Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA, testing and branches...
Pedro píše v Út 29. 01. 2013 v 03:22 -0800: Hi all While trying to check if the import personal data is indeed fixed (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061) I have come across a daily build problem. I downloaded a daily build from the 3.6 branch (hopefully it has the same functionality as the released 3.6.5.2...) but was unable to get a recent build for LOdev 4.0.0.2+ As of Jan 23 all builds in /daily/libreoffice-4-0/Win-x86@6 are from the 4.0.1 branch and not from 4.0.0 There are only small differences between 4.0.1.0+ and 4.0.0.3 builds. The branch libreoffice-4-0-0 has been created less than 2 weeks ago. All critical and safe fixes should be there as well. The bad news is that we currently do not have enough build machines to build all branches. The good news is that we are going to spend some donated money in this area, so it should get better later this year. 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] Designed image
Pedro píše v St 30. 01. 2013 v 09:24 -0800: alvaro.ricon wrote Recently I have designed an image with LibreOffice, and I could not export it decently to an image format file. It looses a lot of quality, even running Impress presentation. The maximum quality that I obtained saving this image was exporting it as PDF. I hope it would be a problem solved in the new LibreOffice 4.0. This is not an appropriate question for the QA list. I would suggest http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/questions/ You are correct that there is a NASTY bug in Impress. In fact it looks even WORSE in presentation mode under 4.0 than in 3.6.4... However Exporting your image as PNG works perfectly (you probably need to increase Resolution and Width/Height). Curiously the Export to SVG which is also a vector format is awful in both versions! This needs to be reported as SEVERAL bugs... This is the right step forward. Could you please open new bug at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/, attach the test document there, and shortly describe there the problem? 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] Text for mass changed - Proposal 1
Florian Reisinger píše v So 26. 01. 2013 v 15:44 +0100: Hi! Here my first proposal for the mass changes template: --- Dear bug submitter, We recognized that your bug is in NEEDINFO state for an unusual long time. This may has happened in error or, and that is more likely, we asked for information. If you think, that this bug doesn't deserve the NEEDINFO state, please leave a comment. We are very sorry, that we don't have the possibility to take a look at every single bug individually, but we really try to investigate every activity this bug as soon as possible. A member of our voluntary QA team has been added to this bug as QA-Contact. It is a good start. Well, I feel a lot of uncertainty from the message. I understand what you want to say but it is not a good signal for users. I think that we could sell the idea and keep the face :-) 1. We are going to use a well defined criteria for the mass change = we should mention the real limit, e.g. 30 days, 6 months, or whatever we decide on. 2. We should highlight that we are not able to move forward without the extra information. It is important because we are going to close such bugs if the information is not provided. 3. You are right that the bug might be in the NEEDINFO state by mistake and we should not close it. It is good to admit such situation but we need not say that such mistakes are because there are not enough resources. I am sure that we would be able to do it manually. It would just take longer time. I think that it is not worth the effort, though. So, the message might consist from three parts: situation + action describing the typical situation, disclaimer describing the potential mistake. --- cut --- This bug has been in NEEDINFO state for more than 'XXX'. The information is important to solve the bug. We close this bug for now. Feel free to reopen it together with the requested information. This is automatically generated change. It is possible that the bug was in NEEDINFO state by mistake. In this case, just reopen the bug, please. --- cut --- Heh, I am not a marketing guy. I am sure that it is possible to say the idea using much better and user friendly words. Maybe, something between your and mine approach :-) 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Poor migration of user profiles to LO 4 (was: What are Preferences when moving from 3.x to 4.x?)
[getting the dev list into the loop] On 02/04/2013 12:39 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 02/01/2013 06:21 PM, Pedro wrote: I just updated LO from 3.6.4.3 to 4.0 rc3 Thanks to the patch from Stephan Bergmann (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061) some items are now migrated to 4.0 Items migrated: User Data, View preferences (such as icon theme and size) Items NOT migrated: Recent Document list, Extensions Is this expected? Shouldn't it pick up all items so that you continue from where you left off? I just updated https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061#c27, comment 27 to Not all personal data imported during install from /3 User Profile, with some rationale and details. Quoting https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061#c27: In general, what parts of an old user profile are migrated is controlled by configuration settings in the /org.openoffice.Setup/Migration tree (see officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Setup.xcu). The data that is present there is apparently mostly what had been there for the migration from OOo 2 to OOo 3 already. The reason why certain parts of a user profile had been excluded from migration back than are probably lost to history. Note that this user profile migration code already kicked in on Linux during the LO 3 timeframe, when http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=9276f7d5740a28b342db2a9bcd8644ff2f4f5742 'fdo#32263' moved the location of the user profile from ~/.libreoffice/3 to ~/.config/libreoffice/3 and http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=6b522673373797bbf53d795d53e0ec45175a5d67 'default config location has changed, look in old config dir when migrating' enabled LO's migration code to migrate from an existing ~/.libreoffice/3 to a new ~/.config/libreoffice/3. Therefore, at least my assumption would have been that that migration worked acceptably, or else (Linux) users would already have complained when upgrading from old LO 3 versions (that used ~/.libreoffice/3) to newer LO 3 versions (that used ~/.config/libreoffice/3) about settings getting lost. However, re-checking that now, things like the list of recently used documents indeed were not migrated back then, either. Apparently nobody looked at the migration machinery in detail, whether it works acceptably for migrating individual settings to a new LO 4 user profile. I'm not sure what our position should be on that. Given that it didn't work any better in the Linux case discussed above, do we consider this good enough? Or is it severe enough to consider it a blocker for 4.0.0? In any case, I'm personally not familiar enough with the various stuff actually stored in the user profile (apart from the extension stuff, for which I checked that it should be generally covered) to judge what to do about it, so I would ask people who do know specifics about certain parts of the user profile to step in. Stephan ___ 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] Poor migration of user profiles to LO 4 (was: What are Preferences when moving from 3.x to 4.x?)
Stephan Bergmann píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 12:54 +0100: Quoting https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061#c27: In general, what parts of an old user profile are migrated is controlled by configuration settings in the /org.openoffice.Setup/Migration tree (see officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Setup.xcu). The data that is present there is apparently mostly what had been there for the migration from OOo 2 to OOo 3 already. The reason why certain parts of a user profile had been excluded from migration back than are probably lost to history. Note that this user profile migration code already kicked in on Linux during the LO 3 timeframe, when http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=9276f7d5740a28b342db2a9bcd8644ff2f4f5742 'fdo#32263' moved the location of the user profile from ~/.libreoffice/3 to ~/.config/libreoffice/3 I'm not sure what our position should be on that. Given that it didn't work any better in the Linux case discussed above, do we consider this good enough? Or is it severe enough to consider it a blocker for 4.0.0? IMHO, it is not a blocker but it would be nice to improve it in the upcoming bugfix releases. I think that it is not a blocker because it partly works. It was good enough for Linux in the past and I am not aware of complaining users. Finally, It might take some time until we solve all the missing parts and potential bugs. Finally, the .0 release is intended for early adopters and might include even annoying bugs. In any case, I'm personally not familiar enough with the various stuff actually stored in the user profile (apart from the extension stuff, for which I checked that it should be generally covered) to judge what to do about it, so I would ask people who do know specifics about certain parts of the user profile to step in. Is it mostly about modifying the include/exclude parts in officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Setup.xcu? Or do you think that some more extensive coding is necessary, please? 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] Poor migration of user profiles to LO 4
On 02/04/2013 02:04 PM, Petr Mladek wrote: Stephan Bergmann píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 12:54 +0100: Quoting https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061#c27: In general, what parts of an old user profile are migrated is controlled by configuration settings in the /org.openoffice.Setup/Migration tree (see officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Setup.xcu). The data that is present there is apparently mostly what had been there for the migration from OOo 2 to OOo 3 already. The reason why certain parts of a user profile had been excluded from migration back than are probably lost to history. Note that this user profile migration code already kicked in on Linux during the LO 3 timeframe, when http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=9276f7d5740a28b342db2a9bcd8644ff2f4f5742 'fdo#32263' moved the location of the user profile from ~/.libreoffice/3 to ~/.config/libreoffice/3 I'm not sure what our position should be on that. Given that it didn't work any better in the Linux case discussed above, do we consider this good enough? Or is it severe enough to consider it a blocker for 4.0.0? IMHO, it is not a blocker but it would be nice to improve it in the upcoming bugfix releases. But note that such improvements in LO 4.0.x will only benefit users who didn't already install LO 4.0.0. I think that it is not a blocker because it partly works. It was good enough for Linux in the past and I am not aware of complaining users. I guess https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57061 qualifies as one. In any case, I'm personally not familiar enough with the various stuff actually stored in the user profile (apart from the extension stuff, for which I checked that it should be generally covered) to judge what to do about it, so I would ask people who do know specifics about certain parts of the user profile to step in. Is it mostly about modifying the include/exclude parts in officecfg/registry/data/org/openoffice/Setup.xcu? Or do you think that some more extensive coding is necessary, please? I would assume that it is indeed mostly about the former. Stephan ___ 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] What are Preferences when moving from 3.x to 4.x?
Stephan Bergmann-2 wrote Can you be more specific about extensions not being migrated? In general, they should be. I installed a Portuguese dictionary for All users under 3.6 It doesn't show up on the Extension Manager list. Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/What-are-Preferences-when-moving-from-3-x-to-4-x-tp4033742p4034358.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/
[Libreoffice-qa] [LibreOffice-QA] Conference Call - February 8th, 2013 - 1400 UTC
Hi All, Our next conference call details are below, currently the agenda is empty, I'll be working on it over the next couple days, feel free to add new items. Date: Friday, February 8th, 2013 Time: 1400 UTC Duration: ~1 hour Current agenda Call In Instructions: http://wiki.** documentfoundation.org/QA_**Call_Current_Agendahttp://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA_Call_Current_Agenda Open to everyone, feel free to call in and just listen or to share your thoughts on QA procedure. Best Regards, 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. +1, I say let's vote. And thanks for the succinct summary. Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? Let's start with that, if general agreement is yes, we'll move forward with specific details (I think we should vote per item to allow discussion if it's needed). If we agree that closing bugs need done, I can at least present the idea during the ESC call to give developers a chance to respond. I know there are some concerns about the mass emails that will happen upon closing them. Best Regards, 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi all, I had the plan to write down some thoughts concerning your plans to do an other mass close, but I wasn't in the mood to do that. Due to my experience with bug wrangling in general and similar actions we did in LibO Bugzilla, for my personal work I only expect (smaller) complications, and I am very very doubtful that we will get any benefit at all of such an action. So I don not want to waste my spare time for an action what seems to be completely useless ore even damaging to me. You already did lots of discussion concerning details of proceeding, but I can't see any reasoning for what a mass close might be useful. I will not invest any time for this action until I hear at least 1 passably conclusive argument concerning fair and checkable benefit the project and / or my (or other power bugwranglers') work will receive by such a mass close. This https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/NeedinfoClosure#Why_we_aredoing this? is not an argument. 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi, so I seem to state out my opinion first... Am 04.02.2013 um 18:11 schrieb Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people IMHO 6 months -- Less false positives 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 1 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning They talked about the time from warning - closure IMHO 30 days are okay. If we set the time too short, we might face problems... Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. +1, I say let's vote. And thanks for the succinct summary. Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? IMHO yes Let's start with that, if general agreement is yes, we'll move forward with specific details (I think we should vote per item to allow discussion if it's needed). +1 If we agree that closing bugs need done, I can at least present the idea during the ESC call to give developers a chance to respond. I know there are some concerns about the mass emails that will happen upon closing them. Best Regards, 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/ Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger ___ 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] 16 unread messages wait for you in Qmail
Hello libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org, We've noticed that it's been a week since you read your Qmail messages. Your colleagues might be confused and wait for your answers Colleagues whose messages wait unread: Hi *, for the upcoming new version 3.6.3, the RC2 builds now start to beavailable on pre-releases. This build is slated to be second releasecandidate build on the way towards 3.6.3, please refer to our releaseplan timings here: http://wiki.do... - Dear Community, The Document Foundation is happy to announce the second releasecandidate of LibreOffice 3.6.3. The upcoming 3.6.3 will be the thirdin a series of frequent bugfix releases, for our feature-packed 3.6branch. Please be aware that Li... - Hi all, I started lt;http: wiki.documentfoundation.org= qa= todo_rename_3.7_to_4.0=gt; for collection and discussion of all activities related to that decision. Please feel free to add more action items and / or comments. Discussion ... - Hi *, for the upcoming new version 3.6.4, the RC1 builds now start to beavailable on pre-releases. This build is slated to be first releasecandidate build on the way towards 3.6.4, please refer to our releaseplan timings here: http://wiki.doc... - Hi everyone, Just a reminder to your teams about this. We are seriously looking at different teams' wishlists. Please do take a little time out of your busy schedule and speak to your teams about any funding for items that you think may be of ... - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1 Hi All, As far as I think LibreOffice has a big shortage on Marketing, I don'twant to disrespect the marketing-team of LibreOffice, but I thinkthere are to few people doing marketing, and the tools ... - Hi *, for the upcoming new version 4.0.0, the first public ALPHA1 builds nowstart to be available on pre-releases. This build is intended for alphaand beta testers and will not be available on the mirrors or linked fromour web-site. As for the s... - Fridrich Strba schrieb: gt; If you've a bit of time, please give them a try amp; report bugs not yet ingt; bugzilla. Hi all, I really would like to learn what the reason of that instruction might be. I can't see any advantage of discussin... - Hi, On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:37:57PM +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:gt; Fridrich Strba schrieb:gt; gt; gt;If you've a bit of time, please give them a try amp; report bugs not yet ingt; gt;bugzilla.gt; gt; gt; I really would like to le... - Hello all, On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Fridrich Strbalt;fridrich.st...@graduateinstitute.chgt; wrote:gt; If you've a bit of time, please give them a try amp; report bugs not yet ingt; bugzilla. I've found that Options gt; Language S... - Hi, please note that the feature freeze and commit deadline for 4.0.0.0.beta1is today, December 3, 2012. The plan is to create the libreoffice-4-0 branch on Tuesday. Then wewill make sure that it is buildable and usable and create the beta1 ta... - Hi all, as promised, we have created a branch for the stabilization of the4.0.x releases, called 'libreoffice-4-0'. It is based on master, lastpull on Decemebr 4, 2012 at about 16pm UTC. See also the taglibreoffice-4-0-branch-point. The follow... Join and try it out, it's free and your colleagues will only be grateful. Click on this link and you'll only have to create a password. http://www.qwekee.com/profile/sign-up/step1/5b878cf69dd390dd5296/?next=http://qmail.qwekee.com/ Be in charge Qmail team___ 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/
