Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Petr Mladek píše v Čt 14. 06. 2012 v 16:40 +0200: What about the following scheme? Help / AboutBugzilla Picker Info -- 3.6.0.0.alpha13.6.0.0.alpha1 3.6.0.0.beta1 3.6.0.0.beta1 3.6.0.0.beta2 3.6.0.0.beta2 3.6.0.1 3.6.0.1 rc 3.6.0.2 3.6.0.2 rc We agreed on this scheme on the QA call on Friday and we are going to use it from now on. We will already use it for 3.6.0.0.beta2. It seems to be the best compromise. It has the advantages: + easy to understand for normal users, alpha, beta flags are known from other projects, so they set reasonable expectations + correct alphabetical sorting in RPM, bugzilla + easy to parse (alpha/beta strings delimited by dot) The result is that we could have the same version everywhere: git tags, source tarballs, about dialog, bugzilla, ... Please, stop discussion here. I am sure that you could come with many more inventive solutions but we need to use something in the end :-) 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
El 15/06/12 13:27, Petr Mladek escribió: Hi Florian, On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:07 +0200, Florian Reisinger wrote: Hi! I am not sure anyone has seen my suggestion: Alpha 1: 3.6.0a1 Beta 1: 3.6.0b1 RC 1: 3.6.0r0 RC 2: 3.6.0r1 Ah, this does not work because we could not mention r (same as rc) in the about dialog. We do not want to rebuild/upload new build just to remove this string for the final release. 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/ But I think many users are confused with the use of RC2 as final version. Miguel Ángel. ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hi! I am not sure anyone has seen my suggestion: Alpha 1: 3.6.0a1 Beta 1: 3.6.0b1 RC 1: 3.6.0r0 RC 2: 3.6.0r1 Yours Florian Am 14.06.2012 09:41, schrieb Petr Mladek: On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:46 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: ooh, a release numbering scheme bike shedding thread! :-) how about this then: 3.6.0.x for alpha/beta 3.6.x.y for RC y of release 3.6.x yes, that implies that the first actual release is 3.6.1 and there is no 3.6.0 release, but those never work anyway so who cares ;) Interesting idea. Well, I would prefer to mention to string alpha/beta to better set the expectations. 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/ ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Petr Mladek schrieb: [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) Hi Petr, this Idea should not exclude additional information, of course we should include tha Alpha and Beta Text. But I wanted to have all information in the Version number to avoid problems with different sort handling (you saw the strange Bugzilla sorting). I think we should not use different separators, you never know whether some system (Wiki, OpenHatch, Whatever) might have it's own ideas what alphabetical sort order might be. Complete Version concerning this suggestion would be: Help / AboutBugzilla Picker -- 3.6.0.000alpha0+3.6.0.000alpha0+ 3.6.0.001alpha1 3.6.0.001alpha1 3.6.0.002alpha2 3.6.0.002alpha2 3.6.0.010beta1 3.6.0.010beta1 3.6.0.020beta2 3.6.0.020beta2 3.6.0.030beta3 3.6.0.030beta3 3.6.0.100 3.6.0.100 rc 3.6.0.200 3.6.0.200 rc 3.6.0.200 3.6.0.200 release Advantage of that system is that it is only an expansion of the existing one (RC1 3.6.0.1 becomes 3.6.0.100) Alternative System, not compatible with current one Help / AboutBugzilla Picker Info 3.6.0.00alpha0+ 3.6.0.00alpha0+ 3.6.0.01alpha1 3.6.0.01alpha1 3.6.0.02alpha2 3.6.0.02alpha2 3.6.0.11beta1 3.6.0.11beta1 3.6.0.12beta2 3.6.0.12beta2 3.6.0.13beta3 3.6.0.130beta3 3.6.0.213.6.0.21rc 3.6.0.223.6.0.22rc 3.6.0.223.6.0.22release 3.6.1.213.6.1.21rc Unfortunately I see no way to shorten this more than Alternative System shoes, except we accept M. Stahl's suggestion what counts a 3.7.0 as some kind of beta ;-) For the Bugzilla Picers I only want 1 Master for 3.6, one for 3.7, ... Also for the Branch I only want 1 Picker Version, may be 3.6.0.000alpha0+ Master or 3.6.0.001alpha1+ Daily (Or Branch or ...) A remaining problem is Markus' script adding Target info. Before 3.6.0aloha it it contained information due to https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Whiteboard. Currently the Idea is to include alpha, beta rc as separate target info versions, goal is to encourage testers to verify fixes and to give them better info where the fix will be integrated. IMHO we should reduce different wordings for the Versions as much as possible, but that strings are rather long. Can we try to get a solution until weekend? 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hi Florian, On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:07 +0200, Florian Reisinger wrote: Hi! I am not sure anyone has seen my suggestion: Alpha 1: 3.6.0a1 Beta 1: 3.6.0b1 RC 1: 3.6.0r0 RC 2: 3.6.0r1 Ah, this does not work because we could not mention r (same as rc) in the about dialog. We do not want to rebuild/upload new build just to remove this string for the final release. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:01 +0200, Florian Reisinger wrote: Am 15.06.2012 13:27, schrieb Petr Mladek: Hi Florian, On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:07 +0200, Florian Reisinger wrote: Hi! I am not sure anyone has seen my suggestion: Alpha 1: 3.6.0a1 Beta 1: 3.6.0b1 RC 1: 3.6.0r0 RC 2: 3.6.0r1 Ah, this does not work because we could not mention r (same as rc) in the about dialog. We do not want to rebuild/upload new build just to remove this string for the final release. Why does this not work. To be honest: We never publish RC 1, but what we do is publishing the RC 2, which would be r1 This is not true. For example, we released LO-3.3.3-rc1 or 3.3.4-rc1 as final. Also sometimes needed more release candidates, for example, LO-3.4.1-rc3 or 3.4.2-rc3. Also I am sorry but I do not understand your logic. r is shortcut for release candidate. As I said, we did not want this in the about dialog because users were confused. IMHO, it does not matter what number we use behind (0,1,2,...). It still means release candidate. Or did I miss anything? 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hi Rainer, sigh, I missed this mail because I was not in CC... :-( On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 10:35 +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Bjoern Michaelsen schrieb: 3.X.Y_alphaZ - for alpha releases 3.X.Y_betaZ- for beta releases 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates Hi Bjoern, I think we should only use 1 kind of separator, everything else produces impredictable sort order results in different contexts. Unfortunately replacing th underscore by a dot does not heal Bugzilla sort order problems, here an example I see in Bugzilla: 3.8.0.0.beta1 3.8.0.0beta1 3.8.0.1 3.8.0.1 rc 3.8.0.2 rc 3.8.0.2 release 3.8.0.beta1 3.8.0beta1 3.8.0beta2 3.8.0_beta1 That's ugly G, I am confused. This is not alphabetical sorting. It seems that bugzilla seems to be somehow clever. I guess that this non-alphabetical sorting is by purpose. It has the advantage that beta suffixes are displayed after rc and pure number versions. Betas are are obsolete the by final releases. It is good to have RCs and final releases on top. I wonder if there is a global setting that could disable this strange feature in bugzilla. Condensing this my suggestion for releases is some structure like MajorVersion.Version.MicroVersion.Workflow.PreReleaseInfo 3.8.0.0.alpha1 3.8.0.0.beta1 3.8.0.0.beta2 3.8.0.1 (rc info not in Help about) 3.8.0.2 (rc info not in Help about) 3.8.0.2 (release info not in Help about) This might be a good compromise if we can't disable the strange bugzilla sorting and can't live with it. Any Idea how we can integrate the Branch and Master Versions? Please keep in Mind that I do not want to have them all in the Version picker, that would produce an endless slider for Versions with 1 reported Bug or so. I am confused. What do you mean by branch and master versions? IMHO, it would make sense to remove alpha and beta versions from bugzilla few months after the release. If we do not know exactly that a bug appeared in the given beta, we do not need this granularity. IMHO, we get better information from the bibisect. BTW I am not happy with the current libreoffice-3.5.99.1 tag created (3.6.0-beta1) Although this approach has the charm of mathematical correctness, we can't do that without a volunteer answering all questions like I have a 3.6.0 with a 3.5 Tag number, is that a bug? ;-) I believe that's too worrying for users (although it seems to work for Mozilla, but do we have info how happy they are with that?). But of course, that's only my private feeling. I think that 3.5.99.1 is not that bad. On the other hand, I agree that 3.8.0.0.alpha1, 3.8.0.0.beta1, 3.8.0.1 is a better solution. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 03:28 -0700, Pedro wrote: Florian Reisinger-3 wrote [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) Simplest solution. Easy to understand which is the latest. The fixed number of digits is the best option. No doubt if .010 is newer than .003 I am sorry but I have to disagree that it is easy to understand. If you see 3.6.0.00x without extra information, you have no idea that it is potentially unstable alpha version. It could set wrong expectations and bring bad feeling. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:46 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: ooh, a release numbering scheme bike shedding thread! :-) how about this then: 3.6.0.x for alpha/beta 3.6.x.y for RC y of release 3.6.x yes, that implies that the first actual release is 3.6.1 and there is no 3.6.0 release, but those never work anyway so who cares ;) Interesting idea. Well, I would prefer to mention to string alpha/beta to better set the expectations. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:41:50AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: yes, that implies that the first actual release is 3.6.1 and there is no 3.6.0 release, but those never work anyway so who cares ;) Marketing does. 3.x.0 is when all the big news sites report about it and it will be hard to change customs there. 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 11:10 +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Petr Mladek schrieb: [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) Hi Petr, this Idea should not exclude additional information, of course we should include tha Alpha and Beta Text. But I wanted to have all information in the Version number to avoid problems with different sort handling (you saw the strange Bugzilla sorting). I think we should not use different separators, you never know whether some system (Wiki, OpenHatch, Whatever) might have it's own ideas what alphabetical sort order might be. Complete Version concerning this suggestion would be: Help / AboutBugzilla Picker -- 3.6.0.000alpha0+3.6.0.000alpha0+ 3.6.0.001alpha1 3.6.0.001alpha1 3.6.0.002alpha2 3.6.0.002alpha2 3.6.0.010beta1 3.6.0.010beta1 3.6.0.020beta2 3.6.0.020beta2 3.6.0.030beta3 3.6.0.030beta3 3.6.0.100 3.6.0.100 rc 3.6.0.200 3.6.0.200 rc 3.6.0.200 3.6.0.200 release Advantage of that system is that it is only an expansion of the existing one (RC1 3.6.0.1 becomes 3.6.0.100) Alternative System, not compatible with current one Help / AboutBugzilla Picker Info 3.6.0.00alpha0+ 3.6.0.00alpha0+ 3.6.0.01alpha1 3.6.0.01alpha1 3.6.0.02alpha2 3.6.0.02alpha2 3.6.0.11beta1 3.6.0.11beta1 3.6.0.12beta2 3.6.0.12beta2 3.6.0.13beta3 3.6.0.130beta3 3.6.0.213.6.0.21rc 3.6.0.223.6.0.22rc 3.6.0.223.6.0.22release 3.6.1.213.6.1.21rc Ah, I do not like much these schemes because: + the number is too long and thus harder to parse and memorize + it duplicates the information about alpha/beta ordering; you have 01alpha1 (1 is there twice), 02alpha2 (2 is there twice) + I have never seen this anywhere else. I would prefer to use something that people are used to Why about the following scheme? Help / AboutBugzilla Picker Info -- 3.6.0.0.alpha1 3.6.0.0.alpha1 3.6.0.0.beta1 3.6.0.0.beta1 3.6.0.0.beta2 3.6.0.0.beta2 3.6.0.1 3.6.0.1 rc 3.6.0.1 3.6.0.2 rc It is actually your proposal, so I hope that it works for you. I consider it as the best compromise from what I have seen. Unfortunately I see no way to shorten this more than Alternative System shoes, except we accept M. Stahl's suggestion what counts a 3.7.0 as some kind of beta ;-) For the Bugzilla Picers I only want 1 Master for 3.6, one for 3.7, ... Also for the Branch I only want 1 Picker Version, may be 3.6.0.000alpha0+ Master or 3.6.0.001alpha1+ Daily (Or Branch or ...) I see, you are talking about daily builds. If we agree on the above scheme, we could have: Help / AboutBugzilla Picker Info -- 3.7.0.0.alpha0+ 3.7.0.0.alpha0+ daily 3.7.0.0.alpha1 3.7.0.0.alpha1 3.7.0.0.alpha1+ 3.7.0.0.alpha1+ daily 3.7.0.0.alpha2 3.7.0.0.alpha2 3.7.0.0.alpha2+ 3.7.0.0.alpha2+ daily 3.7.0.0.beta1 3.7.0.0.beta1 3.7.0.0.beta1+ 3.7.0.0.beta1+ daily 3.7.0.0.beta2 3.7.0.0.beta2 3.7.0.0.beta2+ 3.7.0.0.beta2+ daily 3.7.0.1 3.7.0.1 rc 3.7.0.2 3.7.0.2 rc 3.7.0.3 3.7.0.3 rc/final A remaining problem is Markus' script adding Target info. Before 3.6.0aloha it it contained information due to https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Whiteboard. I am sure that the script will be solvable. IMHO, the new proposal make it easier than the current 3.X-1.98.Y and 3.X-1.99.Y approach. Currently the Idea is to include alpha, beta rc as separate target info versions, goal is to encourage testers to verify fixes and to give them better info where the fix will be integrated. IMHO we should reduce different wordings for the Versions as much as possible, but that strings are rather long. IMHO, the above proposal is well readable. If it is still to long, we could use aX instead of alphaX and bX instead of betaX. Well, I somehow prefer the whole word. Can we try to get a solution until weekend? I am sorry for the long delay between replays. I am not effective in handling too many mailing list. I usually replay faster for mails where I am in CC.
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 17:13 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: 4. Ubuntu/Debian: - + 3.X.Y~alphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y~betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates I really like this solution. It seems to have everything. We just need to make sure that the tilda '~' is handled correctly and does not break some tools. Why is the ~ necessary? Just do + 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.YbetaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates Good point! It works for RPM as well. The trick is that we add the .Z for release candidates. (My mind was closed against this solution because alpha/beta strings always caused troubles for rpm. Though, the other projects did not add .Z. They used 3.X.Y for the final release and the sorting was broken. :-) And to answer your question for pkgsrc: it knows about alpha, beta and rc and sorts them correctly. The problem is that RPM does not handle them and we need a cross-platform solution. OK, we have two promising solutions that support good sorting: A. Thomas's approach: + 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.YbetaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates * more user friendly * is it possible to use it for versioning dlls on Windows? B. Current approach: + 3.X-1.98.Z- for 3.X.0 alpha releases, e.g. 3.5.98.1 + 3.X-1.99.Z- for 3.X.0 beta releases, e.g. 3.5.99.1 + 3.X.Y.Z - for 3.release candidates, e.g. 3.6.0.1 * it is easier to parse in scripts * might be confusing for normal users * need user friendly explanation in about dialog, bugzilla I prefer the solution A if it does not break windows or MAC or other stuff. I would like to try it for 3.6.0-beta2 tags and source tarballs if nobody is against it. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 09:53 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 17:13 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: 4. Ubuntu/Debian: - + 3.X.Y~alphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y~betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates I really like this solution. It seems to have everything. We just need to make sure that the tilda '~' is handled correctly and does not break some tools. Why is the ~ necessary? Just do + 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.YbetaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates Good point! It works for RPM as well. The trick is that we add the .Z for release candidates. Ah, I missed[*] Bjorn's point about that this is harder to parse using sed/grep/awk. Also underscore seems to be acceptable OK, it seems that the best solution is: + 3.X.Y_alphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y_betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates If nobody is against, I would like start using it for 3.6.0-beta2 tags and source tarballs. Best Regards, Petr [*] I was removed from CC and the mail was filtered into another folder. PS: I am going to shake my head and stop working on that many things in parallel. ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Florian Reisinger-3 wrote [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) Simplest solution. Easy to understand which is the latest. The fixed number of digits is the best option. No doubt if .010 is newer than .003 Just my 2 cents -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-New-Bugzilla-Version-Picker-items-2-tp3988411p3989398.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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: 4. Ubuntu/Debian: - + 3.X.Y~alphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y~betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates I really like this solution. It seems to have everything. We just need to make sure that the tilda '~' is handled correctly and does not break some tools. It seems that RPM handles it correctly. I am going to check Build service, and zypper. RPM may handle this version scheme, but it is not allowed in Fedora: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages . It is not really a problem, because the alpha/beta part can just be moved to release--I just thought it should be mentioned. D. ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hi! Here an older mail... It was not sent to the list, only to Rainer... I skipped everything, but my schema... Am 07.06.2012 15:01, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi there! [...] [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) I would skip the zeros at the end: 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x for betas 3.6.0.1 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.2 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.2 for release (example) What about: 3.6.0a1 for Alpha 1 3.6.0b3 for Beta 3 // We could simplify the alpha and beta to e.g. 3.6b1 Problem: IMHO not that easy sortable... *3.6.4r3* for the release (or rc) of 3.6.4 *fourth* candidate) -- In most of the cases X.Y.Zr1 would be the published version!! [...] -- Bye! | Tschüss! Florian Reisinger @Windows 7 x64 SP1 - Skype: reisi.007 ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Bjoern Michaelsen schrieb: 3.X.Y_alphaZ - for alpha releases 3.X.Y_betaZ- for beta releases 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates Hi Bjoern, I think we should only use 1 kind of separator, everything else produces impredictable sort order results in different contexts. Unfortunately replacing th underscore by a dot does not heal Bugzilla sort order problems, here an example I see in Bugzilla: 3.8.0.0.beta1 3.8.0.0beta1 3.8.0.1 3.8.0.1 rc 3.8.0.2 rc 3.8.0.2 release 3.8.0.beta1 3.8.0beta1 3.8.0beta2 3.8.0_beta1 That's ugly Condensing this my suggestion for releases is some structure like MajorVersion.Version.MicroVersion.Workflow.PreReleaseInfo 3.8.0.0.alpha1 3.8.0.0.beta1 3.8.0.0.beta2 3.8.0.1 (rc info not in Help about) 3.8.0.2 (rc info not in Help about) 3.8.0.2 (release info not in Help about) I doubt that any approach not containing the leading number structure will cause sort order problems. So I think all further suggestions should be based on such a leading numbers block. Any Idea how we can integrate the Branch and Master Versions? Please keep in Mind that I do not want to have them all in the Version picker, that would produce an endless slider for Versions with 1 reported Bug or so. BTW I am not happy with the current libreoffice-3.5.99.1 tag created (3.6.0-beta1) Although this approach has the charm of mathematical correctness, we can't do that without a volunteer answering all questions like I have a 3.6.0 with a 3.5 Tag number, is that a bug? ;-) I believe that's too worrying for users (although it seems to work for Mozilla, but do we have info how happy they are with that?). But of course, that's only my private feeling. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On 07/06/12 12:11, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Could we use the same scheme also in bugzilla? I mean: 3.5.98.1 (3.6.0alpha1) 3.5.98.1+ (3.6.0alpha1+daily) 3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1) 3.6.0.1 (3.6.0rc1) Yes, a big advantage would be if we coud rework the scheme a little so that the version number is more or less in accordance with the timeline. Currently I do not understand 3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1). If that is Mozilla intention I would prefer something like 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for release(example) ooh, a release numbering scheme bike shedding thread! how about this then: 3.6.0.x for alpha/beta 3.6.x.y for RC y of release 3.6.x yes, that implies that the first actual release is 3.6.1 and there is no 3.6.0 release, but those never work anyway so who cares ;) ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: 3.6.0~alpha1 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 3.6.0~beta1 3.6.0.1 I really like it. I would like to use it in the future for git tags and source tarballs. The problem might be the tilda '~'. It is substituted to $HOME in linux shell. I am not sure about other special meaning in some programing languages or so. Before we change it, we need to make sure that we do not break other distributors. So, I have added the developer mailing list and several distro packagers into CC. IMPORTANT: Please, replay if you do not like the above scheme or if you have even better solution. Background: === We currently use two version schemes in LibreOffice: 1. About dialog: It has to be user friendly. Last release candidate is the final build, so we must not mention RC in the version. The current scheme is: + 3.X.Y alphaZ - for alpha release + 3.X.Y betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates; the last one is final , where Y is the number of the bugfix release 2. git tags and source packages --- It needs to have correct alpha-numeric sorting. Otherwise, new versions are not correctly handled by package managers, e.g. rpm, dpkg, zypper, apt. The current scheme is: + 3.X-1.98.Z- for 3.X.0 alpha releases, e.g. 3.5.98.1 + 3.X-1.99.Z- for 3.X.0 beta releases, e.g. 3.5.99.1 + 3.X.Y.Z - for 3.release candidates, e.g. 3.6.0.1 , where Y is the number of the bugfix release. PROBLEM: The two version schemes are schizophrenic and could cause confusion. In addition, bugzilla needs both alpha-numeric sorting and user friendly meaning. We either need to mention both versions in the about dialog and bugzilla or come up with a better scheme that would be good for both purposes. There are two more proposals: 3. Rainers: --- + 3.X.Y.00Z - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y.0Z0 - for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z00 - for release candidates The alpha-numeric sorting is correct. It is clearly associated with the 3.X release because there is no X-1 number. The problem is that it is not evident that .00Z is alpha, and .0Z0 is beta. They are limited to 9 alpha and 9 beta builds. Also, I have newer seen it anywhere else, so people are not familiar with it. 4. Ubuntu/Debian: - + 3.X.Y~alphaZ - for alpha releases + 3.X.Y~betaZ- for beta releases + 3.X.Y.Z- for release candidates I really like this solution. It seems to have everything. We just need to make sure that the tilda '~' is handled correctly and does not break some tools. It seems that RPM handles it correctly. I am going to check Build service, and zypper. 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: 3.6.0~alpha1 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 3.6.0~beta1 3.6.0.1 I really like it. I would like to use it in the future for git tags and source tarballs. The problem might be the tilda '~'. It is substituted to $HOME in linux shell. I am not sure about other special meaning in some programing languages or so. Yes, I mindlessly followed Rene in using _ instead of ~ in git tags, never wondering why. _ has the advantage over ~ to be sorted in front of lowercase ASCII, so for as long as subversions start with some lowercase letters, standard ASCII sorting 'does the Right Thing'. But I bet Rene can elaborate better on that than me ;) 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: 3.6.0~alpha1 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 3.6.0~beta1 3.6.0.1 I really like it. I would like to use it in the future for git tags and source tarballs. The problem might be the tilda '~'. It is substituted to $HOME in linux shell. I am not sure about other special meaning in some programing languages or so. Well, a 3.6.0~alpha1 would appear as 3.6.0alpha1 in about with a underlined ;-) Unless you escape it somewhere. (bdtd, but it's so minor that I ignored it whenever I uploaded something like that) That said and FTR to correct the above, the above would continue for the public version in Debain with 3.6.0~rcX. The final (3.6.0) then becomes a new upload. But of course that means a rebuild, so you can't/won't do that. Regards, Rene ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:47:28PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:11 +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Petr Mladek schrieb: rc should not appear in Help/About, that's an additional info added to Bugzilla Version like Master. yes Could we use the same scheme also in bugzilla? I mean: 3.5.98.1 (3.6.0alpha1) 3.5.98.1+ (3.6.0alpha1+daily) 3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1) 3.6.0.1 (3.6.0rc1) Yes, a big advantage would be if we coud rework the scheme a little so that the version number is more or less in accordance with the timeline. Currently I do not understand 3.5.99.1 (3.6.0beta1). If that is Mozilla intention I would prefer something like 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC (example) and/or release Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: 3.6.0~alpha1 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 3.6.0~beta1 3.6.0.1 for the version numbers above. The rationale for that can be found here: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version and I find it quite sensible (at least compared to what I saw on other distros). Anyway, I have no passion about this, but before reinventing the wheel one might reuse something documented and known to work. YMMV etc. 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
Hello Rainer, On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Rainer Bielefeld libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de wrote: I will prepare a mass change of all Versions today, don’t worry, there will be no mass e-mails for the bugs. Thanks for this! :-) But what will we do with current LibO Master bugs [1]? (~500 items) Do we have to change them to correct version manually? [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=82804query_format=advancedversion=LibO%20Masterproduct=LibreOffice Best Regards, -- Korrawit Pruegsanusak ___ 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] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2
June 6, 2012 Hello, We branched 3.6 and have a new Master, I have to hurry up a little with my action to revise the Bugzilla version picker contents due to https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Talk:BugReport_Details. Please excuse me for being late with this. First Steps I just created a new Version 3.7.0alpha0+ Master, and since the fix for Bug 49622 – Increase column width for Version in query results The version now will be shown correctly in queries. I created Bug 50755, please add comments there quickly if you see that new Versions in Picker cause trouble Further Proceeding I will prepare a mass change of all Versions today, don’t worry, there will be no mass e-mails for the bugs. When I will start with the modifications, Function of the Bug submission Assistant will be partially broken for a while. I will contact Thorsten Behrens to find a solution to modify Assistant ASAP. I am planning to do most modifications today (2012-06-06) in the afternoon. Possible Problems There might (will!) be some Problems: 1. Bug Submission Assistant will be broken temporarily 2. External queries with Version relation will not work any longer and will have to be modified. Most saved queries should be adapted automatically, but I did not test that. Version entries in field Custom search will have to be adapted manually. 3. We will see what happens when someone reports a bug just when I am modifying a Version Comments, hints, discussion please in libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
