Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Help dealing with this
Kohei Yoshida schrieb: I think we could use some help dealing with an ugly personal attack disguised as a bug report. Hello Kohei, I believe OfficeUser had a bad day when he wrote that lousy bad and incomplete report with wild speculations instead of reviewable facts. We should not attach great importance to that matter with the unfortunate subject line and wrong conclusion. Best regards Rainer ___ 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] Help dealing with this
Hello, I think we could use some help dealing with an ugly personal attack disguised as a bug report. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49115 It's a bug reporter like this that makes me lose hope in a FOSS project such as this one. Best, Kohei ___ 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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
Nino Novak wrote: > BTW - do you have actual numbers? How many downloads do we actually have and > how many does the server allow maximally? And about how many bugs have been > reported in the 24-h-period in the past? > Hi Nino, the announcement is to be taken project-internal, i.e. addressing core QA volunteers smoke-testing the builds. I did not rigorously tally reports against those test announcements, but personally recall a handful of instances where I've subsequently release-noted a few quirks, some of them new, some in theory known, but missed by the guy writing the release notes (me ;)). The host is quite powerful, but by no means capable of serving anything near the peak load our mirrorbrain system is able to cope with - plus, it runs a few other dev-related workloads I would hate to be affected. ;) Cheers, -- Thorsten pgprgC0oTBkx3.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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 additions.
Hi dE, thanks for the list. dE . píše v Ne 22. 04. 2012 v 10:50 +0530: > I suggestion addition of the following bugs - > > Bug 32991 -- This's farely used in doc document, and may break the > complete formatting of the document in some cases. Yup, it is something that we really should fix. > Bug 33263 I agree that it is bad if a document differs too much. Well, it would be better if someone could split it into more bugs and better describe the particular problems. Such huge bugs usually does not motivate volunteers to pick them. It might be work for many days/weeks/months :-( > Bug 48714 > Bug 48713 -- Same test case as 48714 Heh, these two are marked as severity "trivial" and priority "lowest" :-) Well, for me is hard to judge, what bug is more important. I would need to compare more import/export bugs between each other. The prioritization is important because we could not fix all bugs immediately. As discussed in the other mail. Please, leave them outside of MAB for now. Please, start to sort them (group, prioritize, close duplicates, split too big bugs). Make the queries for the groups available somewhere and let us know about them. Of course, if you find a bug with many people in CC or many duplicates, feel free to add it into MAB. Do not worry, we will not wait until you sort everything. Developers will start looking at the marked bugs as they appear. So, any amount of sorted bugs is helpful. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Information in Master builds About box
Cor Nouws píše v So 21. 04. 2012 v 20:56 +0200: > Pedro wrote (21-04-12 12:18) > > The new About box in branch 3.6.x is indeed extremely nice. > > > > But the version information is extremely incomplete > > > > version 3.6.0alpha0+ (Build ID: e00e693) > > > > related: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48659 Also https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43031 is kind of related. Heh, I am afraid that the many information could break the improved layout again ;-) Well, I am not sure if all IDs are really important these days. It was must to have for LO-3.4 that was developed in 20 repositories. These days, we have only 5 repositories. There is 1 commit in other repository for 50 commits in the core repository. The tinderboxes update all repositories together. So, if you know the ID of the core repository, you know very well what is the ID of others. Of course, all IDs still makes some things easier and more precise. I do not mind if Andrew add it back. I just think that it is not must to have. Best Regards, Petr PS: It actually shows that we are democratic. Otherwise, we would not accept the Andrew's nice optimization of the About dialog ;-) ___ 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] Office XP/2003, 2007/2010 formats import/export -- most used feature.
Hi dE, I am happy to read this because I see a nice solution from what you wrote. dE . píše v Út 24. 04. 2012 v 10:55 +0530: > On 04/23/12 20:47, Michael Meeks wrote: > Yes, absolutely, the MAB should be in a reasonable limit such that it > looks 'solvable'. Exactly. We need to keep the 50 or 200 bugs slightly aside. Do not worry. We already put many less critical regressions aside but we fix them actively. > What I suggest is a metabug for interoperability issues. These issues > are hard to fix, and the dev team should know that these bugs, although > hard to fix, are very important and if some dev does have the skills to > fix them, he should fix these bugs instead of doing something else. Yes, we have several developers that worked and are working on import/export problems. > Also in the list of ~200 bugs, I think real bugs will be only in ~50.. > the others must be duplicates; the same bug reproducing itself in many > way. But these duplicates can only be detected by developers themselves > since this requires knowledge of the format. It will be a big help if you could sort these interoperability bugs: + group them + prioritize them + close duplicates In this case, I prefer using whiteboard instead of metabug: + it works fine (easy to set and query) + we already use it for bug in rtf import/export, general regressions, or easy hacks + it is clear where to add comment (to the particular bug :-) The only drawback is that you need to remember the name of the keyword but you would need to remember the number of the meta bug as well. I suggest to put: + "inter-operability" into "Whiteboard" for all these bugs + plus "regression" in "Keywords" for things that used to work in older LO/OOo versions; this information is very helpful; even better is if someone finds what exact version first showed the regression + and maybe plus "doc_filter", "docx_filter", "ppt_filter", "pptx_filter", "xls_filter", "xlsx_filter" into "Whiteboard" + we already have "rtf_filter" + every format has its own group of experts that work on it, so this help them to find their bugs I would add query for open "inter-operability" bugs at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria. Take inspiration from the query for "regressions". If you have many bugs in more groups, it would make sense to create similar pages that we have for easy hacks. Please, find inspiration at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks_by_Topic I am looking forward to see this happen. It will be another big step forward. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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 Triage best practice: Change or not change assignee?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:54:23PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > Nino Novak píše v Út 24. 04. 2012 v 12:14 +0200: > > Hi Guys, > > > > can we have a decision in this matter? > > > So, please, for meritocratic reasons, Bjoern and Rainer, I believe it's up > > to > > you to decide. (Or is ESC or whatever tdf Board the right gremium? I don't > > know) > > There is strong conflicting opinion between Bjoern and Rainer. I suggest > to decide this on the ESC or QA meeting. Yes, agreed -- its easier to resolve that directly. Just in case this wasnt obvious: no bad blood from my side -- I hope, this is shared by others. Best, Bjoern ___ 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] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.5.3.2 tag created (3.5.3-rc2)
Hi, there have been created the libreoffice-3.5.3.2 tag for 3.5.3-rc2 release. The corresponding official builds will be available within next few days. It will be used as final if no blocker is found. See the attached list of changes against 3.5.3-rc1. Now, you might switch your current 3-5 source tree to it using: ./g fetch --tags ./g checkout -b tag-libreoffice-3.5.3.2 libreoffice-3.5.3.2 Linux distro packages might find source tarballs at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/ They will be available from the official page together with the builds. See also the schedule at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.5_release and release criteria at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Release_Criteria Best Regards, Petr + core + fix find toolbar X error handling (fdo#46687) [Michael Meeks] + add unit test for Converter::convertDouble (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + border paint ordering: (fdo#45562, fdo#47717, fdo#42750) [Michael Stahl] + default to Office 2007/2010 filter for ooxml export, (fdo#48941) [Markus Mohrhard] + duplicated characters in PDF import (fdo#45848) [Korrawit Pruegsanusak] + fix RTF import of special unicode characters (fdo#48356) [Miklos Vajna] + getConversionFactor: add inch as source unit (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + ignore corrupted items in Recent Documents (fdo#46074) [Stephan Bergmann] + paint borders in SwFlyFrm::Paint: (fdo#45562) [Michael Stahl] + resolved update sheet-local named expressions correctly (fdo#48856) [Eike Rathke] + switch units in Converter::convertDouble (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + common + version 3.5.3.2, tag libreoffice-3.5.3.2 (3.5.3-rc2) [Petr Mladek] + core + fix find toolbar X error handling (fdo#46687) [Michael Meeks] + add unit test for Converter::convertDouble (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + border paint ordering: (fdo#45562, fdo#47717, fdo#42750) [Michael Stahl] + default to Office 2007/2010 filter for ooxml export, (fdo#48941) [Markus Mohrhard] + fail earlier on oversized images [Caolán McNamara] + duplicated characters in PDF import (fdo#45848) [Korrawit Pruegsanusak] + fix (fdo#45848) [Korrawit Pruegsanusak] + fix RTF import of special unicode characters (fdo#48356) [Miklos Vajna] + getConversionFactor: add inch as source unit (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + ignore corrupted items in Recent Documents (fdo#46074) [Stephan Bergmann] + minor backporting fix [Fridrich Štrba] + paint borders in SwFlyFrm::Paint: (fdo#45562) [Michael Stahl] + resolved update sheet-local named expressions correctly (fdo#48856) [Eike Rathke] + switch units in Converter::convertDouble (fdo#48969) [Michael Stahl] + update internal openssl to version 0.9.8v [Petr Mladek] + translations + update translations for LibreOffice 3.5.3 rc2 [Andras Timar] ___ 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] Glitch in fdo Bugzilla? (attachmend assigned to wrong account)
Roman píše v Út 24. 04. 2012 v 12:14 +0200:
> Am 23.04.12 12:38, schrieb Nino Novak:
> > in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48329 the second attachment
> > (help_poster.doc) has been uploaded by user mikebgx, as shown correctly in
> > the
> > entry in the "Attachments section" on top.
> >
> > However comment #3 pretends I myself had uploaded the document.
>
> I see the same phenomenon e.g. in
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47511: The attachment 60424
> ('ADocument.odt') was added by codevi...@gmail.com, right after his
> original description, but the lines
>
>Created attachment 60424 [details]
>ADocument.odt
>
> appear at the beginning of my comment #1, just as if I had added this
> attachment.
>
> I have observed this three days ago for the first time, I have never
> seen this phaenomenon before (but more experienced QA people will know
> better, of course).
I have newer seen this before as well. It looks like a bug on the
bugzilla side. It is even confusing. I am afraid that only bugzilla
administrators could do something about it. Please, open a bug against
the product "freedesktop.org" and component "bugzilla".
I hope that the bugzilla database is not corrupted and the data are only
wrongly displayed.
Best Regards,
Petr
___
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 Triage best practice: Change or not change assignee?
Nino Novak píše v Út 24. 04. 2012 v 12:14 +0200: > Hi Guys, > > can we have a decision in this matter? > So, please, for meritocratic reasons, Bjoern and Rainer, I believe it's up to > you to decide. (Or is ESC or whatever tdf Board the right gremium? I don't > know) There is strong conflicting opinion between Bjoern and Rainer. I suggest to decide this on the ESC or QA meeting. My personal view is the following: I think that both Bjoern and Rainer have good points. I see Bjoern's view as too idealistic. I prefer to keep it as is because: + to much shuffling with many fields just cause extra work and complicated processes + people, forget to set other fields, e.g. version, architecture; we can't expect that will set assigned filed correctly; it might be intuitive but people are just lazy + I havn't seen any confusion about who is the needinfo provider, so I do not see any real benefit; yes, it might motivate the provider but it also creates problems when she never provides it; IMHO, the best motivation is to close the bug and ask the reporter to reopen it if she provides the requested information + wrongly assigned bugs just causes confusion; typical problem of the ideal solution is that the bug remains assigned to QA when it is reopened during verification; sometimes the developer is not in CC BTW: There was wrongly described Novell bugzilla. In fact, it has the best solution, I have ever seen, for this particular problem. It has heavily modified the interface. If you set the state NEEDEINFO, it shows inputbox where you are forced to enter name of the infoprovider. The bug remains assigned to the same person as it was before, so the info provider does not need to think whom to assign the bug back. She just removes the NEEDEINFO state by pressing a checkbox. So, the right handling is intuitive, friendly and enforced. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Glitch in fdo Bugzilla? (attachmend assigned to wrong account)
Am 23.04.12 12:38, schrieb Nino Novak:
> in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48329 the second attachment
> (help_poster.doc) has been uploaded by user mikebgx, as shown correctly in
> the
> entry in the "Attachments section" on top.
>
> However comment #3 pretends I myself had uploaded the document.
I see the same phenomenon e.g. in
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47511: The attachment 60424
('ADocument.odt') was added by codevi...@gmail.com, right after his
original description, but the lines
Created attachment 60424 [details]
ADocument.odt
appear at the beginning of my comment #1, just as if I had added this
attachment.
I have observed this three days ago for the first time, I have never
seen this phaenomenon before (but more experienced QA people will know
better, of course).
> In this case, it's not a problem, but what if the document contained
> some malware...
I have to agree. At least, it is very irritating: you look for the
attachment announced in comment #x by user A, but it appears in comment
#x+1 by user B ... 'Where is the attachment by user A?' you may think.
Of course, the 'Attachments' list before all comments is correct.
Best,
Roman
___
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 Triage best practice: Change or not change assignee?
Hi Guys, can we have a decision in this matter? Do we/you need more information/ more time - or is it just different heart feelings? Shall we make an operational tradeoff by defining a test period of, say, one year? For me, the matter itself is not that important, I can arrange with both procedures, but I'd really like to test Bjoerns hypothesis of community empowerment ;-) So, please, for meritocratic reasons, Bjoern and Rainer, I believe it's up to you to decide. (Or is ESC or whatever tdf Board the right gremium? I don't know) Thanks, Nino PS - just one thing: > (*) You should never think of QA as "I", even if it sometimes feels that > way: It will be a selffulfilling prophecy and hamper community growth. or - to say it positive: Think of QA as * qualified constructive feedback for the devs and * important contribution to enhance and sustain quality and thus acceptance of the software ___ 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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
Hi, On Tuesday 24 April 2012, 10:46:16 Petr Mladek wrote: > klaus-jürgen weghorn ol píše v So 21. 04. 2012 v 10:49 +0200: > > Am 20.04.2012 12:44, schrieb Fridrich Strba: > > > > > Builds are now being uploaded to a public (but non-mirrored - so don't > > > spread news too widely!) place, as soon as they're available. Grab them > > > here: > The above paragraph explains why we do not spread the information too > much. BTW - do you have actual numbers? How many downloads do we actually have and how many does the server allow maximally? And about how many bugs have been reported in the 24-h-period in the past? Thanks, Nino (just curious) ___ 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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
Am 24.04.2012 10:51, schrieb Pedro: Hi Petr The original message was sent to LibreOffice, l...@global.libreoffice.org, proje...@global.libreoffice.org, Libreoffice-qa If it didn't reach l10n and projects, it means that the mailer did not understand the two middle addresses, so there is a mail-system problem ;) ... or a sender problem. That's my point, thx for explanation. -- Grüße 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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
Petr Mladek schrieb: It is by purpose. We should probably update the subject to make it more clear. What about the following? [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 builds available for pre-testing Hi, I believe that's a good Idea, subject for these first announcements should be amended as suggested. Best regards Rainer ___ 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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
Hi Petr The original message was sent to LibreOffice , l...@global.libreoffice.org, proje...@global.libreoffice.org, Libreoffice-qa If it didn't reach l10n and projects, it means that the mailer did not understand the two middle addresses, so there is a mail-system problem ;) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-ANN-LibreOffice-3-5-3-RC1-test-builds-available-tp3925751p3934707.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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 test builds available
klaus-jürgen weghorn ol píše v So 21. 04. 2012 v 10:49 +0200: > Hi Fridrich, *, > this mail never reached the l10n@ and projects@ but only the LibO-QA. Is > there a problem with the mail-system or something else? It is by purpose. We should probably update the subject to make it more clear. What about the following? [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.3 RC1 builds available for pre-testing > Am 20.04.2012 12:44, schrieb Fridrich Strba: > > Builds are now being uploaded to a public (but non-mirrored - so don't > > spread news too widely!) place, as soon as they're available. Grab > > them here: The above paragraph explains why we do not spread the information too much. > > http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/ This is provided by a single machine and it can't handle too many people. > > If you've a bit of time, please give them a try& report *critical* > > bugs not yet in bugzilla here, so we can incorporate them into the > > release notes. Please note that it takes approximately 24 hours to > > populate the mirrors, so that's about the time we have to collect > > feedback. The above paragraph explains why we announce the pre-release at all :-) Best Regards, Petr ___ 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/
