Re: [Proposal] Shutting down legacy OOo mailing lists
On 20/10/2011 Rob Weir wrote: I mentioned the technical details of moderator-initiated subscriptions merely as a follow up to a side proposal that Andrea had made for the Italian lists. Thanks for trying and reporting. I see that, as you wrote later and Oracle confirmed, corporate policies can get in the way, but still it is very useful to have information on the technical feasibility of a complete list migration. I understand, however, that the attention will now need to be shifted to the more urgent services.openoffice.org migration, where we have a lot of not widely known services needing attention. But I'll raise these issues on the dedicated threads. Regards, Andrea.
Re: [Proposal] Shutting down legacy OOo mailing lists
On 22/10/2011 Dave Fisher wrote: On Oct 21, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: I would prefer that I was simply subscribed so that I could do minimal work to make it happen. ... Unfortunately we will not be getting any user lists from Oracle so an automatic re-subscription is not possible. This specific problem can easily be circumvented for most lists, since all project owners have access to the subscriber list for all mailing lists of their project (including delivery options). A lot of project owners and moderators are here and I think that also people at TeamOpenOffice.org could extract subscriber lists from the Kenai infrastructure if needed. So the issue is more whether people here think it would be useful or not to retrieve subscriber lists from Kenai (in doubt, I would retrieve them and decide later if and when to use them, but as I wrote earlier I understand that policies can get in the way). Regards, Andrea.
Shutdown of the OOo FTP master server
Dear mirror admins, The Apache OpenOffice.org (incubating) project got the information that server in the *.services.openoffice.org domain will be shutdown in the very near future. This means that also the FTP master server (rsyncmaster.services.openoffice.org) will go away. Normally there shouldn't be problems or deletions when the rsyc job fails due to the unreachable host. However, this mail is to notify you. It would be great if you can still host all available OOo releases even when they become more and more historic. However, the OOo 3.3 is the latest stable release that still can be downloaded via the OOo webpage and the 3.4-Beta shows the new direction. Within our new home at Apache we are of course planning new releases. However, the initial work that has to be done first is hugh, so it will take some time. If you have any questions please visit our new home at the ASF or write to our mailing lists: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/index.html Thank you very much for still supporting OpenOffice.org! Best regards Marcus
Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: snip Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source. Is this a problem? That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed. Archiving the compressed source of weak copyleft dependencies in some sort of repository[1] is something that Apache will need to become comfortable with sometime soon But developing downstream derivative works of weak copyleft dependencies is likely to be a major issue Why can't the patches be contributed back to the original projects? There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than was done previously. But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner. Simply having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability reasons. Release schedules don't always sync up. Downstream packagers face similar issues and typically cope by maintaining independent patch sets (applied at build time). Why not just use patch sets? Robert [1] Many weak copyleft licenses require distributors to maintain the code beyond the lifetime of the organisation which issued the original license. We need to get used to the idea that Apache is likely to be around much longer than commercial players.
Re: how can I Extensions_Integration_into_Installation_Set?
Hi, Am 18.10.2011 07:51, schrieb jianlizhao: I want do Extensions Integration into Installation Set, I find web page bellow: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions_Integration_into_Install ation_Set I read the article many times. I still can not solve the problem. My question is: I do not know which directory the Extensions files is located under slover. for example：Extension Dictionarie is located under slover’s pck directory. All extensions containing code should end up in the bin sub folder of the solver. Regards, Mathias
Re: Python and other scripting framework
Am 20.10.2011 17:47, schrieb Alexandro Colorado: Wonder what is the future of the UNO scripting framework since there are many languages with different languages like Python, Beanshell and other scriptings that OOo ships. OOo builds have a full Python 2.6 version and also IDE like Rhino and other applications that are stringly attached to the OpenOffice.org core. Python is not related to the Scripting Framework, it has its own UNO Language Binding. The Scripting Framework adds support for some scripting languages with an interpreter written in Java. Besides that I would expect that the future of the Scripting Framework will be defined by those who will work on it. Until developers show up for that, it most probably will stay as it is. Regards, Mathias
Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Forums Recruitment of Operators
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: These are my personal observations and I will report them to the Forum Administrators also. Any of the Forum operators can chime in here. There is not a formal vote that I can see. There was a poll that ended up 63% in favor, 37% opposed on the English Language forums, and I understand that there were wild variances on some of the other NL forums, including nobody in favor in one case. The reality seems to be that the move is accepted as happening. It comes down to knowing what Forum operators will stick around, which ones will declare themselves interested in the iCLA - committer - PPMC progression, etc. The move either happens or it doesn't. We can't migrate it 63%. Is it worth making the plan explicit, e.g: We're going to migrate the lists now, since the Oracle servers are going down on Friday. All existing moderators/admins are welcome to continue participation. Those who chose not to continue will be replaced immediately after the move per the Forum's existing mechanisms for choosing admins and moderators. I doubt that the picture will be completely clear until the move is accomplished and folks can raise their heads after the current emergency. Well, one reason it is an emergency is we wasted almost a week in an unnecessary show vote that ultimately brought no additional clarity. Let's hope there is still time to make a clean transition and avoid outage for the users. Meanwhile, I have asked the Forum Operators to please identify who is raising their hands to take the Apache plunge. I've also asked *them* who on the PPMC is already known there that could be useful as Apache Observers (if not already among the Forum operators). This would be to serve as consultants to them and especially help communicate/build-bridges/support with the Native Language forums and those operators, I think. It might be good to find out who here on the PPMC has interest in being Apache Observers: Forum registrants who have access to the administrative sections and can also post there, but not take administrative actions. (This is separate from current PPMC members who are already among the Forum Operators and have whatever privileges come with that.) This would relax the need for them to rush everything through at once while having someone on site to observe the Forums and their orderly operation. This could satisfy the PPMC that there is adequate oversight in these early days, even if only on an interim/transitional basis. My main concern is that we don't have any forum that has no one there helping users, removing spam, etc. When will we know if that is the case? I'm going to report this same perspective there. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 20:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Acceptance of the OpenOffice.org Proposal On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The vote to accept the proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums ended at midnight, Friday 2011-10-21T24:00Z. There were a total of 27 +1 votes cast. There was one +0 vote and no -1 votes. I don't want to assume, so can some one tell us whether the forum people have also voted to accept the proposal? -Rob I see some of the mods but not all of them. mods == moderators? So the vote is still going on? -Rob -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: snip Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source. Is this a problem? That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed. Archiving the compressed source of weak copyleft dependencies in some sort of repository[1] is something that Apache will need to become comfortable with sometime soon But developing downstream derivative works of weak copyleft dependencies is likely to be a major issue Why can't the patches be contributed back to the original projects? There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than was done previously. But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner. Simply having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability reasons. Release schedules don't always sync up. Downstream packagers face similar issues and typically cope by maintaining independent patch sets (applied at build time). Why not just use patch sets? That is what we do. We store the original source in a tarball and then apply a patch at build time. But we store both the source tarball and the patch on our servers. Robert [1] Many weak copyleft licenses require distributors to maintain the code beyond the lifetime of the organisation which issued the original license. We need to get used to the idea that Apache is likely to be around much longer than commercial players.
Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Forums Recruitment of Operators
2011/10/23 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org My main concern is that we don't have any forum that has no one there helping users, removing spam, etc. When will we know if that is the case? I did not understand that, sorry. Could you explain which your concern is? And about volunteers, while many voted against the move I did not heard anyone telling he or she will left the forums because the move is finally accepted. You may see that as an example that our meritocracy is very democratic, with volunteers following the decision from the majority... Many volunteers will not apply to commiter status (and this maybe will raise some questions about current and future admins) and are not interested on being part of the PPMC, but AFAIK all of us will continue doing what we always did: help users. Cheers Ricardo
Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Forums Recruitment of Operators
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:15 AM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/23 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org My main concern is that we don't have any forum that has no one there helping users, removing spam, etc. When will we know if that is the case? I did not understand that, sorry. Could you explain which your concern is? As Dennis said: It comes down to knowing what Forum operators will stick around And about volunteers, while many voted against the move I did not heard anyone telling he or she will left the forums because the move is finally accepted. You may see that as an example that our meritocracy is very OK. That is different from what Dennis seems to be saying. democratic, with volunteers following the decision from the majority... Many volunteers will not apply to commiter status (and this maybe will raise some questions about current and future admins) and are not interested on being part of the PPMC, but AFAIK all of us will continue doing what we always did: help users. Cheers Ricardo
Re: [DISCUSS] Migration of Forums Recruitment of Operators
Op 23-10-2011 15:15, RGB ES schreef: 2011/10/23 Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org My main concern is that we don't have any forum that has no one there helping users, removing spam, etc. When will we know if that is the case? I did not understand that, sorry. Could you explain which your concern is? And about volunteers, while many voted against the move I did not heard anyone telling he or she will left the forums because the move is finally accepted. You may see that as an example that our meritocracy is very democratic, with volunteers following the decision from the majority... Many volunteers will not apply to commiter status (and this maybe will raise some questions about current and future admins) and are not interested on being part of the PPMC, but AFAIK all of us will continue doing what we always did: help users. Cheers Ricardo There seems to be a problem with the staff at the Dutch language forum. Founding admin henke54 has already announced that he will resign, I'm the only other Dutch speaking admin and will resign as well. The remaining active moderators (RPG and Johan) and volunteers (Eremmel, who visits the forum regularly but hasn't posted on the issue) aren't interested in signing the iCLA or becoming committers. We will all stay to help users, we just don't want the extra work or feel we're not suited for the job. Peter aka floris v
Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: snip There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than was done previously. But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner. Simply having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability reasons. Release schedules don't always sync up. Downstream packagers face similar issues and typically cope by maintaining independent patch sets (applied at build time). Why not just use patch sets? That is what we do. We store the original source in a tarball and then apply a patch at build time. But we store both the source tarball and the patch on our servers. Dependency managers frequently used elsewhere at Apache[1] typically use meta-data to describe dependencies for location. Does the current build system work in a similar way? Robert [1] eg http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ and http://maven.apache.org/
RE: License implications of build-time or test-time dependencies?
This announcement may be pertinent to the questions about Qt dependencies: http://devworks.thinkdigit.com/Features/Qt-Project-launches-Qt-now-under-open_7799.html. The Qt Project is taking some interesting directions, http://www.qt-project.org/. It is a structured meritocracy, with a Chief Maintainer and Elected Maintainers. I haven't accessed the Qt Project version of iCLA, but the explanation for it is rather interesting at http://qt-project.org/legal.html. Key take-aways: 1. With regard to the parts of Qt that must be statically bound into code, there is a BSD-like license. 2. The explanation of the Contribution Agreement is a tribute to the virality of the ASF approach, as well as I can tell. 3. The Qt Project is mostly LGPL 2.1 and they seem reluctant to have LGPL 3 contributions, although the iCLA lumps all GNU License Terms together. 4. They use Gerrit. One cool aspect is that to submit code, there is an iCLA solicitation that can't be passed until executed. They use JIRA accounts as the identification mechanism. 5. Digging around in the iCLA, I see that easily-accepted third-party contributions are required to be LGPL 2.1 compatible as defined at http://www.gnu.org/. The Various Licenses page there do not indicate that ALv2 is so compatible, with a point made that GPL3 is the point of compatibility, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses. 6. Apart from a little care in parsing a warranty in section 3.3 of the actual License Grants (section 3), the terms appear quite similar to those of the Apache iCLA. In this case, the grant of license is to Nokia. There are other terms that may be of concern and I offer no opinion on the acceptability of the Qt iCLA by anyone. That's about enough for Sunday reading. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Robert Burrell Donkin [mailto:robertburrelldon...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:58 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: License implications of build-time or test-time dependencies? On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hmm ... We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we have not drawn a roadmap about it beyond the initial migration list. I think we will have to open BZ issues for those. The gtk/qt issue is rather critcal: I do not think there is previous history among Apache projects depending on them but if we cannot consider those system provided libraries it would be a serious setback to an early Apache release. I would support allowing C/C++ code to link to gtk and/or qt, provided we don't distribute gtk or qt themselves. Both are LGPL. The LGPL is clear for languages like C, C++. Clear in what sense? Dynamic linking and such? Before Version 3, the meaning of the LGPL - when applied to many dynamic and interpreted languages - was sufficiently debatable to pose a definite legal risk. It would be surprising but not unreasonable for a court to rule that the license was strong (not weak) copyleft for some languages. Robert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
On 20.10.2011 23:27, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source. Is this a problem? That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed. Why can't the patches be contributed back to the original projects? reasons why patches to external libraries exist include: 1) to add missing features/fix bugs. these should usually be submitable to upstream; reasons why they exist anyway: a) the patch was submitted and accepted, but OOo does not use the new release yet b) the patch was submitted but upstream is unresponsive c) the patch was submitted but upstream has NACKed it d) the patch was never submitted because upstream is dead e) the patch was never submitted upstream due to lack of time 2) to get it to build in our build system. quite often some C/C++ library does not come with a build system that works with MSVC on windows (and also OS/2), so we patch in some dmakefile to get it to build (the dmake build system requires the makefile to be in the same directory as the source files, hence the patch), and perhaps a config header. of course it does not make sense to upstream these patches. 3) the patch is actually taken from upstream, and backported to an older version. this may happen for critical bugfixes (esp. security), when there was not enough time to evaluate and test a full update to a new upstream version. a big problem in managing patches is that up until about 2 years ago, the build system could only apply a single patch to an unpacked tarball. so there are perhaps still some big patches left that contain fixes for various distinct problems from various different categories. of course, once you have a 10k-line patch like that it becomes all the more difficult to figure out what the heck it does. regards, michael
Re: Disposition of *.services.oo.o
snip Dave, I want to be very sure about this, because I can and will post the notices on the live wiki ... On 10/21/2011 14:35, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi All, I had a conversation with Andrew Rist this morning. Here is what I have found out about what will happen in one week. (1) Forums and Mediawiki will be cloned and moved to Apache Infrastructure on top of the work that TerryE and the Apache Infra team accomplished. Andrew, Gavin and TJ will be doing the heavy lifting starting with some practice conversions. I read this to mean that Infra has devised a way to support the live MW wiki satisfactorily. YEA!! from me, too. Well done, guys. I will post the outage notices Kay recommends as soon as I can, after confirmation. Okay, some notices are up. Not very pretty, and not as universal as I'd like, but they're *there*. See [1]. The message says: HURRAH!!We're moving! [in white, on red background] Please expect temporary outages. See Moving Day for the latest news. _ Moving Day (linked) says: quote Latest news 12:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Expect outages starting next Friday night or Saturday morning (Oct 28/29, 2011 UTC). Expected changes 12:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Probably none. Accounts and addresses should work as they always did. All data will be preserved. Known problems (technical) 12:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Due to a version fall-back of the DPL extension, the DPL commands are less capable and more fussy (they do not tolerate CSS inside a template call). I will revise the affected templates, and any other uses I find (or you point out!). Background Feel free to ask questions on the Talk:Moving_Day page: other users probably have the same questions you do. As part of the transfer of OpenOffice.org from Oracle/Kenai to the Apache Software Foundation, this wiki is being re-hosted on Apache servers. This requires some service outage (as brief as we can manage) while the wiki is dumped and reloaded, and addresses are redirected. ___ /quote Suggestions and improvements welcome. Or change it yourself: it's a wiki. [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page -- /tj/ T. J. Frazier Melbourne, FL (TJFrazier on OO.o)
Re: Shutdown of the download.services.openoffice.org host and its Mirrorbrain instance
Hi Marcus, hi list, On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:15:34 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Hi Peter, it seems the end is near and the download.services.openoffice.org host on Oracle side with our Mirrorbrain instance will be shutdown in one week. Okay... Little question, wouldn't it make sense, at this point, to take the download.s.o.o VM and move it somewhere else? I don't have the disk space myself, but maybe somebody else has? Perhaps the ASF can provide the space? (Other than disk space, the requirements are pretty modest.) Then the entire download service could continue to run, with very low effort, and without the need to build everything from scratch for now. As we cannot buildup a solution that is running, tested and long-term-proven in a few days I would like to ask you if we can switch to your openoffice.mirrorbrain.org instance as long as we have no other solution at hand. In the past it was a very reliable host that we have used when there were outages (mostly unplanned as you know) and doesn't resulted in a significant higher load on the host. So, it would help us very much to have a stable download section until we have an own solution here at ASF. Yes, please use my host for now! Thanks in advance and have a nice, sunny weekend. Thanks a lot. Same to you all, Peter pgpAYZu5yVeZd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Migration Status Page
We have a lot of great material on the wiki related to the migration planning, much of it very detailed and technical. This is certainly needed for our internal use. But (I think) we should also have higher level summary targeted more for the extended project and user community, as well as the general public. This could help set expectations and show what is happening. And just as important, it can show that stuff is actually happening. We're making good progress. A draft of the status page is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status I filled out the mailing list status as an example of what might be a good level of detail. And as I did there, you can also link to the more detailed planning information for those who might be interested. Can we agree to keep this page updated with the current status? I'd like to link to this page when we post to the legacy mailing lists, to give an overview of the overall migration effort. But this might also be a good page to link to from our homepage, etc. It could be quite useful, but only if we can keep it up-to-date. What do you think? -Rob
RE: Migration Status Page
-Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, 24 October 2011 8:23 AM To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Migration Status Page We have a lot of great material on the wiki related to the migration planning, much of it very detailed and technical. This is certainly needed for our internal use. But (I think) we should also have higher level summary targeted more for the extended project and user community, as well as the general public. This could help set expectations and show what is happening. And just as important, it can show that stuff is actually happening. We're making good progress. A draft of the status page is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+M igration+Status I filled out the mailing list status as an example of what might be a good level of detail. And as I did there, you can also link to the more detailed planning information for those who might be interested. Can we agree to keep this page updated with the current status? I'd like to link to this page when we post to the legacy mailing lists, to give an overview of the overall migration effort. But this might also be a good page to link to from our homepage, etc. It could be quite useful, but only if we can keep it up-to-date. What do you think? (your mail prompted..) I've just updated a couple of bits as did TJ just before me I believe. Gav... -Rob
Re: Shutdown of the download.services.openoffice.org host and its Mirrorbrain instance
Am 10/23/2011 11:50 PM, schrieb Peter Pöml: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 01:15:34 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Hi Peter, it seems the end is near and the download.services.openoffice.org host on Oracle side with our Mirrorbrain instance will be shutdown in one week. Okay... Little question, wouldn't it make sense, at this point, to take the download.s.o.o VM and move it somewhere else? I don't have the disk space myself, but maybe somebody else has? Perhaps the ASF can provide the space? (Other than disk space, the requirements are pretty modest.) Then the entire download service could continue to run, with very low effort, and without the need to build everything from scratch for now. The problem is that the ASF do not want to host and provide services of special software for single projects. I can understand this as even the ASF infra is a team of volunteers and their time is limited as it is for all others. Furthermore, I don't know details about the VM setup and where it's detailed located. Do you? However, I like your idea. It requires indeed only a bit diskspace and internet access. The maintainance could be done by us, the project members. If you would share a bit of your knowledge then I could takeover the admin role. ;-) @List: Has anybody an idea about where to host this service? It doesn't need to be necessarily inside the ASF. As we cannot buildup a solution that is running, tested and long-term-proven in a few days I would like to ask you if we can switch to your openoffice.mirrorbrain.org instance as long as we have no other solution at hand. In the past it was a very reliable host that we have used when there were outages (mostly unplanned as you know) and doesn't resulted in a significant higher load on the host. So, it would help us very much to have a stable download section until we have an own solution here at ASF. Yes, please use my host for now! Great, thanks a lot. Thanks in advance and have a nice, sunny weekend. Thanks a lot. Same to you all, Marcus
Re: Migration Status Page
Am 10/24/2011 12:22 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: It could be quite useful, but only if we can keep it up-to-date. What do you think? I've updated some parts and add a bit color to the status column. I hope you like it as it increases the overview even a bit more. Marcus
