start LO (08:57:21 AM) shm_get_: *jmadero 1/ you can turn off gatekeeper while you are doing the bisection. 2/ right-click open also allow to bypass gatekeeper when opening stuff in a gui env* ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote: > Hi Joel > > > jmadero wrote >>> If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and >>> 4.0.1, >>> a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic >>> commit/patch? >>> What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2, >>> RC1, etc? >> Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the >> documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my >> understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms? > No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a > hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible. > > Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, > Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough? > Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side? The benefit is narrowing it down by hundreds of commitshave you ever looked at how many commits are between two alphas? Or between two point releases? If we're sitting here screaming and yelling about regressions, the more we narrow down the more likely regressions will be dealt with. Example (commits between...): 5.0.0.1 beta1 and 5.0.0.5 release: 357 5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42 As far as "all the footwork be on QA side" - yes.because all the development work is on the developer side (it's not like they are asking us to code.). It's our job to narrow down the issue as much as possible (down to a single commit is best obviously) and then developers can take over and do their magic with the code (that is almost always way above my head). This debate is going in circles - if no one else agrees with me then go ahead (Tommy has permissions), just make sure to document it somewhere. I'd give it a couple more weeks to see if someone else has additional thoughts. My thought is that if a user is so super confused based on a few extra versions thenwell then there bug reports are likely to be bad anyways (it's not a high bar to understand versions). @Tommy - I suggest clarifying what the proposal is at this time as you and Pedro have deviated substantially. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote: > No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a > hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible. > > Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, > Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough? > Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side? At least some developers agree with me btw - "precision is good" and "lowering to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem ideal." Again, certain developers have complained about QA tinkering without thinking about the repercussions. Just because you can't see the benefits to precision does not mean there aren't any. Just food for thought as we debate changing things *once again*. Do we actually know for a fact that users are getting confused by having a few extra versions listed? Or are we just assuming (or it's a corner case with a couple users complaining?) and in response we want to yet again modify bugzilla versions? *sighs* Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
On 12/01/2015 10:16 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > 5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42 > between rc3 and rc4 > > As long as the merge-to-one-version indicates what version was set > prior to the unification, I don't see the information loss, but it > should be a standardized comment, so that you could still use queries > for those versions. Ah I see the confusion here. I'm talking about cases where _after the merge happens_ we are asking users to go back and download archived versions to try to narrow down where their regression was introduced. I agree that if the version was already set to begin with then it's not a big deal, but after the merge happens, if we're asking users to "narrow down the regression 'as much as possible'" but then we are taking away their ability to actually set the version...that seems like a problem and pretty confusing. This is why the 6 month rule IMHO makes sense. This gives QA 6 months to triage the bug, try to determine if it's a regression, and try to get users to assist as much as possible by narrowing down the version to the most precise possible (absent bibisecting/bisecting). After 6 months it probably is a lot less likely that the user would care enough to test the bug against older versions so it makes sense to purge at this point. 2-3 months turnaround is IMHO too short when it can take 60 days just to triage the bug (before there is a single touch by QA). Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
> > I will gladly work on such a proposal. However the bugzilla modifications > were not my idea, they were from Tommy. I just said I agreed that there are > too many versions. In any case I don't see how my opinion can affect the > current policies. I'm just a user, I'm not even a QA member. Don't be modest. You're a part of the team. And I know Tommy suggested the change to begin with but you seemed to have stronger feelings about going farther than Tommy's proposal :) But, if you can wait a couple weeks I'll have a little time and we can try to draft something :) It'll be a proposal to request funds (maybe through the grant request form). I'll think about the best way to proceed. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
> Hi Joel, all > > > jmadero wrote >> The problem really is that at least *I* do often time request users to >> go back and install older versions to help narrow down where a >> regression was introduced. This is particularly useful when a user is >> complaining about their regression not getting love - at this point I >> start heavily suggesting they do some of the lifting themselves to move >> it forward (bibisect themselves, if that's not possible to go back and >> install older versions and try to narrow down to a beta/rc where the >> issue was introduced). I've actually found this to not only be useful >> for the particular bug but also useful in recruiting new people. > I don't see any incompatibility in asking people to use several versions > (actually I do that using Portable versions of LibreOffice from WinPenPack) > and reducing the number of versions in the drop list. > If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and 4.0.1, > a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic > commit/patch? > What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2, > RC1, etc? Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms? Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
Hi All, > > As long as the comment moving all to the maj.min version includes the > original version (or even adds it as a whiteboard item, I don't see > need for having the versions available. Well the comment doesn't always have the version - more often than not it doesn't. I'm definitely not in favor of adding yet another thing to whiteboard...too many opportunities for mistake, too often cluttered and hard to follow. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
Hi All, > I agree with Tommy. Bugzilla is unfriendly enough. Shortening the list is a > good idea. > > How many people report bugs which are specific to a given RC? Are there more > than 10 people in the world doing this? > In fact at the pace the RCs are released it is nearly impossible for someone > to test and report bugs specific for an RC... Even if TDF had people > contracted to do this, they still wouldn't have the time to thoroughly test > and report bugs in time to be fixed before the next RC (and even the final > version) is released. > > In my opinion the all the alpha, beta and RC bugs should be grouped ta o > single version as soon as the following final version is released > E.g. All 5.0.0 alpha, beta and RCs should be grouped into 5.0.0 when the > first RC for 5.0.1 is announced to the public (and added to the list). > > In fact, at this point there should be only the alphas, betas and RCs for > the 4.4.7, 5.0.3 and 5.1.0 releases (and it's quite enough confusion to have > 3 branches releasing at the same time...) The problem really is that at least *I* do often time request users to go back and install older versions to help narrow down where a regression was introduced. This is particularly useful when a user is complaining about their regression not getting love - at this point I start heavily suggesting they do some of the lifting themselves to move it forward (bibisect themselves, if that's not possible to go back and install older versions and try to narrow down to a beta/rc where the issue was introduced). I've actually found this to not only be useful for the particular bug but also useful in recruiting new people. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup
Hi Tommy, On 11/29/2015 09:40 AM, Tommy wrote: > since 6 months passed by from the 4.3.x EOL I cleaned up the bugzilla > version field from all the alphas, betas and RCs. > > now only final releases are available and a 4.3 all versions item has > been added. > > just a few considerations I've already expressed to Joel few months ago: > > 1- I still think that the 6 months EOL embargo before cleanup is too > much... It would be better to do the cleanup earlier, let's say 4 or 3 > months after the EOL I still disagree :) I don't see that many benefits and I see potential issues that cause headaches for users and contributors alike. > > 2- I think the "all versions" items are unnecessary... as far as I > remember that was an item created for the BSA which is now not > supported anymore. when we ask users to define the "earlier version" > where the bug appeared we want them to exactly define in which release > the bug appeared... so this generic "all versions" item is in contrast > with our policy. I suggest to hide all those "all versions" items from > the version admin page. doing this we would get rid of 8 items from > our long version list. Mixed feelings here. I don't think we should be tinkering a lot unless there is a real gain. Again, here I see no real gain. Others have appropriately criticized the QA team for "tinkering too much" and I think that we should really think about if there is something concrete to gain before tinkering a bunch. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
QA Meeting About How To Move Regressions Forward
Hi All, QA is going to have a meeting second week of December about regressions and what we (QA) can realistically do to help move things forward. The goal is to address all concerns/suggestions, talk about the realities of the project, and discuss what has already been rejected by ESC (such as a long-term "fix only" release). If you're at all interested in taking part please monitor the QA list (or ping me directly). I think having at least a couple experienced developers who can patiently explain the realities of the project and can/will not/and might be possible would be great. Finally, if there are specific things that developers can think of that QA members can do to help move regressions forward please share those ideas. As a question to you all: 1) How important is bibisected/bisect when determining what to fix? 2) How important is accurate priority/severity + keyword tagging? 3) Is "highest" still monitored like MAB is? 4) In the past we tried a hardHack list that we ultimately retired. Would it be possible to have a weekly 1-2 fully triaged (bisected regressions with good steps and all) brought up during the ESC to see if there are any takers? Any other thoughts really appreciated :) Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday
Hi All, > There is a gradually growing number of regressions. Also bibisected > regressions. I know the ESC has attention for this, and that the board > recently approved projects/investments that are intended to help to > change this trend. > Pedro has a point that he doesn't like to accept the situation, and - > learning from his contributions - he is helping a lot with good work here. > Alas no ready to use solution from me today :) > It's on my mind, as some of you may know from some grumbling mails that > I send now and then. I expect to have some room next week to spend more > time on thinking for this. E.g. the suggestion for positive stimulation, > as mentioned also by Bjoern. > > Pedro: can you please ping me in a week or so? I would like to take part also - I've thought about a few new ideas that I think might work :) I won't be available until December 8. Almost any time (absent really really late to really really early) would work between December 8 - 10. Shall we aim for a phone call? Google hangout? IRC Chat? I'm happy Pedro brought this up as I think collectively we can come up with a solution. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice releases
> > Maybe my suggestion wasn't clear. I know about the "twice a year" release > branches. My suggestion was exactly to delay the second release of the year > so that developers could have more time to dedicate to a single branch (of > course they could always submit new features to the Master branch) > > Looking at this chart > <http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n4167378/LO_release_life_cycle.png> > > > you will notice that there are very few times when developers are working on > a single branch. In fact most of the times they are working on 3 branches > simultaneously and therefore the constant "rush before release" that Sophie > mentions. > > My suggestion was (as an example) to branch 5.2 later in the year (e.g. in > late October) so that there is 3-4 months to dedicate to 5.1 and therefore > have time to reduce the backlog of confirmed bugs (and even for QA people to > bisect some bugs without having to worry about testing a new branch). > > My other suggestion was for TDF to organize a Bug Squashing Session during > this period. > > Therefore this does not change the Timed release logic, it just spaces it a > bit to allow time for bug fixing... Nothing prevents developers now to dedicate 100% of their time to regression squashing between major releasesA developer could have (by choice) focused entirely on new features for 5.0, and entirely on regression for 5.1. The fact that they did not implies that as volunteers, that wasn't of any interest to them. I'm not seeing what exactly you're proposing anyone do. Do you want TDF to lock LibreOffice every other major release and say "absolutely no new features or bug squashing, only regression fixing?" I think you have a misunderstanding of the relationship that the Document Foundation (entity) has with it's contributors (volunteers). Again, nothing is preventing you from reaching out and trying to recruit developers to focus on regressions. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday
Hi All, > BTW would be nice listen from the candidates their opinion about concrete > matters like this one. Should have suggested. If you're really interested in knowing candidates views on specific items you may want to email [board-discuss] list :) Warmest Regards, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday
Hi There, On 11/25/2015 02:04 PM, m.a.riosv wrote: > BTW would be nice listen from the candidates their opinion about concrete > matters like this one. I would be surprised if there was any deviation for any of the candidates - we've discussed this at length on the Board. Hell I just brought it up today (saying it came up again in QA) and well, there was unanimous consensus and hopefully one of the developers will write a nice blog post about this issue to put it to rest once and for all. Telling others what to do is not how we work. We have a strong culture of "the doers decide" and the "doers" stick with what they "do" - thus again, I really do think there is a solution here. If QA members just bisected each regression (fully bisect) and prioritized correctly I *honestly* believe that the regression count would fall. I don't understand why this point is being ignored as it's literally *completely* in our control. Anywho, I like the spirited conversation I just don't see any actionable item. I suggested that Pedro go track down developers to agree with him but he quickly dismissed that (because he couldn't convince me?) and asked Robinson or someone else to do the work of bringing up to the ESC. The ESC has also talked about this at length and rejected it (on several occasions). I've spoken with many of the developers who join the ESC and all of them reject this concept of QA dictating what they do, or that there should be any quasi-dictating by having "fix builds" or the like. But again, it's not outside of any of your powers to broach the subject yourselves on the dev list and pitch *concrete actionable ideas*. At the same time, I highly encourage thinking about compromise positions - which I think I have actually given a good compromise. If we can go to the ESC and say "look our QA team is frantically doing *comprehensive triaging* and bisecting each and every regression, can you take over now? That seems like a more positive way to move things forward. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday
On 11/25/2015 02:40 AM, Pedro wrote: > > > > Now that Collabora has a paid version (by the UK government) which is a 3 > year LTS some of these bugs might start to be squashed and contributed back > to the Master branch... > > A sugestion: maybe have a branch dedicated to bug fixes every other year? > Example: let's say 5.1 is dedicated to fixes. Then a slight change of > schedule would postpone 5.2.0 to some months later so that most devs would > concentrate on 5.1 (of course new features would still be added to Master in > this period) instead of being split by two concurrent branches... This is literally impossible. We would have very talented developers saying no way - then what? We cannot dictate (we can suggest) what developers do. If we tell Developers "pause all your work and go back and do just regression fixing" they respond with "no" and then . . . the end. This has been discussed on and off for years, it's a fine idea, impossible given our volunteer base and the way we respect that volunteers can't be told what to do. Again, if we go and bisect (fully bisect) each regression and add the developer who accidentally broke the feature I'm relatively sure we'd have good results. Then catching regressions before they happen is, as Sophi suggested, all about growing the community to do testing in Alpha. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday
Hi Pedro, > It is impossible for me to join at the 13:00 but I would like to leave two > questions: That's unfortunate, we should talk about moving the time and/or finding some other way to get dedicated people like yourself on live chat during meeting. > > Isn't 16% of Regressions something that TDF should be worried about? I'm not sure what "worried about" really means. If a major issue was resolved and the side effect is a minor regression, not so much. If instead there are a ton of minor fixes that have created crashers, more of an issue. I'd need a lot more information to adequately judge the problem. > > How can QA (Quality Assurance) and TDF motivate the Devs to worry about the > consistency of the program? From QA perspective it's not our job to judge or dictate how developers work. They are volunteers, and they should be respected like volunteers. What we can do is the same that we could always do: 1) Narrow down the version where the problem came to be; 2) Bibisect/bisect -- CRUCIAL 3) Appropriately tag whiteboard 4) Appropriately deal with severity/priority. Beyond that, it's out of our control and stressing about how developer volunteers spend their time is not in anyone's best interestin particular if we're falling short on our side (specifically bibisecting). Finally, the only other advise I would give is raising the worst (and *fully* triaged) regressions up to Robinson so that he can bring them up during ESC. This is particularly useful when we can identify the specific person who accidentally caused the regression and try to see if they can fix it quickly. Before demanding a lot of other's time, I personally would prefer we do our job as good as possible. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Base QA request
I'll take a look but it won't be before this weekend. If someone else can check first that would be appreciated (please let me know so I don't duplicate work). If I don't respond by Sunday please poke me again. Best, Joel On 11/11/2015 03:07 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Hi, > > In the context of tdf#94069 and tdf#95723, the author of the fixes > (not a Base user, thanks for fixing this!) requests checking that his > fix (which just came in, will be in nightlies tomorrow) doesn't break > anything else. > > Any takers? > > Thanks in advance. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59:46AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 11:31 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is patch attached to tdf#94069, nominally a rather annoying >>> Base UI bug (crash!), but which touches the VCL event loop (not >>> specific to Base) in a way that I don't understand the consequences >>> of >> If I look at the behaviour in an older version of LibreOffice pre idle >> tweaking then on moving that widget it "jumps" around a lot and is >> shown rendering in the original location and then the new one and so >> on. So it didn't really work right in the first place as far as I can >> see. >> >> Looking at the UnoControl PushButton etc which don't suffer from this >> problem I see that when setDesignMode is called for everything else >> they set the "real" widget to hidden (it gets drawn via a different >> mechanism than the real Paint in this case) so when its moved around it >> doesn't generate Invalidate events. >> >> So, I think the right solution may be to make the GridControl behave >> like the other UnoControl widgets in that design mode turns off >> visibility. So I've done that as >> a7816853bad55ada597092c16ba9a0a761e067d0 and it seems to work well. >> >> I don't really "use" these things day to day, so testing appreciated >> for this and follow up 44daaebf835bb60fb7e442e928cd30191f15af52 to >> tweak how the grid control is laid out, to ensure I haven't busted >> anything horribly. >> >> C. >> > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Base QA request
I'll take a look but it won't be before this weekend. If someone else can check first that would be appreciated (please let me know so I don't duplicate work). If I don't respond by Sunday please poke me again. Best, Joel On 11/11/2015 03:07 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Hi, > > In the context of tdf#94069 and tdf#95723, the author of the fixes > (not a Base user, thanks for fixing this!) requests checking that his > fix (which just came in, will be in nightlies tomorrow) doesn't break > anything else. > > Any takers? > > Thanks in advance. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59:46AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 11:31 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is patch attached to tdf#94069, nominally a rather annoying >>> Base UI bug (crash!), but which touches the VCL event loop (not >>> specific to Base) in a way that I don't understand the consequences >>> of >> If I look at the behaviour in an older version of LibreOffice pre idle >> tweaking then on moving that widget it "jumps" around a lot and is >> shown rendering in the original location and then the new one and so >> on. So it didn't really work right in the first place as far as I can >> see. >> >> Looking at the UnoControl PushButton etc which don't suffer from this >> problem I see that when setDesignMode is called for everything else >> they set the "real" widget to hidden (it gets drawn via a different >> mechanism than the real Paint in this case) so when its moved around it >> doesn't generate Invalidate events. >> >> So, I think the right solution may be to make the GridControl behave >> like the other UnoControl widgets in that design mode turns off >> visibility. So I've done that as >> a7816853bad55ada597092c16ba9a0a761e067d0 and it seems to work well. >> >> I don't really "use" these things day to day, so testing appreciated >> for this and follow up 44daaebf835bb60fb7e442e928cd30191f15af52 to >> tweak how the grid control is laid out, to ensure I haven't busted >> anything horribly. >> >> C. >> > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: libreoffice...@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla Idea: Issues assign to me
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Xisco Faulí <aniste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Do you think it would be plausible to have a link in bugzilla's menu to > quickly check the issues assign to oneself like the link 'My bugs'? Right > now, the only way I found to check this is in 'Advanced Search' - Custom > Search - Assignee equals to 'user' which IMHO, is quite tedious. > > On the other hand, I found that taking an issue doesn't change the status > to ASSIGNED. Could bugzilla be hacked to do it automatically or it's > intentioned? > You can create your own custom searches that will show up there on the bottom. But, yeah I think this would be a relatively easy hack. I suggest writing up a request in redmine and assigning it to Robinson - that way it's on his radar. Best, Joel List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> * ABANDONED > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some other such thing). Couple other points: 1. Please update the wiki when the change happens (both the status wiki as well as the gardening wiki); 2. Please ping me directly so that I update my stuff for the next time I do a mass ping. Seems like a good idea. Thanks for leading it (and for Norbert's original suggestion). Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> * ABANDONED > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some other such thing). Couple other points: 1. Please update the wiki when the change happens (both the status wiki as well as the gardening wiki); 2. Please ping me directly so that I update my stuff for the next time I do a mass ping. Seems like a good idea. Thanks for leading it (and for Norbert's original suggestion). Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED > wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient information but it's a start :) Let's let others speak up and then Robinson can just go with whatever seems to be the consensus. Best, Joel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWQOIxAAoJEAFBJ8aP+xsU7LkH/R1PBNtb6c2zTKTHjTka4n9g fMInqpMKxYogLG5aWV0iztFQuRJuoQ6LGijm9T2tft7gH5EOr86pwtcEyjabPiwy cIZ+2p6IZ84CJIu2cac8k5SM0QWfX6lYlBhJEriVMB2kxIynn1Jd6oKlrL6A3xSG qkpFzTZx5KzLvHlv2Lq7Cb+xpjBg7Kz4iEDAmgO5QPHjLgXmjRox2olxc3gaiwRJ bBTF5byMn1Zncp93LENtphDfITZzTR6gdDxFfB4Ut8N09Syyq9iGtGKUxUOtVZjm 4J1YHbhtTTpw8Q+oTF+UMnGXgU63WkibdHA6ZjdHxJD35IX/Yh9KNCKrc5AzmpM= =eaZ/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the >> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where >> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the >> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED >> wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and > INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt > and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved > one > and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to > confusion. I was thinking exactly this and am back to thinking ABANDONED is the best option. We wouldn't go right to ABANDONED. We would go to NEEDINFO - which puts users on notice that we need something, after 6 months, we'd do a follow-up ping saying "hurry up or else..." and then after another month we close as ABANDONED, which seems to describe the situation well. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the >> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where >> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the >> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED >> wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and > INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt > and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved > one > and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to > confusion. I was thinking exactly this and am back to thinking ABANDONED is the best option. We wouldn't go right to ABANDONED. We would go to NEEDINFO - which puts users on notice that we need something, after 6 months, we'd do a follow-up ping saying "hurry up or else..." and then after another month we close as ABANDONED, which seems to describe the situation well. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> > > I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID > > IMHO the time spent to implement this new > ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... > > in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user > so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't > provide necessary informations. To put this in context - this began after several users over the course of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make them feel better, that's fine. This will mostly be used by the automatic pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this new status. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> > > I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID > > IMHO the time spent to implement this new > ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... > > in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user > so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't > provide necessary informations. To put this in context - this began after several users over the course of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make them feel better, that's fine. This will mostly be used by the automatic pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this new status. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Duplicated bus's reports
> Hi, > > I think lately there are several cases with same bug in two consecutive > reports, maybe something in the configurations leads to this matter. My guess is user not being patient and hitting submit twice - I believe that can result in dupes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!
Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved? Best, Joel On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > A big thanks to everyone who's been helping us out with bibisection of > regressions, and a hearty congratulations to Terrence Enger for being > the lucky one to perform the 1000th one (and the 1001st one, too)! > > More here: > > https://colonelqubit.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/libreoffice-qa-over-1000-bibisects-served/ > > Best, > --R > > -- > Robinson Tryon > QA Engineer - The Document Foundation > LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald > qu...@libreoffice.org > 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!
Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved? Best, Joel On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > A big thanks to everyone who's been helping us out with bibisection of > regressions, and a hearty congratulations to Terrence Enger for being > the lucky one to perform the 1000th one (and the 1001st one, too)! > > More here: > > https://colonelqubit.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/libreoffice-qa-over-1000-bibisects-served/ > > Best, > --R > > -- > Robinson Tryon > QA Engineer - The Document Foundation > LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald > qu...@libreoffice.org > 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: libreoffice...@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!
On 10/16/2015 08:29 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved? >> > Sure thing: 62% of the bugs currently bibisected are RESOLVED or CLOSED. > > (CLOSED bugs make up less than 1% of the total -- we don't seem to > bother taking that last step with many of our bugs... ;-) Great news ! I haven't read your blog but I hope that these numbers are in there :) Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] Dealing with Corrupt Profiles
Hi All, I wanted to know people's thoughts about dealing with bugs that we know are caused by corrupt profiles. My suggestion: NEW with "corruptProfile" in the whiteboard. This is different from how it's currently done as we close these as WFM. I'm happy to continue but if we are trying to locate profile corruption, I think this would help quite a bit. Just thinking out loud. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Windows and OpenGL - what to do in the unlikely case that LibreOffice crashes on startup
On 09/23/2015 07:31 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi *, > > as LibreOffice 5.0.2 comes with OpenGL rendering by deafult that > might cause problems on certain hardware/driver combinations, > there is a possibility of LibreOffice crashing on startup, so you > cannot go to Tools|Options → LibreOffice → View to disable it. > > In this case, you can use the registry setting attached to > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93546 to disable > it. > > so in case you stumble over bugs for rWindows that involve crash on > start, keep this one in mind. Shouldn't this be in a wiki somewhere instead of directing to a registry setting attached to a bug report? Also, @Robinson and others - can we spam this message in the QA channel as many don't follow the mailing list. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice 5.0.2 RC2 test builds available
Please report bugs to the bug tracker - not to the email thread. Thanks! On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Carlo <carlochies...@gmail.com> wrote: > Christian Lohmaier googlemail.com> writes: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > For the upcoming version 5.0.2 the builds for RC2 are now available on > > pre-releases. > > > > ... > > > > Testing against the areas touched and the bugs fixed since the last > > tag is greatly appreciated, as it helps us to confirm the stability of > > this build. > > > Sifr icon set has some problems in x86 build: many icons have an ugly > black background! > No problems with previous RC1 build. > Tested on Windows 10 italian localization. > > > > > > ___ > List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list > Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org > Change settings: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ > -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Quick summary of the profile's study
Great analysis...so it does seem like an option to quickly reset/backup would be very good. Maybe a tender possibility. Best, Joel On 09/09/2015 08:44 AM, Sophie wrote: > Hi all, > > So as requested during the QA meeting, here is a quick summary of the > study [1] that has been conducted by one FR member on the FR lists > concerning the profile corruption. > > -- > - based on feedback from users@fr and discuss@fr mailing lists > - about 1300 messages have been sicked containing profil in them > - version was 4.2.x and 4.3.x > > - per module concerned, the results are : LibreOffice, Writer, Calc. > > For 63% of them, resetting the profile didn't solve the problem, for 33% > that solved the problem from which for 15% a partial modification solved > the problem. > > The problem was concerning most of the time functionalities, display and > crashes. The OS the most concerned was Windows for 75% (not a surprise > as a large part of our users are running windows). > > For 11 times, modifying LibreOffice\4\user\config\soffice.cfg\modules > solved a problem met with menus, toolbars, etc... > For 7 times on 11, problems were du to extensions. > > When it was files that were concerned (17 submitted to the list) on 4 > was solved by deleting registrymodifications.xcu. > > Since version 4 there are less problems reported. > > When it was about crashes, 8 times on 30 renaming the profile solved the > problem and was more on old version (3.4 or 3.6). > > The conclusion was that the profile has a bad reputation but its > corruption is not so easy. One reason could be the change between > OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice. Another one is the lack of information > on how it runs and its different files (example is given on the 'store' > file or 'psprint' file where there is no explanation on the file.) So by > documenting it, it should be easier to identify and solve the problems > that a user may encounter. > - > [1] http://www.numericoach.net/?Le-profil-de-LibreOffice-est-il-si > > Cheers > Sophie ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect tagging - suggestion for QA IRC meeting discussion
Hi All, After having conversations with Cloph and shm_get I came up with the following list of bugs that should *have something related to bibisect*. What this means is that one of these tags should exist: _*Whiteboard*_ 1) bibisectRequest; 2) bibisected; 3) notBibisectable (this means it falls in the appropriate range but for some reason it was not bibisectable...usually a series of bad commits that make the range useless); 4) preBibisect (in which case the version field should be updated to reflect this - *applies to bugs depending on versions listed below*). _*Keyword*_ bisected - this applies *only* when the _exact_ commit is determined - this isn't done through the normal bibisect method, it requires extra steps. After doing this IMHO we should still include bibisected in the whiteboard status. *_Versions Covered:_ *Linux - any bug after 3.5beta0 that is a regression (including master); Windows - any bug 4.3 - master (inclusive); Mac - 4.1 - 5.0 (inclusive - note there is a gap in the 4.3 seriesif you come across one of these the correct tag is notBibisectable because of the gap) _*Useful Links *_These links are bugs that I believe match the above criteria for each platform - so in theory *each of these bugs should have some tag pertaining to bibisect **Linux: *http://tinyurl.com/linuxBibisect* **Windows: *http://tinyurl.com/windowsBibisect *Mac: *http://tinyurl.com/macBibisect _*Regression Tagging *_Moving forward it's really important that we continue to improve tagging regressions (we have indeed gotten a lot better!). So I've found a couple things to help: 1) Have 3.3 installed and at least check current fresh and 3.3 (if it's in 3.3, we know not a regression, can update version) 2) Ask the user to test their own bug - link to the page with old releases (http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/) - say it helps a lot and it _could_ potentially help get the bug fixed faster; 3) Quickly explain what version field means (oldest version not latest version) There are several hundred bugs available - and this is an under-estimate as they only include bugs that are tagged as regression - if I had to guess we have _at minimum_ twice as many bugs that could use a bibisect. Correct tagging is crucial moving forward :-D Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability Test File
Hi Pedro, jmadero wrote I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have someone tracking interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to say hi :) These are exactly the kind of bugs that bring bad reputation to LibreOffice... Interoperability and Regressions... I can confirm the first one (#93637) and possibly others (like the image in the header) is a Regression from branch 3.6 So let's focus more on tagging everything correctly in whiteboard. I think I even missed some stuff here so if these are particularly bad from QA stand point (and thus can be brought up during ESC...to suggest they get looked at) they should be consistently tagged I think as follows: Whiteboard: filter:docx (or whatever filter), interoprability, bibisectRequest/bibisected/bisected; Keyword: regression With those we can easily identify how many and how serious they are. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability Test File
Hi All, I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=118139 Bug #'s https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93637 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93639 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93644 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93640 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93642 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93641 Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have someone tracking interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to say hi :) Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Interoperability Test File
Hi All, I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=118139 Bug #'s https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93637 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93639 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93644 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93640 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93642 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93641 Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have someone tracking interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to say hi :) Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] When it's time to basic bases?
I skimmed this and really...this isn't how the team works. We don't have someone come and insist and dictate how we do our work. If you want then the best thing for you to do is lead by example and then if it works, others will follow. With that, I'm not going to say anything specific with regards to anything in this because it's just a lot of insist on a massive amount of changes and telling volunteers how to do their volunteering. Really not how the project works. Best, Joel On 07/29/2015 05:16 PM, Miguel Ángel wrote: I have had this mail in the freeze for months, but seeing the discussion about unit test on dev's ML, the interest for the Help Authoring Extension, and the recent thread in QA ML about how recruit. There are a lot of fantastic changes and improvements in LibreOffice, what I'm sure is a pride for all of us. But, always there is a but, my perception on a common feel about LibreOffice, is that it has a lot of improvements but with too much issues. To find the best way in doing the things, there is not other way than to be a bit critics with our self and test if we are doing the things so well as we can. What I perceive is that everyone does what she/he likes and how she/he likes, well, maybe a bit exaggerated from my side. Sure it was fine in the beginning of the project, because at those times the priority was to go forward, but some time ago we should have started to change to look for a better way. http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Looking-for-a-new-approach-in-QA-workflow-tc4052468.html I know sometimes it's needed even more it's indispensable, force things and go a step forward to moving ahead. But I'm feel obligated to insist, that at least a very basic steps to follow, need to be established, specially about new improvements. a) New additions, and specially modifications, implies changes that always affect someone in someway, then have a previous discussion in the right place of the project, finding the pros and cons, to reach a minimal consensus, allows the Author have more security about what is doing, having a first feedback for a better implementation. b) At least with the first commit of any addition, and with new changes, a breve explanation, about: - What it's the target? - How it supposed it must work? c) Announce in QA ML when the implementation is ready to verify, with what and how verify by QA, so we can do a truth QA job. d) Encourage make public the intentions about new works, because maybe others have tried first and someone can help in some way, avoiding duplicated works. Often putting black on white forces oneself understand better and rethink about what is doing, helping in to do it better. Help others to help, specially for verification purposes. Sometimes is hard to help people in forums/ML, but even worse, looking for something, when there is not any kind of help in the program and nowhere. IMHO I's unacceptable having implementations in LibreOffice without a minimal help, for me a job without help, it's not finished and it shouldn't be released. I have not doubt, that improving the QA only can leads to a less prone to error improvements - less developing time - more time for more improvements. Really, e.g., we can't find a way to have professionals, helping in develop a better QA process, when we have the opportunity. Is there any problem on having a basic rules?, or it's possible e.g. don't follow the languages rules to write the code. We must take into consideration that the whole merit for a quality job it's for their Author, so I can't see any issue for their side. Miguel Ángel. An open project needs open minds. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bugzilla versions cleanup proposals
On 07/26/2015 07:02 AM, Tommy wrote: in the last few weeks I was given Bugzilla admin power by Joel and I'm adding new version once they come out and rename RCs to release once they are promoted. I think I could do some cleanups but I need your opinion first... - 1 - remove the all versions items - actually we have 7 of those items for 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2 and there's no 4.3 all versions Disagree here - we did discuss this at length and there is a reason why we have it. For instance Red Hat is still running on an old version of LibreOffice and we want to give the option to report against those versionI'm sure there are minutes and/or email threads discussing this at length. - 2- END-OF-LIFE version collapse from 6 to 3 months - in order to shorten the list it was decided that all the alphas, betas and RCs of an END-OF-LIFE branch should be hidden after 6 months from the EOL date, leaving just the final releases visible. I think the 6 months period is unnecessary too long and can be safely reduced to 3. let's take the example of the 4.3.x branch https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#4.3_release the EOL was May 27, 2015. with the current 6 months waiting time we will do the cleanup on November 27, 2015... by that date the 4.4.x will be EOL too and the 5.0.x will be in a very advanced stage with LibO 5.0.4 available so I think that it will be very unlikely at the end of 2015 to see people submitting new bugs about the alphas, betas and RCs of the 4.3.x branch. Again disagree - there's no reason really outside of slight aesthetics to do thislots of people are running older versions and because version is supposed to be oldest version...it makes sense to leave these available. Should be discussed at QA IRC Meeting but my vote goes to no on both. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Start Center
Might want to include design list as well as I think Kendy would be the one who could answer these questions. I honestly have no idea On 07/23/2015 07:51 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: Hi, All, A couple of questions about the Start Centre, if I may ... (1) Starting with the dbgutil bibisect repo version 2015-07-10, the shortcut keys in the left pane are no longer underscored, and it is necessary to qualify the shortcut keys with Alt+. Is this change intentional? Windows (daily build, 2015-07-23) does not have this change. (2) The keys up-arrow and down-arrow move the selection, indicated by a fine outline, through the options in the top part of the left pane. This seems to have been the case since the introduction of the left pane, in Start Center, but I somehow expected to be able to select the Create options this way. Am I wrong to be surprised? Thanks, Terry. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug #92434
Hey Dan, So a couple things: 1) It's rarely appropriate to report a new bug that is reporting behavior that is already reported - the only time this really is appropriate is if the original bug is really old and was fixed at some point - then reporting a new issue is best; 2) REOPENED should really never be used unless you know what it means - that the bug was reported FIXED by a developer and someone on the bug report still sees the issue on the release that the developer marked it as FIXED for - else UNCONFIRMED or NEW (confirmed)...if the bug went to WORKSFORME then UNCONFIRMED is probably best to get another person to confirm the issue; 3) Comments should include your version of LibreOffice, your operating system, and if the bug report doesn't already have clear repro steps and simple attachments, then add those as well. Thanks! Best, Joel On 07/25/2015 05:10 AM, Dan Lewis wrote: I have downloaded 5.0.0.4 RC4 this morning. I will be checking this bug against it. If I find a problem, do I add a comment to the bug, or do I file a new bug? Two days ago, I added a comment to this bug after testing it against that day's daily build. The bug was still there. I reopened it at that point. This is why I am asking. I'm not sure I did the right thing in reopening the bug. I will list my results by this afternoon (I live in eastern US). Dan ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Temporarily reverting patch to Importance fields
On 07/16/2015 05:35 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi all, As we've run into some unintended side effects from our latest local changes to Bugzilla, I've reverted our field-restriction patch for the time being. Now that we've actually had people testing it - is the only issue the NEEDINFO to NEW bug? I'm looking at the code now and probably can get a fix by this weekend. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Temporarily reverting patch to Importance fields
On 07/16/2015 05:35 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi all, As we've run into some unintended side effects from our latest local changes to Bugzilla, I've reverted our field-restriction patch for the time being. Now that we've actually had people testing it - is the only issue the NEEDINFO to NEW bug? I'm looking at the code now and probably can get a fix by this weekend. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7
On 06/26/2015 08:56 AM, Pedro wrote: jmadero wrote IMO there is a need for a feature to renew the user profile automatically by clicking on a button or something similar [2]. So we can avoid many bugs and anger. Indeed - that's already a request (Backup and restore button for profile). :) The user swears that he purges the directory and it re-corrupts at some point... Actually the solution is to find what causes profile corruption (but a Repair option would be an intermediate solution for MANY problems) How can we make TDF and the Devs take this problem seriously? We can't make anything happen. They are volunteers (just like you) - no one dictates how other people work. It *might* be a reasonable tender request. @Pedro - if you want you can submit a grant proposal that we invest in developing this option. The more information you have the better (such as price to implement, how many bugs were fixed just by deleting the profile, etc). Then submit the proposal to treasurer account. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote: jmadero wrote We can't make anything happen. They are volunteers (just like you) - no one dictates how other people work. It *might* be a reasonable tender request. @Pedro - if you want you can submit a grant proposal that we invest in developing this option. The more information you have the better (such as price to implement, how many bugs were fixed just by deleting the profile, etc). Then submit the proposal to treasurer account. That is simply not true. Many (most?) developers are paid by their companies to work on LibreOffice (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Collabora, etc). The myth that everyone is a volunteer and that Open Source is developed for free is nothing more than a myth. True - but we don't have power over them either ;) So what difference does it make to me...in my eyes they are all volunteers (or at least not under TDF control) I assume that current developers don't work on these features because they don't find it interesting or that no company instructs them to work on it. Probably If TDF is convinced that this is important then they can do the call for tender themselves (like they did for LibreOffice Viewer for Android) TDF builds an eco system where doers can do - Android was somewhat unique. The other tenders that we've done all have had backers that thought the issue was *particularly* important and thus put in the time and energy (which is a lot) to tender it. Anyway you are a member of the Board of Directors... Aren't you convinced that this is important? Sure - but not more important than the other 1000 things on my plate right now. I don't have the time to do yet another tender, build the support, find the money, etc... etc... The new grant program is meant to encourage our members (who are also doers to be more involved with the financing projects and see what a commitment it is to execute something to the end. There's only so much we (as the group of directors, deputies, and staff) can handle...and, I'm stretched way too thin to take on yet another project. Best, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Weekly and Daily Bug Summary
On 06/11/2015 10:46 AM, Tommy wrote: we already have a Weekly summary here: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/page.cgi?id=weekly-bug-summary.html It's possible to have a similar bugzilla page with a Daily summary? Sorry this sat - we have someone currently working on doing a better stats setup. For any of your needs please fill out this: http://tdf.io/qastatsfeedback Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7
Yeah the instructions weren't entirely helpful beyond the superfluous devs don't care at all! type stuff. I'm tempted to throw it back to NEEDINFO. @Pedro - you mind putting it in NEEDINFO and asking for more information (locales, dictionaries installed, etc... etc). I think this is user error to be honest but I could be wrong. I think if I put it back to NEEDINFO the users involved will just go on a tirade about me ;) Best, Joel On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote: jmadero wrote Anyone aware of spell check issues with Windows 7? Bug#92150 indicates that this has been an issue for some time - a user confirmed the original report - but unfortunately neither user has been very helpful in terms of getting useful information. The bug report doesn't really help... The first user is in South Africa (maybe that is the root of the problem) running Win 7 x64 while the second is also running Win 7 x64 but seems to be US based... jmadero wrote Anyone else aware of this? If so - can we get some decent non-dramatic reproducible steps and then try to figure out what version it broke in. Spelling works correctly under Windows 7 (but I always do a Custom installation with English US dictionaries and UI only, removing other variants) I could try a Standard install but my guess is that this would help http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/afrikaans-spell-checker BTW the extensions search engine really SUCKS!!! Searching africa will NOT find african... how lame is that? Hope this helps... Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Spell-Check-on-Windows-7-tp4152554p4152565.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7
On 06/24/2015 10:13 PM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: Hi Joel, Pedro, Am 25.06.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Joel Madero: Yeah the instructions weren't entirely helpful beyond the superfluous devs don't care at all! type stuff. I'm tempted to throw it back to NEEDINFO. @Pedro - you mind putting it in NEEDINFO and asking for more information (locales, dictionaries installed, etc... etc). I think this is user error to be honest but I could be wrong. I think if I put it back to NEEDINFO the users involved will just go on a tirade about me ;) We have a problem here that spell checking doesn't work in LibO PortableApps on different PCs. I don't know if it is the same problem but I will have a look in the evening. Awesome thanks K-J :) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity
On 06/23/2015 12:32 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:14:54PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. I'd like to suggest to add this query as a reocurring item for the Robinson and the rest of the call to look at during the QA section of the ESC call: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfield=prioritychfieldfrom=-8dchfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=highestlist_id=545001priority=highestproduct=LibreOfficequery_format=advancedresolution=--- It shows: - open bugs - that were changed to priority highest (thus a MAB) in the last 8 days (aka ~since the last call) - and currently are still priority highest (and thus a MAB) This is for the ESC to both be aware of newly marked important bugs -- and also to weed out one or another wrongly marked high priority bug. Also, this should help us keep the total number of high priority bugs both under control and on the radar. @Robinson: Can you take that up? Along with this - I created the patch months ago that is sitting in the test instance to block priority/severity from being changed by non-contributors. Beluga and I put in some time adding all devs and QA members (or at least the vast majority) to a new group in bugzilla so that they will have the rights without requesting. At this point I'm just waiting for Robinson to give me some feedback as to what the hold up is. @Robinson - if texting is easier than IRC or email - feel free to text me with suggestions for times that we can push this change once and for all. I have 3 more that I intend on making but I want to wait until this one is done before doing more. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity
On 06/23/2015 12:32 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:14:54PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. I'd like to suggest to add this query as a reocurring item for the Robinson and the rest of the call to look at during the QA section of the ESC call: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfield=prioritychfieldfrom=-8dchfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=highestlist_id=545001priority=highestproduct=LibreOfficequery_format=advancedresolution=--- It shows: - open bugs - that were changed to priority highest (thus a MAB) in the last 8 days (aka ~since the last call) - and currently are still priority highest (and thus a MAB) This is for the ESC to both be aware of newly marked important bugs -- and also to weed out one or another wrongly marked high priority bug. Also, this should help us keep the total number of high priority bugs both under control and on the radar. @Robinson: Can you take that up? Along with this - I created the patch months ago that is sitting in the test instance to block priority/severity from being changed by non-contributors. Beluga and I put in some time adding all devs and QA members (or at least the vast majority) to a new group in bugzilla so that they will have the rights without requesting. At this point I'm just waiting for Robinson to give me some feedback as to what the hold up is. @Robinson - if texting is easier than IRC or email - feel free to text me with suggestions for times that we can push this change once and for all. I have 3 more that I intend on making but I want to wait until this one is done before doing more. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] problem; help request
Hi Kenneth - This mailing list is actually for contributors dealing with quality assurance. You'll likely want to ask the user mailing list - more people monitor that with a wider response. You list a whole list of issues and it's usually hard to get responses with meta questions. My suggestion is to: 1) Email user list; 2) Each email addresses a single issue 3) If others see the same issues - best bet is to report a bug at bugs.libreoffice.org - a volunteer then would have to volunteer for to fix the issue (if there is one). Warmest Regards, Joel P.S. I highly recommend not including cell phone numbers in the mailing list - the emails are public On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Kenneth Koym koy...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings: I wonder if the libreOfficeWriter problem can be addressed there. Mine is nested in Ubuntu 14.04.2. I ask your assist, getting a libreofficewriter re-config/work around, which re-gains ability to get documents to open, like they have for five years. Just did a sudo apt-get purge libreoffice followed by sudo apt-get install libreoffice || sudo apt-get autoremove || sudo apt-get clean. No difference after logging off and restarting. Nice to have the clean up but plain old truth I, a 76 year old, want the regular size file to open, not one that is one third the size. Why? I fight macular degeneration/going blind if I do not use good habits, Alred Vitamins as prescribed by my MD. I don't see a way to post a sample; but since late Friday June 12th all newly opened empty document work spacess are one third the size. Saved documents open in the original readible font point size. Not so this morning June 15th. The old docs are now smaller in size than they were originally written; and, it is not feasible to edit or rewrite a libreoffice writer created document on this PC. I do not see the same problem on ubuntu forums. What happens? The prompt always flashes. The prompt [and any wording I compose] looks like a 7 point not 11 or 12-point type. The proposed page you'd expect to work on is about one third the correct size LibreOfficeWriter is not working correctly. Wish I new a terminal instruction showing Report my fowl up assessment; so I could post responses that reveals errors. Problems are: a. pages open approximately one third of what I saw until last +/- June 10th or 11th. b. this morning June 15th, text on two or three lines appear to be block marked. But to my knowledge I have not set up any such commands. c. you can houver over text you wish to edit but changes cannot be made readily and d. once you get to the end of a line, the auto movement down to the next line in the page is frozen. e. to get to the next line, you must literally move the mouse, telling the prompt to go there. Again, I believe someone other than me has control over my PC. Yes, it could be a virus or ??? Being I'm a federal retiree, it's feasible a Non US source decided to hit my PC. I'd prefer to believe a config error or an odd virus causing the unwanted difficulties. From the 16th-23rd I'll be out of pocket with my G-kids so any help can slide till I return or get another machine. ken cell 512.828.9778 ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA Meeting Minutes - 2015-06-17 (PLUS: BugHunting Session all this weekend!)
On 06/19/2015 10:50 AM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: Hi Robinson, Am 19.06.2015 um 19:34 schrieb Robinson Tryon: Hi all, Remember that we're having a BugHunting Session all this weekend for the RC1 of LibreOffice 5.0. If you want to join in or have questions about where to start, please see the wiki page here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugHunting_Session_5.0.0_RC1 Ok, so where can I find the RC1? Not at this place (as mentioned in the wiki): http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/ nor at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ It's building now - should be available in the next couple hours. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
MAB/Priority and Severity
Hi All! So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. What this mean: 1) If you notice that you lack privileges then just email me and I'll add you to the list (add your bugzilla email account)[1][2] 2) *MAB will be _equivalent_ to _highest_* (so anything that you previously would have thrown on MAB list should be set to highest); 3) Severity should be according to the flowchart https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg; 4) Because users will be locked out it is incredibly important to explain to them why we set the importance/severity the way we did - leave a nice comment ;) *Important: *If there are _any_ issues with this plan, you've got about a week to shoot us an email so that we can work out any kinks. This was in the making for the past 2 years and we're finally there. Best, Joel [1] Robinson and myself will be combing through commiters and triagers to try to add as many people as possible to contributor list as possible without having to personally request access - if you notice that you do not have privileges and want them you can email anyone with admin privileges from bugzilla, if you want these privileges you can request them. Without requesting contributor privileges you will be prevented from changing severity/priority - all triagers/devs should have these privileges. [2] If you're interested in getting admin privileges please shoot me an email asking for those and we can discuss it - for those of you who have been really active in QA land, I encourage you to request the privileges so that you can help maintain the bug tracker :) ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity
Hi All! So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. What this mean: 1) If you notice that you lack privileges then just email me and I'll add you to the list (add your bugzilla email account)[1][2] 2) *MAB will be _equivalent_ to _highest_* (so anything that you previously would have thrown on MAB list should be set to highest); 3) Severity should be according to the flowchart https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg; 4) Because users will be locked out it is incredibly important to explain to them why we set the importance/severity the way we did - leave a nice comment ;) *Important: *If there are _any_ issues with this plan, you've got about a week to shoot us an email so that we can work out any kinks. This was in the making for the past 2 years and we're finally there. Best, Joel [1] Robinson and myself will be combing through commiters and triagers to try to add as many people as possible to contributor list as possible without having to personally request access - if you notice that you do not have privileges and want them you can email anyone with admin privileges from bugzilla, if you want these privileges you can request them. Without requesting contributor privileges you will be prevented from changing severity/priority - all triagers/devs should have these privileges. [2] If you're interested in getting admin privileges please shoot me an email asking for those and we can discuss it - for those of you who have been really active in QA land, I encourage you to request the privileges so that you can help maintain the bug tracker :) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] my reduced QA activity
On 05/29/2015 10:27 PM, Tommy wrote: duOn Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:42:46 +0200, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote: Hi guys, as you may have noticed my QA activity has been almost close to zero in the last few months. I've been very busy at work and some familiar medical issues (which fortunately seems going towards resolution) reduced drastically the time I can dedicate to the LibO project. I'm sorry I can't give more help in this moment and I hope in the future to be back on track. Thanks for your understanding. tommy well, things going better (expecially from the medical side). as you may have noticed I'm back on track squashing a few bugs during spare time. :-) :-D I have seen you around more and I'm happy to see you - you're an invaluable member of the project and I'm glad the health stuff is working out! Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] organizing our crasher bugs ?
On 05/27/2015 07:25 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: There are ~190 bugs with the word crash in the summary in the states new/assigned/reopened/unconfirmed. As with the coverity, import-testing, export-testing stuff I think it would be helpful to start chewing into crashers in some systematic way where progress can be measured. 190 isn't a vast number in the over all scheme of things. What would work ideally for me is to someone get the subset of all crashes that are ~100% reproducible under Linux and ordered by the number of steps required to reproduce. Any ideas on how to generate that subset ? Bjoern already largely addressed this but bugzilla is hugely limited for organizing. What I think would be minimum (and can be done) is: Confirm each crash on 5.0; _Ensure_ that each has easy steps; _Ensure_ that each has been checked for regressions (and tagged accordingly in whiteboard/version field); _Ensure_ that each has a debug log; Prioritize correctly (Major/Critical High/Highest) For the most straight forward ones that have easy steps we can just mark them as critical + highest - signaling that they are easy to reproduce and everything is there for devs to tackle them. Best, Joel FYIW: I've been pushing this for about a year now ;) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Cosmetic Bugzilla Cleanup
Hi All - Just a request that if someone is interested in doing a mass cleanup (like with whiteboard or keyword) please ping me (and cc Robinson) first and one of us will temporarily turn off email notifications. I've gotten a complaint from a well respect developer that the mass emails create a lot of unnecessary noise. Now that we have our own bugzilla instance we can (I think) turn off email notifications, do the mass change, then turn them back on, saving everyone a great deal of email spam. Note: This doesn't apply for mass pings that we are hoping for a response :) Just for an example - the mass cleanup of EasyHacks to camelCase I guess created a ton of noise (dev list was cc'ed, thousands of devs spammed tens or hundreds of times). Not ideal so hopefully we can avoid this in the future. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MSO 2013 Excel - Template Roundtripping
Hi Marina! Any luck getting started? Need anything from my end to help you get started? Best, Joel On 05/14/2015 12:53 AM, Marina Latini wrote: - Messaggio originale - Da: Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com A: Libreoffice-qa libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Inviato: Mercoledì, 13 maggio 2015 18:25:05 Oggetto: [Libreoffice-qa] MSO 2013 Excel - Template Roundtripping Hi All, Hi Joel Please let me know if you have some time to explore this. I am starting some initial things this afternoon but hope not to have to do the entire thing myself :-b Count me in :) Best, Marina ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: cui/uiconfig
cui/uiconfig/ui/optsavepage.ui |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit 4653c91a89cfe802754377bcdafc291526254a03 Author: Joel jmadero@gmail.com Date: Tue May 12 12:09:32 2015 -0700 tdf#65509 - Auto Save Also Too Disabled Disabled Autosave this document too. This feature never worked right. I just made it invisible until someone figures out how to make it work properly in order to avoid confusion and possible data loss. Change-Id: I9fdcf35944eec456c8b569817ddde95c13e9378e Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/15721 Reviewed-by: Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com Tested-by: Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com diff --git a/cui/uiconfig/ui/optsavepage.ui b/cui/uiconfig/ui/optsavepage.ui index 2d04d21..d180503 100644 --- a/cui/uiconfig/ui/optsavepage.ui +++ b/cui/uiconfig/ui/optsavepage.ui @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ child object class=GtkCheckButton id=userautosave property name=label translatable=yesAutomatically save the document too/property -property name=visibleTrue/property +property name=visibleFalse/property property name=can_focusTrue/property property name=receives_defaultFalse/property property name=margin_left12/property ___ Libreoffice-commits mailing list libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits
Goodbye MAB - Hello Highest
Hi All, It's time to try moving away from MAB list and towards using priorities correctly. That being said: 1) Highest reflects that it's equivalent to a MAB; 2) Highest can be matched with any severity (minor, normal, major, critical, blocker) but should be dictated by common sense logic: *# of users affected; *regression *fully triaged (with bibisect, crash log, etc...) *obviously major, critical, blocker make it to the list faster than minor/normal issues Guide: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg On the test bugzilla server we now have priority/severity locked - hopefully this gets moved to the actual instance of bugzilla in the coming weeks - it still needs tested thoroughly (see previous email) Worst case if this fails, we can always move highest to a new MAB tracker but I'm really hoping this is unnecessary. Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] [TEST] locking priority, severity, assignee, QA contact in bugzilla
Hi All, I've hacked bugzilla a bit but it needs some thorough testing before we commit it to our actual bugzilla instance. *What I've done*: * Locked the following fields to anyone that does not belong to group contributors or are assigned the bug o QA Contact; o Assignee; o Severity o Priority *To test:* 1. Head over to our test instance of bugzilla: *https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/* 1. As a starting point you can check by going here: https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89058 (you should see fields locked out) 2. Contact me to get added to contributor group (include your email that you use on bugzilla) 3. Create a test login that won't have any privileges Now you should be able to report bugs and compare what happens with your two users (the one in contributors and the new test account you create) *What Needs Testing * 1. Basically do everything you could think of, create a bug with both accounts, compare your access, change status (NEW, FIXED, ETC), see what impact you see, report any issues to me directly (please include repro steps to save me time :) ) *Goal: **We hope to abandon MAB once and for all and replace with objectively accurate priorities/severity *Being added to contributor group will be *very* easy, we'll document it on the wiki but basically it will be emailing the QA list with a generic email that requests being added. We don't want this to be a hurdle beyond users manipulating bug priority/severity. Contact me with any questions/concerns Thanks all Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[TEST] locking priority, severity, assignee, QA contact in bugzilla
Hi All, I've hacked bugzilla a bit but it needs some thorough testing before we commit it to our actual bugzilla instance. *What I've done*: * Locked the following fields to anyone that does not belong to group contributors or are assigned the bug o QA Contact; o Assignee; o Severity o Priority *To test:* 1. Head over to our test instance of bugzilla: *https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/* 1. As a starting point you can check by going here: https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89058 (you should see fields locked out) 2. Contact me to get added to contributor group (include your email that you use on bugzilla) 3. Create a test login that won't have any privileges Now you should be able to report bugs and compare what happens with your two users (the one in contributors and the new test account you create) *What Needs Testing * 1. Basically do everything you could think of, create a bug with both accounts, compare your access, change status (NEW, FIXED, ETC), see what impact you see, report any issues to me directly (please include repro steps to save me time :) ) *Goal: **We hope to abandon MAB once and for all and replace with objectively accurate priorities/severity *Being added to contributor group will be *very* easy, we'll document it on the wiki but basically it will be emailing the QA list with a generic email that requests being added. We don't want this to be a hurdle beyond users manipulating bug priority/severity. Contact me with any questions/concerns Thanks all Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Automatic Stats from Bugzilla - Feedback needed
Hi All - Our very own Liongold is attempting to implement better statistic collection and analysis so that we can readily assess how the project is going without having to download a ton of raw data and then get the stats ourselves. That being said, he's looking for feedback. If there are any particular statistics that you're interested or other things that you'd like to see, please fill out the following form: http://tdf.io/qastatsfeedback Thanks! Best, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect Requests
Hi All - Seems like the request for bibisects is growing quickly which is awesome - but we need to keep up with those requests :). If you have some time to poke: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/HowToBibisect#Finding_bugs_needing_bibisect I think we've seen incredible results from properly and quickly bibisected bugs (devs seem to jump onto them quickly if we tackle them quickly). All and any efforts *much* appreciated as always. Thanks so much everyone! Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Advanced Triaging - Tutorials?
Hi All, There is a bug that needs some advanced QA work on it and I'm curious if anyone wants to take a stab at it and try to document the process (including screenshots and/or screen captures). https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75554 Comment 6 describes what Michael needs. I think it's a good opportunity to document how to go about doing the requested triage work - honestly it's beyond my skills right now but I'd love to learn. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Try not to reopen bugs when anything more than a trivial amount of time has passed
Hi Caolan - On 03/24/2015 04:36 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has passed since it was closed. I wonder if removing REOPENED all together is appropriate then - it seems like it has no place outside of a very very narrow 30 day window. I'm constantly being told it's being used wrong and having to adjust the settings. a) The person its assigned to may have moved on, changed jobs, or died and so is not in a position to help anymore so the bug appears to belong to someone, but isn't really and anyone looking for bugs to fix will generally pass over it given that it seems to be assigned to someone already. okay. b) Lots of bugs are superficially similar but different causes. I mean if a document X crashes in 4.1, then was fine for 4.2 and 4.3 and then crashes in 4.4, the odds that the exact problem fixed in 4.2 was re-introduced in 4.4 are very low vs that a new different problem was introduced. Better is to file a new bug with the exact means to reproduce, cc whoever fixed the similar previous problem and tag the bug as possibly related to the similar solved case. Okay - so what should the actual REOPENED be used for (if anything)? Should only developers use it? Since QA is using it wrong (I think you referring to one I changed), users use it wrong all the timejust curious what its purpose is. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
On 03/15/2015 03:39 PM, Zeki Bildirici wrote: Hi Micheal, 2015-03-12 18:19 GMT+02:00 Michael Meeks michael.me...@collabora.com: * GSoC (Cedric/Thorsten) + Wiki page there; we still have time to add tasks here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Gsoc/Ideas + more ideas much appreciated I am not a dev and nor an expert about GSoC, but i want to ask if the following issues are suitable to propose: 1- Improve filtering/sorting in Calc -- Filtering by cell color, search in filter dialog etc. (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76258, https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89908) 2- Enhancement of Watermark Feature (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Enterprises_nice-to-have#Enhancement_of_Watermark_Feature ) 3- Converting presentations to impress https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34959 4- Add narration support to Impress Of course these are my wishes on user side :) And 1,2 are missing features for enterprise usage which we extensively used in companies. IMHO - GSoC should not be used in order to subsidize enterprise users desires. If this is an enterprise feature - let them pay for support to get it enabled. Just my two cents - I'm not a fan of subsidizing others to make money off of LibreOffice. This only encourages these companies to continue to sit on the sidelines instead of becoming a member of the community by using some of the funds that they save by using LibreOffice (over our competitors) to help fund development within the project. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
Hi Zeki, As always you raise interesting points :) 2015-03-16 0:42 GMT+02:00 Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com: Hi Joel, Of course these are my wishes on user side :) And 1,2 are missing features for enterprise usage which we extensively used in companies. IMHO - GSoC should not be used in order to subsidize enterprise users desires. If this is an enterprise feature - let them pay for support to get it enabled. Just my two cents - I'm not a fan of subsidizing others to make money off of LibreOffice. This only encourages these companies to continue to sit on the sidelines instead of becoming a member of the community by using some of the funds that they save by using LibreOffice (over our competitors) to help fund development within the project. I understand you. But there is no a certain borders between enterprise usage and regular usage, it is an office software and most of regular users (also small companies) should benefit from them too. Can you clearly seperate personale needs and corporate needs? For example improved docx support, is it a corporate need or personal need? Should it be left as corporates interchanges docs more often? Sure my general definition is something along the lines of a feature or enhancement that would predominantly benefit enterprise users and which day to day users would either not notice at all, or not find entirely useful. You said that the items you listed were enterprise items - I didn't think much about them to determine if I agree, but since you said they were enterprise items, I'll trust your judgment and stick to my previous remark :-D In addtion these are not new or innovative needs for certain compaines, these are the functionalities those are already exists in other office software, and creates gaps with LibreOffice. I cannot ask a small company owner to donate thousands of euros (may be greater then their licence cost for years) to have such basic needs while i promote LibreOffice them to reduce their licencing costs. I ask them for a decent and regular donation... Some basic needs is not entirely useful. Let's say a company with 20 employees switch from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice - we're talking about $2k a year that they'll be saving. If they put 20% back into the ecosystem to build these basic needs items we'll be in good shape. What would be best is if people like you (who advocate that they donate) - get a group together of these small companies to share resources to get these things implemented. If you could get 100 small companies together, each giving $1k a year - and who speak with one voice as to what these basic needs items areyou'd make *tremendous* progress. It is really hard to do marketing in developing countries such as our country, and it can take years to us to find corporate sponsors to add such 'old' functionalites to LibreOffice. It can be a long discussion and has many perspectives; marketing, free software awareness, free riders etc. Sure - that's a marketing issue. This is about spreading the message about the benefit of openness, transparency, and a *different* kind of software where we collectively seek the best solutions and to grow an ecosystem that sustains people's livelihoods. I don't know if there is a policy that seperates enterprise needs and leaves them to be funded from companeis, if so having a funding pool may be good and we can drive SME's to donate there, otherwise it becomes irrational to promote LibreOffice to them. +1 to funding pool - but that should be separate from TDF proper and maybe could be a pool that does tenders about specific things that a collective group of people/small businesses want to see. If such an organization arises (which I highly encourage) - I would be the first one within TDF to support them and try to find ways to assist in their success. If you try to do such a thing - feel free to contact me (personally, outside of the mailing list) to brainstorm about possibilities. I know Robinson is also quite interested in this subject. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Could Anyone Put a Netbook to Use
Hi All, We have two netbooks (Windows 8 but you could probably dual boot with Linux) that were bought for QA that are currently not being used. Just curious if anyone could put these to use. Preferably they would stick with QA but if someone outside of QA could use them, I'll talk to Florian to see what we can do. Note that one of them has a German keyboard layout. Email me directly if you could put it to use - let me know what you would use it for, and how much use you would put it to :) I just hate to see machines sitting around not being put to use. Best, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage#Suggested_Triage_Order Click on the CrasherAll link (we should be monitoring these closely - one is 7+ weeks old) Best, Joel On 03/06/2015 06:58 AM, V Stuart Foote wrote: @Joel, Think you need to share that query list for us to be able to run it--currently return invalid. Stuart -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bugs-with-Backtrace-but-Not-Reproduced-tp4142359p4142406.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced
On 03/06/2015 12:11 AM, Alex Thurgood wrote: Le 06/03/2015 05:52, Joel Madero a écrit : Hi Joel, I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about bugs that have backtraces but QA has been unable to repro. Should these just be pushed to NEW ? Currently there are 8 UNCONFIRMED crashers - at least one or two of those have backtraces but have had other members of QA say they cannot reproduce. Got a link for those issues handy ? https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=525899regetlastlist=525899 There are the 8 crashers currently reported and unconfirmed. At least 2 of them have backtraces - one of the other ones has some kind of a system dump or something... If we can just mark as NEW then I suggest we start automatically asking users to do a backtrace (at least suggest and link to the wiki). Might save a few rounds of NEEDINFO - UNCONFIRMED - NEEDINFO - WFM - UNCONFIRMED ;) Best, Joel Alex ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: libreoffice...@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [libreoffice-documentation] Could Anyone Put a Netbook to Use
To clarify...put to use means put to use for LIbreoffice not personal use ;) On Mar 6, 2015 11:08 AM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi :) I would love one but i think Hazel, Jean, Peter and many others in here deserve them a LOT more than me! Regards from Tom :) On 6 March 2015 at 15:14, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, We have two netbooks (Windows 8 but you could probably dual boot with Linux) that were bought for QA that are currently not being used. Just curious if anyone could put these to use. Preferably they would stick with QA but if someone outside of QA could use them, I'll talk to Florian to see what we can do. Note that one of them has a German keyboard layout. Email me directly if you could put it to use - let me know what you would use it for, and how much use you would put it to :) I just hate to see machines sitting around not being put to use. Best, Joel -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: documentation+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/