Re: [Libreoffice-qa] RC3 released as Final version???
Pedro píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 08:31 -0800: > Hi Petr, all > > > Petr Mladek wrote > > > > What about having the following for the beta builds: > > > > LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 > > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom > > > > and the following for rc builds: > > > > LibreOffice 3.5.0.x > > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom > > > > I think this is a perfect solution for the About box. Great. It seems that we have a wide conclusion on this, so let's use it for 3.5.1. The realization is pretty easy. It is just a mater of setting ABOUTBOXPRODUCTVERSIONSUFFIX in instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst. It is very safe because it is a new variable that is used only in the about dialog. > My only request is that in the sequence of the other topic > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html > > the name of the binaries and the About box have some common element while > making it clear that one release is an RC and the other is final. > > So, RC binary files would be named > ... > LibO_3.5.0.2rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi > LibO_3.5.0.3rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi Good point. I agree that we should end here. It will be more complicated. I think that it might affect the variables PACKAGEVERSION, ABOUTBOXPRODUCTVERSION, SHORT_PRODUCTEXTENSION. It might need also some changes in the installer. Sigh, I am a bit scared to modify this. All the variables are used on many locations in the installer and in the code. For example, you would think that ABOUTBOXPRODUCTVERSION is used only in the about dialog but it is not true. Any change here might have some strange side effects. I do not promise that this will be in 3.5.1. The commit deadline for rc1 is on Monday. I have some other urgent this to finish this week. It would be to dangerous to change this for rc2. Anyway, I'll do my best to solve this for 3.5.2. Nino Novak wrote: > However you decide - any chance to have the same strings returned also > when invoking "libreoffice --version" cli command? (consistency ...) Sounds reasonable. It is just a matter of finding where the string is printed and using another version query. The full versions should be accessible because we need it for about dialog as well. Is it enough to keep this as easy task? It would meant that the fix time is not predictable. 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi Nino, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Nino Novak wrote: > However you decide - any chance to have the same strings returned also when > invoking "libreoffice --version" cli command? (consistency ...) Sounds good to me. I would assume Petr to do the relevant changes for the About-Dialog once there are no objections. Making the commandline return the same sounds like an excellent EasyHack then! 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] RC3 released as Final version???
On 15/02/12 18:29, Florian Reisinger wrote: > A second try, after sending this message just to Rainer - sorry for that > > Am 15.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Florian Reisinger: >> Am 15.02.2012 18:10, schrieb Rainer Bielefeld: >>> Petr Mladek schrieb: >>> What about having the following for the beta builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom and the following for rc builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0.x BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> for me that solution would be fine. >> >> I really do have the same opinion as Rainer... >>> >>> ATB >>> >>> Rainer >> > > I vouch for this approach for now, however, let's make sure the file names etc reflect the state of the software. Freeing up the build system(s) for a final release should be the goal. – Olav ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
A second try, after sending this message just to Rainer - sorry for that Am 15.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Am 15.02.2012 18:10, schrieb Rainer Bielefeld: Petr Mladek schrieb: What about having the following for the beta builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom and the following for rc builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0.x BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom Hi, for me that solution would be fine. I really do have the same opinion as Rainer... ATB Rainer -- Tschüss! | Bye! Florian Reisinger LibO 3.5rc3 Windows 7 SP1 64-bit ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Petr Mladek schrieb: What about having the following for the beta builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom and the following for rc builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0.x BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom Hi, for me that solution would be fine. ATB 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] RC3 released as Final version???
On Wednesday 15 February 2012, Petr Mladek wrote: > What about having the following for the beta builds: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom > > and the following for rc builds: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0.x > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom However you decide - any chance to have the same strings returned also when invoking "libreoffice --version" cli command? (consistency ...) Nino ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi Petr, all Petr Mladek wrote > > What about having the following for the beta builds: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom > > and the following for rc builds: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0.x > BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom > I think this is a perfect solution for the About box. My only request is that in the sequence of the other topic http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html the name of the binaries and the About box have some common element while making it clear that one release is an RC and the other is final. So, RC binary files would be named ... LibO_3.5.0.2rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi LibO_3.5.0.3rc_Win_x86_install_multi.msi Then the final installer would be simply need to be renamed to LibO_3.5.0.3_Win_x86_install_multi.msi I apologize for the explosive post. Best regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC3-released-as-Final-version-tp3745161p3747503.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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > Also detecting the tag might be a bit error prone. If you want to > extract a tag in git, it creates just another branch. I am not sure how > to safely detect that it was created from a branch. And if you build from source tarballs you don't even have git - even more, you might not even have git installed in the build chroot ;-) Remember http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?h=libreoffice-3-5&id=9abb0b6bbe2de65988065f78354ccf5ebde4a7ae :) 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi all, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:48:56PM +, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Petr, > > On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds > >another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z. > > > >Will this be enough for QA people? It has to. Also having the repository tag be exactly the same as the stuff showing up in "About" has one beautiful and rare attribute: consistency! > I tend to think waiting extra days, and taking extra risk to do more QA > on an ~identical build with one string changed is pretty silly. Yes. Esp. since the ~ in ~identical might be a real problem. We really want to release the binary version that was tested, not some untested binary that is build from an almost identical source and then pushed to the innocent without any serious testing after rebuilding. Given the size of LibreOffice, making the final release with an essentially untested binary build is outright insane IMHO. > We could try using a different name for the last release Gold Master > Candidate (gmc) instead of "release candidate" or somesuch ;-) then > fewer people would know what it meant, and fewer might get uppity. Nah, lets not introduce yet-another-confusing-layer-of-abstraction. > Then again, those doing the most complaining prolly perhaps missed the > release note that states that RC3 was final, and will not have to do the > many man-hours of detailed work themselves [ so it seems easy ] just to > get that one string changed ;-) > > Honestly, if this is our biggest problem, we are in fantastic shape ;-) Indeed. Best, Bjoern P.S.: btw Debian (and thus also Ubuntu) currently patch out the rc from the About box. But that is something different as those binaries are getting serious testing by volunteers still before being subjected on the unsuspecting. If we have the tagname (instead of a rc or somesuch) in the About box, Id propose to use that as-is in distro builds too (again: consistency). ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi Petr, On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds >another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z. > >Will this be enough for QA people? Of course; this might have the opposite problem that people will think the first RC is final: 3.5.0.1 or whatever ;-) But perhaps it will work. I tend to think waiting extra days, and taking extra risk to do more QA on an ~identical build with one string changed is pretty silly. We could try using a different name for the last release Gold Master Candidate (gmc) instead of "release candidate" or somesuch ;-) then fewer people would know what it meant, and fewer might get uppity. Then again, those doing the most complaining prolly perhaps missed the release note that states that RC3 was final, and will not have to do the many man-hours of detailed work themselves [ so it seems easy ] just to get that one string changed ;-) Honestly, if this is our biggest problem, we are in fantastic shape ;-) ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Andras Timar píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:07 +0100: > Hi, > > 2012/2/15 Petr Mladek : > > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds > > another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z. > > > > Will this be enough for QA people? > > > > > > 5. Wait if real users complain. > > > > Olav says, that they already complain? > > > > > > I prefer the 4th solution if the 5th one is not acceptable for you. > > I prefer 4th, too. I think that in About box only end user information > should be shown. For QA people I started to hack a page, which is like > about:buildconfig in Firefox, it will have much more detail, including > configure options, compiler version, etc. I will continue to work on > that feature when I find some time. Great to have such a page. Anyway, we need to make the versioning easily understandable without reading complex explanation and without complex transformations. > In regards of "real users", in Hungarian forums I have already read > complains. :( People just cannot understand that rc3=final. OK. We need to do something about it for 3.5.1 :-) 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Rainer Bielefeld píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:28 +0100: > Petr Mladek schrieb: > > >> LibreOffice 3.5.0 > >> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 Hmm, I do not like "LibreOffice twice. :-) > Hi Petr, > > indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists. > > I prefer your suggestion (or similar): > > Version: 3.5 > Tag: 3.x.y.z > Buid-ID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom These might be too many lines :-) Also detecting the tag might be a bit error prone. If you want to extract a tag in git, it creates just another branch. I am not sure how to safely detect that it was created from a branch. What about having the following for the beta builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1 BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom and the following for rc builds: LibreOffice 3.5.0.x BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom , where .x means the number of the release candidate. Such micro numbers have also other applications in the about dialog. By other words, I would replace the human readable string (alpha, beta, rc) with just a number for the release candidates and keep it for alpha-s and beta-s. It sounds like a good compromise. What do you think? 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] RC3 released as Final version???
On 15/02/12 07:31, Rimas Kudelis wrote: > I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least > Mozilla does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so > after renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary. rebuilding sounds like a bad idea in any case (FWIW AFAIR for OOo the "rcX" was also not shown in the about box, the installer files were just renamed). > One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is > easily would be to implement my suggestion from > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about > dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0 > Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 > > In this case, the fourth number in Build ID line would represent the RC > number. that sounds like an excellent idea: developers and QA know what the .3 at the end means, but it doesn't confuse end users. ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Petr Mladek schrieb: LibreOffice 3.5.0 Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 Hi Petr, indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists. I prefer your suggestion (or similar): Version: 3.5 Tag: 3.x.y.z Buid-ID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom NO RC info, we can publish such relations in the release plan, QA-FAQ or similar. Beta versions sould have the Beta in the version. Version: for normal users Tag: for Interested users, QA testing public versions Build-ID: to distinguish daily builds for QA, developers 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Petr Mladek wrote: > > One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is > > easily would be to implement my suggestion from > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about > > dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this: > > > > LibreOffice 3.5.0 > > Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 > > [snip] > > 3. Omit "rcx" in the last planed release candidate. > >The danger is that it might include blocker. We might need another >rc and it will not be easy to distinguish them. > Hi Petr, all, I wonder if the "LibreOffice 3.5.0" plus tagname is a reasonable compromise? I.e. for RC builds, drop the "LibreOffice 3.5.0 betaX" product name postfix - since RCs behave like final in other ways, and the tagname libreoffice-3.5.0.3 is descriptive enough? I would personally *hate* any solution that needs re-doing *any* work on build hosts & mirrors, just for getting one string fixed. ;) Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpbJYFTU0upg.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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi, 2012/2/15 Petr Mladek : > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds > another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z. > > Will this be enough for QA people? > > > 5. Wait if real users complain. > > Olav says, that they already complain? > > > I prefer the 4th solution if the 5th one is not acceptable for you. I prefer 4th, too. I think that in About box only end user information should be shown. For QA people I started to hack a page, which is like about:buildconfig in Firefox, it will have much more detail, including configure options, compiler version, etc. I will continue to work on that feature when I find some time. In regards of "real users", in Hungarian forums I have already read complains. :( People just cannot understand that rc3=final. Cheers, Andras ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Rimas Kudelis píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 08:31 +0200: > 2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė: >>> Maybe QA has a different meaning for me. But it really pisses me off >>> the lack of concern about these details. I wonder where this strong opinion comes from. How often do you check about dialogs in other applications? I do it only and only when I report bug and developers ask me to provide the build version. Why normal people would want to look into this dialog and study it in details? They know what they installed and what the application is for. Aren't they? I know that details are sometimes important but I am not convinced that this problem is so serious. The application stability and usability is more important for me than some crazy version in about dialog. > > Olav Dahlum wrote > >> This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about > >> expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. > >> Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be > >> taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the > >> dangers of such practices. Where did you address this danger? > One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is > easily would be to implement my suggestion from > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about > dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0 > Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 It was YOU, QA guys, who complained about unclean versioning, see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html You were confused by things like, 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd and you wanted something human readable. I wonder if libreoffice-3.5.0.3 is clear enough. I see several possibilities here: 1. Do one more build once the last rc is approved. It will delay the release by few days (build time, smoketest, upload on mirrors). Note that we can't do incremental build easily because it is dangerous and the build tree is not stored on the build hosts. 2. Do a crazy hack to show the version according to the installer name. It would be possible on Windows and MAC but pretty hard on Linux because we rename only the download tarball but not the RPMs. 3. Omit "rcx" in the last planed release candidate. The danger is that it might include blocker. We might need another rc and it will not be easy to distinguish them. 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z. Will this be enough for QA people? 5. Wait if real users complain. Olav says, that they already complain? I prefer the 4th solution if the 5th one is not acceptable for you. 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Hi, YES!! RC3 etc. should be removed from the About. Indeed marketing wise this it is bad to keep RC3 while the product is flagged as 3.5. regards Luc 2012/2/15 Rimas Kudelis : > 2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė: > >> Olav Dahlum wrote >>> >>> This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about >>> expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. >>> Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be >>> taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the >>> dangers of such practices. >>> >> Thanks you, Olav. I was starting to think I was the only mad person here. >> >> Apparently even Cor finds this normal. >> >> Cor, please show me ONE program that does this and I will agree with you. >> >> This is completely absurd for me... > > > I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least Mozilla > does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so after > renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary. > > One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is easily > would be to implement my suggestion from > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about > dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this: > > LibreOffice 3.5.0 > Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 > > In this case, the fourth number in Build ID line would represent the RC > number. > > Rimas > > ___ > 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/ -- Luc Castermans mailto:luc.casterm...@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] RC3 released as Final version???
2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė: Olav Dahlum wrote This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the dangers of such practices. Thanks you, Olav. I was starting to think I was the only mad person here. Apparently even Cor finds this normal. Cor, please show me ONE program that does this and I will agree with you. This is completely absurd for me... I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least Mozilla does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so after renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary. One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is easily would be to implement my suggestion from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this: LibreOffice 3.5.0 Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3 In this case, the fourth number in Build ID line would represent the RC number. Rimas ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
2012/2/14 Pedro > > Olav Dahlum wrote > > > > This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about > > expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. > > Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be > > taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the > > dangers of such practices. > > > > Thanks you, Olav. I was starting to think I was the only mad person here. > > Apparently even Cor finds this normal. > > Cor, please show me ONE program that does this and I will agree with you. > > This is completely absurd for me... > > Keep in mind that most of us have done little marketing, so there's holes to fill in here. ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Olav Dahlum wrote > > This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about > expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. > Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be > taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the > dangers of such practices. > Thanks you, Olav. I was starting to think I was the only mad person here. Apparently even Cor finds this normal. Cor, please show me ONE program that does this and I will agree with you. This is completely absurd for me... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RC3-released-as-Final-version-tp3745161p3745280.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] RC3 released as Final version???
On 14/02/12 22:35, Cor Nouws wrote: > Pedro wrote (14-02-12 22:33) > >> is released and the About box says >> >> LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3 > > IIRC, this is as usual: after the final RC no new builds are made, so no > strings are updated :-) > > This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough. Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the dangers of such practices. – Olav ___ 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] RC3 released as Final version???
Pedro wrote (14-02-12 22:33) is released and the About box says LibreOffice 3.5.0rc3 IIRC, this is as usual: after the final RC no new builds are made, so no strings are updated :-) -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ 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/
