Re: Volunteers needed: To update NL download pages later this week
Hi Arial, I (simonbr) will be updating the Dutch NL homepage. Best regards Simon Op 1 mei 2012 om 4:19 schreef Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org: Hi Rob, * On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:41:29PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote: The following tasks are on the wiki and need owners: Manually update the downloads from the Arabic NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Czech NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the German NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Spanish NL homepage I'll take this (and I'll try to find support in the Spanish mailing list). Manually update the downloads from the French NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Hungarian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Galacian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Italian NL homepage and subpages (pescetti) Manually update the downloads from the Japanese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Dutch NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Brazilian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Russian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Simplified Chinese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Traditional Chinese NL homepage https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks Only one of them has an owner (Thanks, Andrea!) What needs to be done? We need someone to review these NL pages and identify what needs to be changed to support the AOO 3..4 release. Changes to consider: 1) Branding changes (OpenOffice.org - Apache OpenOffice) 2) Updates to download location, for the 3.4 releases instead of the 3.3 release 3) References to the old LGPL license need to be changed to Apache 2.0 License 4) References to old NLC email addresses, marketing leads, etc., need to be replaced by the new Apache email lists. 5) Other similar changes. You don't need to do a complete rewrite of the pages. But we should refresh the page with information on the AOO 3.4 release. If you take a look at http://www.openoffice.org/es/ the page news almost a complete rewrite. * The main page look ugly * In some cases, the content does not seem to match the ASF way of doing things, lot of pages with dubious content, for example http://www.openoffice.org/es/comunidad/servicios.html http://www.openoffice.org/es/lecturas/lecturas_0022.html etc. * references to old mailing lists and list not under the ASF control http://www.openoffice.org/es/comunidad/listas.html * several dead links * etc. In short, the most practical solution here seems to simply translate the main pages from the English site. Timeline looks like this: -- Wednesday May 2nd -- Vote ends on approving the 3.4 release -- Thursday-Friday -- Update the mirrors with the release, test the new download websites. -- Over the weekend, additional website updates and testing -- Monday or Tuesday, if everything is working well, then we make public announcement So ideally we would have the NL website updates done at the end of this week. However, we should not make them be live on the production server until after the mirrors are populated. Maybe easiest way to coordinate is to submit patches for the changes into BZ? Given that time line, we better start translating from the English site. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: New group Apache OpenOffice on XING
On Monday, 30. April 2012 at 21:57, Donald Harbison wrote: I have a Xing account, but of course, do not speak German. I'm happy to be one of the moderators. well there is an English part as well but I wouldn't expect too much activities there. I can add you. I have received already a request from somebody who is interested to help as a co-moderator who is no committer and no PMC. But he is active on the German community, in the other OpenOffice.org group etc. I see no real problem to accept his offer and let him help to establish the new group. What do others think? We can always revert such a decision but I would prefer to be open here. Opinions are welcome. Juergen On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote: Hi, I have created a new group Apache OpenOffice on XING that is under control of the project. https://www.xing.com/net/**pri344752x/aoohttps://www.xing.com/net/pri344752x/aoo PPMC members with XING account who have interest to help this group as co-moderator please let me know and I will add you. The former group OpenOffice.org is still present but I failed so far to convince the moderator of this group to allow further moderators from the PMC. But I will continue to get or at least share control over this group by the PPMC. Juergen
Re: Volunteers needed: To update NL download pages later this week
Hi all Am 30.04.12 21:41, schrieb Rob Weir: The following tasks are on the wiki and need owners: [...] Manually update the downloads from the German NL homepage Nik and I take over this part. We have allready worked on this over the week-end and will finish today evening or tomorrow Greetings Raphael
Getting Started with AOO book
The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
Hi, Le 01/05/2012 12:23, Jean Weber a écrit : The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. What about wait for the Apache OpenOffice availability *before* to stop ? IMHO, it should be more easy to find contributors once we'll provide something usable. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. I don't understand why you say that, just before Apache OpenOffice graduation, but thanks a lot. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean I think someone will contact you. Regards, Eric -- Education Project: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
Hi Kay,
Kay Schenk schrieb:
Regina--
Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below...
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Regina Henschelrb.hensc...@t-online.dewrote:
Hi,
my test results are below, all on German WinXP Home, SP3.
[..]
With Opera 11.62
=
Calling http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
index_new_dl.htmlhttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
The green download box is missing totally.
Calling
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
results in
navigator.platform: Win32
navigator.UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de) Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1; u; de)
presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Windows
getLanguage(): German
window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform Win32
navigator.platform.**toLowerCase()win32
navigator.userAgent Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de) Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.userAgent.**toLowerCase() opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1; u;
de) presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.language de
navigator.userLanguage de
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
OK -- well this is NOT good, but what kind of results do you get with Opera
for:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/
same thing or
Yes, same error. The green box is missing.
Despite the fact that Opera is supposed to be the most W3 compliant
browser, I know folks have had issues with it...
[..]
I see JavaScript errors in the 'Fehlerkonsole', besides some messages
about CSS, copypaste below.
Kind regards
Regina
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 276:
-moz-border-radius: 0 0 10px 0;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 328:
-moz-border-radius: 0 10px 10px 0;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
Selector syntax error
Line 470:
img { border: 0px; }
-^
[25.01.1970 07:34:22] JavaScript -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/download_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 883 while loading: expected ';', got '304'
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/languages_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 104 while loading: expected ';', got '200'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/download_new_mirrorbrain.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 595 while loading: expected ';', got '304'
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] JavaScript -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/scripts/entourage.js
Das verlinkte Skript wurde nicht geladen.
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] CSS -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
HTML style attribute
relative is an unknown property
Line 1:
relative; margin: 14px 0 0 0; height: 24px;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] CSS -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
HTML style attribute
Declaration syntax error
Line 1:
relative; margin: 14px 0 0 0; height: 24px;
-^
[18.03.1970 15:40:44] JavaScript -
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
Inline script thread
Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Undefined variable: getLink
Error thrown at line 3, column 2 in
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html:
LINK = getLink( VERSION, MIRROR, SCHEMA );
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On 01/05/2012, at 20:37, eric eric.bach...@free.fr wrote: Hi, Le 01/05/2012 12:23, Jean Weber a écrit : The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. What about wait for the Apache OpenOffice availability *before* to stop ? IMHO, it should be more easy to find contributors once we'll provide something usable. Possibly we'll get more technical writers then. But always having user documentation done *after* the release is not a good situation. Most if the time the user docs don't get done before the next release, and so are always very late and behind schedule. This is very common, not just at AOO. Also, these books are not under Apache license, and there has been talk about doing other types of user assistance within the official project. So any tech writers who turn up should be encouraged to work on official stuff, don't you think? I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. I don't understand why you say that, just before Apache OpenOffice graduation, but thanks a lot. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean I think someone will contact you. Regards, Eric
Introduction
Hi there, a few words to introduce myself. My name is Giuseppe Castagno, I live in very small town near Turin, Italy. I'm 56 years old and I work as a free-lance programmer. I participated in OpenOffice.org, there I was known as beppec56 (at openoffice.org). Years back, in OpenOffice.org I implemented some stuff in the PDF export area (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=12626), among them the PDF/A export (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=59651), on Writer I added a type of document index (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=53420). I am looking forward to working with the Apache OpenOffice community. -- Kind Regards, Giuseppe Castagno Acca Esse http://www.acca-esse.eu giuseppe.castagno at acca-esse.eu
Re: Introduction
Hi Giuseppe Am 01.05.12 13:25, schrieb Giuseppe Castagno: Hi there, a few words to introduce myself. My name is Giuseppe Castagno, I live in very small town near Turin, Italy. I'm 56 years old and I work as a free-lance programmer. I participated in OpenOffice.org, there I was known as beppec56 (at openoffice.org). Years back, in OpenOffice.org I implemented some stuff in the PDF export area (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=12626), among them the PDF/A export (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=59651), on Writer I added a type of document index (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=53420). I am looking forward to working with the Apache OpenOffice community. Cool, then welcome back! Well, I don't know you, i think you was active befor my time at OOo. But the stuff you added looks realy good, Thanks for come back. Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
Jean, et al. On 2012-05-01, at 06:23 , Jean Weber wrote: The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean One of the crucial elements for developing an ecosystem is to have available, free or not, texts that enable regular users to get started: reference manuals, guides, whatever. During OOo's days, we had a page that pointed people to the Authors' works, and it was accessed. We also had other authors, outside of OOo, such as Solveig, who indirectly highlighted the work being done by the Authors and, more generally, by the Documentation Project, under Frank and Clayton and others. My point: Let's redevelop the ecosystem. It needs several things, documentation is one of them, but also the assurance that there is a code, there, that can be used and supported and migrated to; and that will be developed and enhanced over time. Getting AOO 3.4 out will help immensely. Having immediately available documentation and guides will help, too and in ways that are absolutely requisite for the sustainability of the project. What we can do: There remain some support/service organizations around the world focused on OO and not LO. Notifying them is a bit of pain, as their actual business is unclear to me. But I can think of at least two, and I'm quite sure there are more. Building a list of these is important. We had done something like this, with OOo's consultants' list, but that was unusably large, perpetually out of date, and so on. Having a list of actual providers seems better, but it also means instituting criteria for addition; that is not hard, especially if the Apache OO project is *not* involved as such, as I think it may deviate from the developmental and productive purpose we recognize, but I could be quite wrong here. louis
Re: Pages in the social media
Hi. 2012/4/29 Albino Biasutti Neto biasut...@gmail.com Hi. 2012/4/29 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Albino Biasutti Neto biasut...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. 2012/4/28 Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net On Apr 28, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Thanks Andrea. On Apr 28, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Rob Weir wrote: In return, and to demonstrate that this is not about control on my part, I'm happy to listen to any proposal you [Alexandro] might have regarding open PPMC access to the Twitter account. And if you make your Twitter account just as openly available to PPMC members as I've done with the new one, then I'll be happy to notify followers of the new Twitter account that they should follow the one that you turn over to PPMC control. This is a very reasonable proposal and it would be a positive, constructive outcome of this long discussion. Just to clarify, I'm not personally interested in managing any of the social OpenOffice channels, let alone posting content there: I would just like that the project has one clear official channel on each social media, with shared access. Users are already confused enough. On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote: It would be good if you close those accounts and work with the ones that were already working. Like I said before doesnt make sense to duplicate efforts. Agreed. Now if Alexandro and Rob will just work together... on management, tools and strategy. It will be great. I'm looking forward to it. I think you miss the point entirely, Dave. This is not about Alexandro. This is not about me. This is about what the PPMC wants. We've already had a discussion on this list about official pages and the decisions from that thread have already been implemented. those pages are under PPMC control. We did not need anything from Alexandro to do that. We still don't. I get your point. I have a different point. We may not need Alexandro to do anything, but I want him involved, and if I am reading correctly others do as well. Community over code, dude. We want to work together. Have a good weekend. I have no desire to discuss this further. Regards, Dave - World peace - not whirled peas -Rob Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea. The social network is to write/speak on annuncius the aoo, continually. I can also contribute to the any networks, ok. Best, Albino @bino28 Good I will add you to the Google plus page. Thanks! We have G+ page, this isn't page oficial [1]. -1 to that. We're limiting authoring rights to PPMC members. Also, we already have a Google+ page. I understand aoo political. Since you've expressed interest in avoiding duplication of effort, could you please give some attention to getting the PPMC involved in your OpenOffice.org Facebook page. You could actually accomplish something there if you tried. -Rob identi.ca and twitter = ok hastag = ok g+ = ok 1 - http://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668 fbook = not Social networking is important, it also marketing the aoo, all know. This discussion has been held on what I read, I *apologize for something. Best, Albino Alessandro, what think edit page G+ for AOOBr ? As we have an official page in G+, but not yet have the Brazil. Tks, Albino @bino28
Re: Pages in the social media
Hi 2012/5/1 Albino Biasutti Neto biasut...@gmail.com: Alessandro, what think edit page G+ for AOOBr ? As we have an official page in G+, but not yet have the Brazil. Very good, Albino. For brazilian profile is essential this social networks. I think that you can do for pt-BR in Twitter and Identi.ca too. I can help you as admin of them. @Rob, do you see some problem with this? I trust in Albino, and he works with me in our localization. Best, Claudio
Re: Pages in the social media
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi 2012/5/1 Albino Biasutti Neto biasut...@gmail.com: Alessandro, what think edit page G+ for AOOBr ? As we have an official page in G+, but not yet have the Brazil. Very good, Albino. For brazilian profile is essential this social networks. I think that you can do for pt-BR in Twitter and Identi.ca too. I can help you as admin of them. @Rob, do you see some problem with this? I trust in Albino, and he works with me in our localization. A few things to consider: 1) Do we have a ooo-geral-ptbr mailing list set up already? If not, I'd recommend starting with that. Having a strong pt_br presence in the project, to support translation, marketing, communications and user support is critical. That becomes the base that supports a successful social media campaign. 2) If we do have the mailing list set up already, then I'd recommend discussing the social media question there as well. 3) If Albino (or any other contributor) is trusted and is actively contributing to the project, then we should ask whether their project role should reflect that level of contribution. In other words, the goal is not to put PPMC responsibilities to non-PPMC members. But the goal is to turn those volunteers who take on additional responsibilities into PPMC members. See the difference? 4) Personally, I think we want the social media accounts to be accountable/answerable to the PPMC. Having them run by active PPMC members is one way. There may be other ways. But again back to #3 above. -Rob Best, Claudio
Re: Ref cover sheet attempt and Happy Birthday, OpenOffice!
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Nancy K nancythirt...@yahoo.com wrote: Golly, a BIRTHDAY - I downloaded a free trial Illustrator and worked this up really quickly. It just didn't seem right not to attempt something for a 10 year old! I read that Apache celebrated their birthday in February (born 1995) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27834483/OpenOfficeBookCover_A.svg Wow, this is very nice, Nancy. I like what you did with the larger wings at the top. Nancy Nancy Web Design Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com. Video courses on SEO, CMS, Design and Software Courses From: Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, OpenOffice! On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Anyone remember what happen 10 years ago today April 30th, 2002? http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/ooo_release.html And today the vote to approve the Apache OpenOffice 3.4 release ends. OpenOffice.org 1.0 took the community 18 months to produce. AOO 3.4 was a fast effort, in comparison. Here's to the next decade of OpenOffice! Absolutely, we're just getting started. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. -Rob
Re: After AOO 3.4?
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm able to speak confidently about a few things: 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning Beyond that, do we have anything to say? I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would: A) Add some additional translations B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4 C) Uncertain if it would have new features? OK. I've added a page to the wiki for AOO 3.4.1 tasks: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Feature+Planning So far I only have the Finnish translation on the list. But feel free to add any other must-have items for this maintenance release. Maybe some BZ issues that we should fix? Other translations that will be ready soon? I'm suggesting a July release timeframe. I don't think we can do it much sooner. We could take longer, of course, but I think we want to establish a healthy heartbeat for the project of a release-per-quarter or similar. This is good for the project as well as the users. -Rob What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6 weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out, plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing. Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release? -Rob
Re: Introduction
Benvenuto Giuseppe! On 05/01/12 06:25, Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi there, a few words to introduce myself. My name is Giuseppe Castagno, I live in very small town near Turin, Italy. I'm 56 years old and I work as a free-lance programmer. I participated in OpenOffice.org, there I was known as beppec56 (at openoffice.org). Years back, in OpenOffice.org I implemented some stuff in the PDF export area (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=12626), among them the PDF/A export (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=59651), on Writer I added a type of document index (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=53420). I am looking forward to working with the Apache OpenOffice community. Wow.. and I have to say that I was thinking just yesterday how good it would be to have *you* around ;). I am relatively new to the project but I started with some code you wrote. I did some small changes to the icc module, mostly to change the license to Apache License 2, since using copyleft for the icc profile is simply a bad idea. I have a wishlist for that module: 1 - We need to update SampleICC: the original version is just too old and is not available online anymore. Maybe the SampleICC developers may be interested in having the ICC profile as a contributed sample. 2- We don't really need to have the icc profile built every time and we don't have the silly limitations imposed by the GPL so I was thinking of moving the icc profile generation out of the build (maybe to tools) and have the generated profile directly in vcl. 3- It would be great if people could download and use the Adobe profile as an alternative (the stax module gives a similar option). If you feel like working on any of that do let me know and I will help review/commit it. Also, while not strictly mandatory, you are welcome to submit an iCLA: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf It's not as demanding as the previous SUN agreement but it is important if you want to become a committer later on. Again, absolutely welcome! Pedro.
What do we need to do in BZ after AOO 3.4 is released?
Today, among the 100 version strings the users need to scroll through in BZ, we have AOO340-dev. What do we want after we release AOO 3.4? Add AOO340? (Or just rename AOO340-dev to AOO340?) Add AOO341-dev? Add AOO450-dev? Also, are there any products that can be removed or demoted to components under another product? What we have now is simpler than what we had with OOo, but it is still very complicated with a lot of dead wood at the top level. -Rob
Re: Pages in the social media
Hi. 2012/5/1 Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com 2012/5/1 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: 1) Do we have a ooo-geral-ptbr mailing list set up already? If not, I'd recommend starting with that. Having a strong pt_br presence in the project, to support translation, marketing, communications and user support is critical. That becomes the base that supports a successful social media campaign. When i did the request[1], hadn't support from PPCM. I remember that you was volunteer as admin. [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4532 The create list suggestion Claudio. 2) If we do have the mailing list set up already, then I'd recommend discussing the social media question there as well. Today, our list is here[2], and we coordinate our works there. [2] http://listas.escritoriolivre.org/listinfo.cgi/geral-escritoriolivre.org Yes, we used this list. 3) If Albino (or any other contributor) is trusted and is actively contributing to the project, then we should ask whether their project role should reflect that level of contribution. In other words, the goal is not to put PPMC responsibilities to non-PPMC members. But the goal is to turn those volunteers who take on additional responsibilities into PPMC members. See the difference? Absolutely, Rob, and agree. Me too, Absolutely Rob. 4) Personally, I think we want the social media accounts to be accountable/answerable to the PPMC. Having them run by active PPMC members is one way. And i will do. I will be this PPMC member with him. Thank you too much. I can also contribute social networking aoo and aoobr. Claudio Best, Albino
Introductions
I was lead for en-GB prior to the move to Apache. I have signed an ICLA and would request committer status so that I could have Pootle access once again. en-GB is very, very, close to being complete - several city and town councils and a major newspaper are using OpenOffice en-GB in the UK and would appreciate an update. Stuart -- Stuart Swales
Re: Pages in the social media
Hello, I mean that in any case I'm available to help publicize the project whether or not a PPMC member. I think Brazil has a great potential and can work well with Apache OpenOffice. rgds, Luiz Oliveira Em 01-05-2012 11:55, Albino Biasutti Neto escreveu: Hi. 2012/5/1 Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com 2012/5/1 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org: 1) Do we have a ooo-geral-ptbr mailing list set up already? If not, I'd recommend starting with that. Having a strong pt_br presence in the project, to support translation, marketing, communications and user support is critical. That becomes the base that supports a successful social media campaign. When i did the request[1], hadn't support from PPCM. I remember that you was volunteer as admin. [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4532 The create list suggestion Claudio. 2) If we do have the mailing list set up already, then I'd recommend discussing the social media question there as well. Today, our list is here[2], and we coordinate our works there. [2] http://listas.escritoriolivre.org/listinfo.cgi/geral-escritoriolivre.org Yes, we used this list. 3) If Albino (or any other contributor) is trusted and is actively contributing to the project, then we should ask whether their project role should reflect that level of contribution. In other words, the goal is not to put PPMC responsibilities to non-PPMC members. But the goal is to turn those volunteers who take on additional responsibilities into PPMC members. See the difference? Absolutely, Rob, and agree. Me too, Absolutely Rob. 4) Personally, I think we want the social media accounts to be accountable/answerable to the PPMC. Having them run by active PPMC members is one way. And i will do. I will be this PPMC member with him. Thank you too much. I can also contribute social networking aoo and aoobr. Claudio Best, Albino
Re: Pages in the social media
2012/5/1 luizheli luizh...@gmail.com: I mean that in any case I'm available to help publicize the project whether or not a PPMC member. I think Brazil has a great potential and can work well with Apache OpenOffice. Luiz, maybe is a good idea you introduce your self in a new thread. Best, Claudio
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 12:23, Jean Weber wrote: The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean it's simply a busy time at the moment with a lot of things that have to be finished for our 3.4 release. I personally got an upset stomach and felt not motivated to do anything. Probably the German food was to heavy compared to Chinese food that I have enjoyed the last weeks. But I am sure you will get many feedback when the 3.4 is out and more and more people will seeking good documenting. Maybe the forum is also a good place to ask for feedback. I don't know if you have asked there as well. Your work and the work of odfauthors is very much appreciated and very useful. Don't be demotivated, let us think how we can promote the docs better. Maybe we can include some reference links in our integrated help or something similar. Juergen
Re: Ref cover sheet attempt and Happy Birthday, OpenOffice!
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 16:13, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Nancy K nancythirt...@yahoo.com wrote: Golly, a BIRTHDAY - I downloaded a free trial Illustrator and worked this up really quickly. It just didn't seem right not to attempt something for a 10 year old! I read that Apache celebrated their birthday in February (born 1995) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27834483/OpenOfficeBookCover_A.svg Wow, this is very nice, Nancy. I like what you did with the larger wings at the top. Indeed nice Juergen Nancy Nancy Web Design Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com. Video courses on SEO, CMS, Design and Software Courses From: Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, OpenOffice! On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Anyone remember what happen 10 years ago today April 30th, 2002? http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/ooo_release.html And today the vote to approve the Apache OpenOffice 3.4 release ends. OpenOffice.org 1.0 took the community 18 months to produce. AOO 3.4 was a fast effort, in comparison. Here's to the next decade of OpenOffice! Absolutely, we're just getting started. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. -Rob
Re: Ref cover sheet attempt and Happy Birthday, OpenOffice!
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Nancy K nancythirt...@yahoo.com wrote: Golly, a BIRTHDAY - I downloaded a free trial Illustrator and worked this up really quickly. It just didn't seem right not to attempt something for a 10 year old! I read that Apache celebrated their birthday in February (born 1995) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27834483/OpenOfficeBookCover_A.svg Nancy Nancy Web Design Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com. Video courses on SEO, CMS, Design and Software Courses This IS very nice...maybe you could work with Jean on artwork for the new User's Guide! From: Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, OpenOffice! On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Anyone remember what happen 10 years ago today April 30th, 2002? http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/ooo_release.html And today the vote to approve the Apache OpenOffice 3.4 release ends. OpenOffice.org 1.0 took the community 18 months to produce. AOO 3.4 was a fast effort, in comparison. Here's to the next decade of OpenOffice! Absolutely, we're just getting started. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. -Rob -- MzK Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you And life has a funny way of helping you out Helping you out. -- Ironic, Alanis Morissette
Re: Pages in the social media
ok Claudio, Thanks Luiz Em 01-05-2012 12:31, Claudio Filho escreveu: 2012/5/1 luizheli luizh...@gmail.com: I mean that in any case I'm available to help publicize the project whether or not a PPMC member. I think Brazil has a great potential and can work well with Apache OpenOffice. Luiz, maybe is a good idea you introduce your self in a new thread. Best, Claudio
Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote: Kay- I've setup a new script for you to use for Openoffice downloads from Apache mirrors- simply replace closer.cgi with aoo-closer.cgi in your paths. Please don't forget this or users could be directed to mirrors which have opted out of carrying AOO releases. Joe -- I will take a look, and thanks a MILLION! hmmm...interesting comment as well. From: Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction Regina-- Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below... On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de wrote: Hi, my test results are below, all on German WinXP Home, SP3. kind regards Regina Marcus (OOo) schrieb: Am 04/30/2012 11:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 04/30/2012 11:37 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 04/30/2012 04:53 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/27/2012 01:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Kay Schenk wrote: Please take a look at and give feedback on a test page for the new /download/index.html page at: http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/index_new_dl.**html http://www.openoffice.**org/download/test/index_new_**dl.html http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html Yes, it's a bit strange with lots of nonsense at the top that I wanted you to see, but will of course go away in production. The page is nice, but it's the concept that leaves me dubious. We have another thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.** http://comments.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.apache.incubator.** ooo.devel/16219http://**comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.** apache.incubator.ooo.devel/**16219 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/16219 where there seems to be consensus towards a solution that: 1) Uses SF (and possibly Apache) for the web-based downloads 2) Does not phase out MirrorBrain, and uses it for the updates (i.e., downloads initiated by OpenOffice with the Look for updates function) That's what I understand as well. oh -- OK. I thought we were going to use MirrorBrain for 3.3 DLs as well -- i.e. what Marcus will be working on. I know right now, we're using SourceForge for that though. The possibly Apache in 1) is due to the fact that I haven't understood yet what technology Apache will be using and if Apache will distribute only sources or binaries too (it's obvious that we as a project will release sources and binaries, but I'm not 100% sure that Apache wants to put binaries on its mirrors too: I think so). Well it's not all that complicated actually. Take a look at the security patch info page... http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.html http://www.openoffice.org/**security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.**html http://www.openoffice.**org/security/cves/CVE-2012-**0037.html http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.html and you can see what the link looks like. Actual source/binaries are, for us, put in: http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/ http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/ http://www.**apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/ http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/ ** This said, you could be right in having issues tracking down problems. Right now, the SF setup is more user friendly in my opinion. I thought we were *required* to use Apache for downloads, but maybe we've gotten a dispensation for this release. Though I didn't think is was 100% someplace else. I admit I haven't kept up as much as I should have though. The other issue is how will it LOOK to users -- one moment they may be one place; if they happen to do a shift-reload, they may go someplace else with an entirely different look and feel. Fact is, we should avoid the random selection as much as possible, mainly to be able to quickly identify problems, and you will see details in that thread. The cleaner separation we can get, the better. So how about something very simple: 1) AOO 3.4 downloads use SourceForge by default from the /download/index.html page. Just like they are doing today. This WOULD make things a lot simpler. But we also have a links there that point to Apache mirrors for: a) Hashes and detached signatures b) source distribution c) a link to the full release tree Well, SF will need to implement in their sidebar or the main page for
Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.dewrote:
Hi Kay,
Kay Schenk schrieb:
Regina--
Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below...
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Regina Henschelrb.henschel@t-online.**
de rb.hensc...@t-online.dewrote:
Hi,
my test results are below, all on German WinXP Home, SP3.
[..]
With Opera 11.62
=
Calling
http://ooo-site.staging.**apac**he.org/download/test/**http://apache.org/download/test/**
index_new_dl.htmlhttp://ooo-**site.staging.apache.org/**
download/test/index_new_dl.**htmlhttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
The green download box is missing totally.
Calling
http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze.html
htt**p://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
results in
navigator.platform: Win32
navigator.UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de) Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1; u; de)
presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Windows
getLanguage(): German
window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.htmlhtt**p://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
navigator.platform Win32
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()win32
navigator.userAgent Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de)
Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1;
u;
de) presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.language de
navigator.userLanguage de
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes
OK -- well this is NOT good, but what kind of results do you get with
Opera
for:
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/legacy/http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/
same thing or
Yes, same error. The green box is missing.
OK -- well I feel a little better at least. I don't know what it is about
JS and Opera but I know when Marcus and I were working on something a few
years ago, we had a LOT of problems with Opera.
Despite the fact that Opera is supposed to be the most W3 compliant
browser, I know folks have had issues with it...
[..]
I see JavaScript errors in the 'Fehlerkonsole', besides some messages
about CSS, copypaste below.
yeah-- nothing fatal... OK
Kind regards
Regina
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 276:
-moz-border-radius: 0 0 10px 0;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 328:
-moz-border-radius: 0 10px 10px 0;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
Selector syntax error
Line 470:
img { border: 0px; }
-^
[25.01.1970 07:34:22] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**download_new_dl.jshttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/download_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 883 while loading: expected ';', got '304'
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**languages_new_dl.jshttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/languages_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 104 while loading: expected ';', got '200'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**download_new_mirrorbrain.jshttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/download_new_mirrorbrain.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 595 while loading: expected ';', got '304'
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/scripts/**entourage.jshttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/scripts/entourage.js
Das verlinkte Skript wurde nicht geladen.
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**index_new_dl.htmlhttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
HTML style attribute
relative is an unknown property
Line 1:
relative; margin: 14px 0 0 0; height: 24px;
-^
[01.05.2012 12:44:47] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**index_new_dl.htmlhttp://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html
Re: What do we need to do in BZ after AOO 3.4 is released?
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 16:41, Rob Weir wrote: Today, among the 100 version strings the users need to scroll through in BZ, we have AOO340-dev. What do we want after we release AOO 3.4? Add AOO340? (Or just rename AOO340-dev to AOO340?) Renaming sounds good to me and all issues with AOO340-dev should be moved to AOO350-dev. Only some special issues that we propose and discuss for a 3.4.1 should get the AOO341-dev version Add AOO341-dev? +1 Add AOO450-dev? you mean AOO350-dev, correct? If yes then +1 Also, are there any products that can be removed or demoted to components under another product? What we have now is simpler than what we had with OOo, but it is still very complicated with a lot of dead wood at the top level. We should upgrade BZ to the newest version where we get more flexibility to disable not longer used products, versions etc. And then we should cleanup the whole BZ. Juergen -Rob
Re: Pages in the social media
Hi. I created account AOOBr social networking: identi.ca and twitter: @apacheoobr Best, Albino @bino28
Re: Introductions
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 16:58, Stuart Swales wrote: I was lead for en-GB prior to the move to Apache. I have signed an ICLA and would request committer status so that I could have Pootle access once again. en-GB is very, very, close to being complete - several city and town councils and a major newspaper are using OpenOffice en-GB in the UK and would appreciate an update. Hi Stuart, as mentioned in an earlier private email I will send you the en-GB po files asap. But I haven't found the time so far, probably tomorrow. Juergen Stuart -- Stuart Swales
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Juergen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote: On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 12:23, Jean Weber wrote: The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean it's simply a busy time at the moment with a lot of things that have to be finished for our 3.4 release. I personally got an upset stomach and felt not motivated to do anything. Probably the German food was to heavy compared to Chinese food that I have enjoyed the last weeks. But I am sure you will get many feedback when the 3.4 is out and more and more people will seeking good documenting. Maybe the forum is also a good place to ask for feedback. I don't know if you have asked there as well. Your work and the work of odfauthors is very much appreciated and very useful. Don't be demotivated, let us think how we can promote the docs better. Maybe we can include some reference links in our integrated help or something similar. This would be a nice idea...I see the /support area, where books and other support is kept, is not mentioned in the README file and maybe should be. And, yes, it has been VERY busy with distribution details right now. I am optimistic we can get back to rebuilding the ecosystem once this initial release is out. Juergen -- MzK Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you And life has a funny way of helping you out Helping you out. -- Ironic, Alanis Morissette
Re: Logo of AOO in SVG?
On 2012/04/29 00:06, Ian Lynch said: Here is a fully svg version. It's close but not absolutely identical, not sure how important that is. Got to rush to the gym now. Only 16k Thank you. I'm looking for the AOO SVG logo at the same time. I have an additional question: Where can I find the Nimbus Sans L font? Is it the same as Liberation Sans? Or is it free to download somewhere? -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Introduces
Hi, I am Luiz Oliveira, a journalistfrom Brazil. I led for a time the nationwide BrOffice users group. At the time we still had a magazine[1] created to give tips on the use of OpenOffice.org suite / BrOffice, designed by my friend Claudio Filho. I helped organize some editions of the National BrOffice event held via videoconference with the participation of up to 04 countries, along with other comrades here in Brazil. I believe in the Apache OpenOffice project and want to contribute to more Brazilians know it. [1]http://wiki.broffice.org/raw-attachment/wiki/Zine/Edicoes/RB-ED017.pdf?format=raw rgds, Luiz Oliveira
Re: [Spi-private] OpenOffice funds
Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com I'm jumping in and speaking as a mentor of AOO and ASF VP of Community Development. Thanks - and just to be clear, I'm only speaking as an ordinary contributing member of SPI, who felt a responsibility to ask what I felt were obvious questions. So, I can't see any of these emails: [...] For more information on this please see the mail sent by Wolf Halton to treasu...@spi-inc.org on 19 March 2012 (subject monies collected for OpenOffice.org) and copied to bo...@spi-inc.org by Michael Schultheiss on the same day. [...] as - for reasons which I think I know and agree with - those mailboxes are not visible to all members. Thanks for quoting parts of it, but it's enough to learn that assurances have been sent. I trust the board to judge whether they feel that they are sufficient to ensure that SPI-held funds are used honestly, as described at the time they were raised. Thanks also for explaining the absence from the projects listing. (I am, of course, saddened to see an association-supported project now apparently forked into two(?) foundation-supported projects, because open and voluntary membership and equality are important to me, but I'm just odd like that.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Re: Introduces
Hi Luiz. 2012/5/1 luizheli luizh...@gmail.com Hi, I am Luiz Oliveira, a journalistfrom Brazil. I led for a time the nationwide BrOffice users group. At the time we still had a magazine[1] created to give tips on the use of OpenOffice.org suite / BrOffice, designed by my friend Claudio Filho. I helped organize some editions of the National BrOffice event held via videoconference with the participation of up to 04 countries, along with other comrades here in Brazil. I believe in the Apache OpenOffice project and want to contribute to more Brazilians know it. [1] http://wiki.broffice.org/raw-attachment/wiki/Zine/Edicoes/RB-ED017.pdf?format=raw rgds, Luiz Oliveira Welcome friend. ;) We are the list Escritório Livre [1]. 1 - www.escritoriolivre.org Best, Albino @bino28
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, ... The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics went on there) ? The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at Fair enough. If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the license headers. As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an unclear state. In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on what exact versions of what are granted ]. Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant by eg. the tooltypes changes. IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2 or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Logo of AOO in SVG?
On 1 May 2012 17:35, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: On 2012/04/29 00:06, Ian Lynch said: Here is a fully svg version. It's close but not absolutely identical, not sure how important that is. Got to rush to the gym now. Only 16k Thank you. I'm looking for the AOO SVG logo at the same time. I have an additional question: Where can I find the Nimbus Sans L font? Is it the same as Liberation Sans? Or is it free to download somewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbus_Sans Wikipedia entry above. I got with Ubuntu Linux. Do a search, I think you will find freely downloadable sources. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Logo of AOO in SVG?
On 2012/05/02 01:09, Ian Lynch said: On 1 May 2012 17:35, imacat ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw wrote: On 2012/04/29 00:06, Ian Lynch said: have an additional question: Where can I find the Nimbus Sans L font? Is it the same as Liberation Sans? Or is it free to download somewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbus_Sans Wikipedia entry above. I got with Ubuntu Linux. Do a search, I think you Ah? ^^; It's strange I did not see it. I see it now. Sorry for this question and thank you. ^_*' -- Best regards, imacat ^_*' ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc Woman's Voice News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/ Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/ Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/ EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA. But all contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent, open process. RAT does not help you track to provenance of patches applied to existing files. RAT only check that a correct/compatible license is claimed, not that it is true. For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? Norbert
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA. But all contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent, open process. RAT does not help you track to provenance of patches applied to existing files. RAT only check that a correct/compatible license is claimed, not that it is true. Correct. That is why we have committers that apply patches, and committers that review patches and can veto patches. And then we have a vote by the entire PMC, and in our case also by the IPMC, to approve a release. So it is multiple stages of review and approval, as befits the important question. The RAT scan provides an automated inspection that finds some, but not all issues. We think it is useful. But in the interest of mutual information exchange and sharing, can you tell us how TDF/LO determines that the code is sufficiently clean, from an IP perspective, to release? This would be useful to understand. -Rob For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? Norbert
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, ... The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics went on there) ? This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching for svn import. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at Fair enough. If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the license headers. As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an unclear state. In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on what exact versions of what are granted ]. Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant by eg. the tooltypes changes. IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2 or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any official statement on code that is not in a release. -Rob Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, ... The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics went on there) ? This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching for svn import. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at Fair enough. If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the license headers. As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an unclear state. In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on what exact versions of what are granted ]. Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant by eg. the tooltypes changes. IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2 or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any official statement on code that is not in a release. I think he is asking about this: URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 1328172 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: alg Last Changed Rev: 1327856 Last
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means I will use the structure that will work for now. Juergen I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure. In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance. To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later for a release after 3.4.x. my 2 ct Marcus This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, ... The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those too. Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics went on there) ? This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching for svn import. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at Fair enough. If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be happy to respond. I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the license headers. As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an unclear state. In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on what exact versions of what are granted ]. Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant by eg. the tooltypes changes. IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2 or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any official statement on code that is not in a release. I think he is asking about this: URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 OK. So this code is not in a release. So it has not been formally reviewed or voted on. When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: ... For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? I committed it so I will answer what is my personal position on this. The patches were submitted to Oracle which provided the bugzilla dump to us. At the time the patches were committed, the codebase was under LGPLv3. The license for the code headers were later changed by Oracle in hands of Andrew Rist. In all this process, people that have submitted patches were notified through bugzilla that we were integrating the code and one person even went ahead and requested his patch were reverted (and I did it despite considering the patch was not copyrightable). I should also mention that I did a sweep through bugzilla and warned all the coders I found that were explicitly licensing their contribution under an unacceptable license: some of them relicensed and the rest were closed. best regards, Pedro. Norbert
Re: What do we need to do in BZ after AOO 3.4 is released?
Am 05/01/2012 06:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt: On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 16:41, Rob Weir wrote: Today, among the 100 version strings the users need to scroll through in BZ, we have AOO340-dev. What do we want after we release AOO 3.4? Add AOO340? (Or just rename AOO340-dev to AOO340?) Renaming sounds good to me and all issues with AOO340-dev should be moved to AOO350-dev. Only some special issues that we propose and discuss for a 3.4.1 should get the AOO341-dev version Add AOO341-dev? +1 Add AOO450-dev? you mean AOO350-dev, correct? If yes then +1 Also, are there any products that can be removed or demoted to components under another product? What we have now is simpler than what we had with OOo, but it is still very complicated with a lot of dead wood at the top level. From JIRA I know the Affect Version and Fix Version fields which are used to describe where the problem was seen first and where it will be fixed. In BZ the Version field is used to describe in which version the issue happens. The follow webpage talks about a Target field: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/docs/en/html/bug_page.html 13. *Target: (a.k.a. Target Milestone) A future version by which the bug is to be fixed. e.g. The Bugzilla Project's milestones for future Bugzilla versions are 2.18, 2.20, 3.0, etc. Milestones are not restricted to numbers, thought - you can use any text strings, such as dates. It would be very helpful to organize and keep the overview about issues for specific versions in the future. So, could this field be enabled? Marcus We should upgrade BZ to the newest version where we get more flexibility to disable not longer used products, versions etc. And then we should cleanup the whole BZ. Juergen -Rob
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Michael, Michael ... On 05/01/12 11:38, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Rob, So what exactly LO has is license soup as far as I am concerned. The situation is reasonably simple currently; yet it is of course made un-necessarily difficult by IBM Oracle's insistence on choosing yet another project and license for some ill-defined subset of the available code; yet it will get unwound. Come on ... you can't blame us for your inability to work with mainstream OpenOffice since the early days of Go-OO :). Concerning the code and licensing issues you seem to have, I will explain it again in public: 1) Our development is pretty open and we have all the code available on-line but we are not (yet) an official Apache Project, and the PPMC doesn't have any authority to do a release. 2) The fact that the ASF has a SGA doesn't mean any code has been or will be relicensed. All the code has to be reviewed first and will be available as it is released by the ASF Project Incubator. 3) Just like everyone else you are invited to wait for the new release which we hope you will find useful for your own purposes. Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/**language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. Your very first suggestion would entail *really* major changes right now, so this is the LEAST of my favorite! That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. OK, I don't understand this last bit. Please again take a look at to the current setup on SourceForge: DL url/files/localized/language-code/3.4.0/packages It would simplify our rollout if we could just stick with the current structure on SourceForge. We will be using that as our primary DL mirror for clients. Marcus's alternate suggestion of : root-path/files/3.4.0/... root-path/files/3.4.1/... root-path/files/3.5.0/... seems like a good option to me as well, and you responded to this. But, the least amount of change -- i.e. keeping the structure we have -- is really the best at this point in terms of getting something done in a reasonable time. Maybe we could discuss alternatives for *after* 3.4 in the future? We are planning on a retool of the DL script after this, and incorporating easier ways to deal with changes like this are high on the priority list. Right now, we are planning on using SF for the majority of downloads -- typical clients -- and that structure -- good or bad -- is already in place, and the test DL script is working based on this. We will probably only use the Apache dist system for source. So, in terms of how you setup things there I don't really care, but, of course, we need information about that. As silly as this probably seems to you, could we PLEASE just stick with the current structure for now? But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means I will use the structure that will work for now. Juergen I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure. In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance. To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later for a release after 3.4.x. my 2 ct Marcus This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download webpages. For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload everything into a flat structure. To have every version, platform and language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the DL scripts. Currently we can assume that all platform files are in the same location. You would like to split them up into different this has to be taken into account. Plus the lanuages. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. To make it short (and maybe painful ;-) ). When you don't create the sam edirectory structure than for OOo 3.3.0, then I'm pretty sure the DL logic will not work. For the structure as reference please have a look here: http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/stable/3.3.0/ http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/localized/de/3.3.0/ So, when you will start the upload tomorrow, I think we are pretty close to our official release. IMHO too less time to rework the DL logic for a new structure. I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means I will use the structure that will work for now. Thanks. I really believe you that you want to improve the structure (e.g., I could think of the split into stable and localized, this is IMHO no longer needed and could be brought together) but we shouldn't change this now. Marcus I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure. In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance. To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later for a release after 3.4.x. my 2 ct Marcus This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote: ... or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. Of course we don't release CWSs at all, those would have to find their way into working code first. On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. I understand you have been cautious, http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html and that's really good. I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git). I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. We have no plan. For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are using in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you can help things go faster :). Pedro.
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download webpages. For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload everything into a flat structure. To have every version, platform and language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the DL scripts. One difference between how did it before now: On the Apache mirrors will only keep the most recent release. We don't keep the complete history of previous releases, not even the history of Apache releases. (Those go to archive.apache.org). So when we do a new release, we need to remove the old one from the Apache servers. So have versions as directory roots, instead of languages as roots, makes this a lot easier. Of course a script can do anything. Currently we can assume that all platform files are in the same location. You would like to split them up into different this has to be taken into account. Plus the lanuages. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. To make it short (and maybe painful ;-) ). When you don't create the sam edirectory structure than for OOo 3.3.0, then I'm pretty sure the DL logic will not work. For the structure as reference please have a look here: http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/stable/3.3.0/ http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/localized/de/3.3.0/ So, when you will start the upload tomorrow, I think we are pretty close to our official release. IMHO too less time to rework the DL logic for a new structure. I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. That means I will use the structure that will work for now. Thanks. I really believe you that you want to improve the structure (e.g., I could think of the split into stable and localized, this is IMHO no longer needed and could be brought together) but we
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:10, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/**language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. Your very first suggestion would entail *really* major changes right now, so this is the LEAST of my favorite! That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. OK, I don't understand this last bit. Well I gave a very clear example how I planned to organize the bits on dist based on a structure that came from Marcus . And this was slightly different than the former structure but closer to my proposal. And no clear veto or response so I took it as accepted. Please again take a look at to the current setup on SourceForge: DL url/files/localized/language-code/3.4.0/packages It would simplify our rollout if we could just stick with the current structure on SourceForge. We will be using that as our primary DL mirror for clients. We will do that but in general the dist folder should be our reference for all mirrors. Marcus's alternate suggestion of : root-path/files/3.4.0/... root-path/files/3.4.1/... root-path/files/3.5.0/... seems like a good option to me as well, and you responded to this. But, the least amount of change -- i.e. keeping the structure we have -- is really the best at this point in terms of getting something done in a reasonable time. Maybe we could discuss alternatives for *after* 3.4 in the future? We are planning on a retool of the DL script after this, and incorporating easier ways to deal with changes like this are high on the priority list. Right now, we are planning on using SF for the majority of downloads -- typical clients -- and that structure -- good or bad -- is already in place, and the test DL script is working based on this. taken and we will keep the old structure We will probably only use the Apache
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:11, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download webpages. For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload everything into a flat structure. I can't really see a flat structure in the old directory tree. One directory for each language etc. To have every version, platform and language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the DL scripts. My proposed structure used the version as start directory and than only split the platforms and the language packs but that can be dropped if it makes things easier. Then we would have a very flat structure. I really don't see here a technical problem to put the already collected items (platform, lang, version, mirror...) in the right order to prepare a download url. But anyway we will keep the old structure for now Juergen Currently we can assume that all platform files are in the same location. You would like to split them up into different this has to be taken into account. Plus the lanuages. All languages in the same directory only language packs goes in a sub directory. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. To make it short (and maybe painful ;-) ). When you don't create the sam edirectory structure than for OOo 3.3.0, then I'm pretty sure the DL logic will not work. For the structure as reference please have a look here:
Re: Volunteers needed: To update NL download pages later this week
On 04/30/2012 12:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: The following tasks are on the wiki and need owners: Manually update the downloads from the Arabic NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Czech NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the German NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Spanish NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the French NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Hungarian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Galacian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Italian NL homepage and subpages (pescetti) Manually update the downloads from the Japanese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Dutch NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Brazilian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Russian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Simplified Chinese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Traditional Chinese NL homepage https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks Only one of them has an owner (Thanks, Andrea!) What needs to be done? We need someone to review these NL pages and identify what needs to be changed to support the AOO 3..4 release. Changes to consider: 1) Branding changes (OpenOffice.org - Apache OpenOffice) 2) Updates to download location, for the 3.4 releases instead of the 3.3 release 3) References to the old LGPL license need to be changed to Apache 2.0 License 4) References to old NLC email addresses, marketing leads, etc., need to be replaced by the new Apache email lists. 5) Other similar changes. You don't need to do a complete rewrite of the pages. But we should refresh the page with information on the AOO 3.4 release. Timeline looks like this: -- Wednesday May 2nd -- Vote ends on approving the 3.4 release -- Thursday-Friday -- Update the mirrors with the release, test the new download websites. -- Over the weekend, additional website updates and testing -- Monday or Tuesday, if everything is working well, then we make public announcement I can't help with any of these but thank you VERY much for the timeline...hopefully good for many of us working away on back-end stuff. So ideally we would have the NL website updates done at the end of this week. However, we should not make them be live on the production server until after the mirrors are populated. Maybe easiest way to coordinate is to submit patches for the changes into BZ? Any other ideas? Any volunteers? -Rob -- MzK Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you And life has a funny way of helping you out Helping you out. -- Ironic, Alanis Morissette
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
Am 05/01/2012 10:27 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download webpages. For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload everything into a flat structure. To have every version, platform and language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the DL scripts. One difference between how did it before now: On the Apache mirrors will only keep the most recent release. We don't keep the complete history of previous releases, not even the history of Apache releases. That's how it worked (more or less) also in the old OOo project. There we had for every language and platform the most recent version and the older were moved to the archive. (Those go to archive.apache.org). So when we do a new release, we need to remove the old one from the Apache servers. So have versions Thats fine. as directory roots, instead of languages as roots, makes this a lot easier. Also this is fine. We can take this into account when we rework the DL logic to support a different directory structure. Of course a script can do anything. Of course, so please, no killer argumentS. ;-) Marcus Currently we can assume that all platform files are in the same location. You would like to split them up into different this has to be taken into account. Plus the lanuages. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will start the upload tomorrow. To make it short (and maybe painful ;-) ). When you don't create the sam edirectory structure than for OOo 3.3.0, then I'm pretty sure the DL logic will not work. For the structure as reference please have a look here: http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/stable/3.3.0/ http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/localized/de/3.3.0/ So, when you will start the upload tomorrow, I think we are pretty close to our official release. IMHO too less time to rework the DL logic for a new structure. I haven't looked in the details behind the
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
On 05/01/2012 01:58 PM, Juergen Schmidt wrote: On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:10, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/**language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. Your very first suggestion would entail *really* major changes right now, so this is the LEAST of my favorite! That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. And it will work for future releases as well. I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common consensus. OK, I don't understand this last bit. Well I gave a very clear example how I planned to organize the bits on dist based on a structure that came from Marcus . And this was slightly different than the former structure but closer to my proposal. And no clear veto or response so I took it as accepted. Please again take a look at to the current setup on SourceForge: DL url/files/localized/language-code/3.4.0/packages It would simplify our rollout if we could just stick with the current structure on SourceForge. We will be using that as our primary DL mirror for clients. We will do that but in general the dist folder should be our reference for all mirrors. hmmm...OK, I see what you're saying...someone is coordinating this with SourceForge I take it? Or...what needs to be done? A thousand THANK YOUs for leaving things as they are! Marcus's alternate suggestion of : root-path/files/3.4.0/... root-path/files/3.4.1/... root-path/files/3.5.0/... seems like a good option to me as well, and you responded to this. But, the least amount of change -- i.e. keeping the structure we have -- is really the best at this point in terms of getting something done in a reasonable time. Maybe we could discuss alternatives for *after* 3.4 in the future? We are planning on a retool of the DL script after this, and incorporating easier ways to deal with changes like this are high on the priority list. Right now, we are planning on using SF for the majority of downloads -- typical clients -- and that structure -- good or bad -- is already in place, and the test DL script is working based on this. taken and we will keep the old structure We will probably only use the Apache dist system for source. So, in terms of how you setup things there I don't really care, but, of course, we need information about that. well we
Re: What do we need to do in BZ after AOO 3.4 is released?
Hi Rob, Rob Weir schrieb: [..] Also, are there any products that can be removed or demoted to components under another product? What we have now is simpler than what we had with OOo, but it is still very complicated with a lot of dead wood at the top level. Yes, the list is far too large. Here some suggestions: specs -- obsolete We do not write specs any longer. native-lang -- obsolete The native-lang project had been needed to communicate and exchange files in native language in the beginning, when there had not been a Wiki. But now all native language community work can be done via Confluence Wiki. Some 'products' are only relevant for core developers. There were distinguished, because different developer groups had exist with a responsible 'leader' to whom the issues could be assigned. We have no longer such a structure. I suggest to bundle them in a new topic, might be called internal. Or move them to 'obsolete? framework gsl lingucomponent tools Some 'products' deal with programming, not in the core, but using the released product. I don't know a good word for this topic. It could bundle the parts: api scripting sdk vba Some 'products' where used from groups, who work on special topics. Here again, it is no longer necessary to communicate via Bugzilla. Perhaps we make an umbrella like special project? We can then watch, whether these categories are really used and if not, move them to 'obsolete' later. bibliographic education marketing performance qa stats ui wp trademark I'm not sure about the following: external (rename to 'build prerequisite' and put to 'internal'?) oopm ucb udk xml So the remaining items would be: *Testproduct* (rename to *test submitting* for not to confuse with dev-builds?) ??? (=api+scripting+sdk+vba) Chart Database access documentation Drawing extensions Formula editor Installation ??? internal (see above) l10n obsolete Presentation security Spreadsheet ???special projects (see above) Word processor www Kind regards Regina
Re: Volunteers needed: To update NL download pages later this week
On 1 May 2012 17:08, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: The following tasks are on the wiki and need owners: Manually update the downloads from the Arabic NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Czech NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the German NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Spanish NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the French NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Hungarian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Galacian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Italian NL homepage and subpages (pescetti) Manually update the downloads from the Japanese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Dutch NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Brazilian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Russian NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Simplified Chinese NL homepage Manually update the downloads from the Traditional Chinese NL homepage https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks Only one of them has an owner (Thanks, Andrea!) What needs to be done? We need someone to review these NL pages and identify what needs to be changed to support the AOO 3..4 release. Changes to consider: 1) Branding changes (OpenOffice.org - Apache OpenOffice) 2) Updates to download location, for the 3.4 releases instead of the 3.3 release 3) References to the old LGPL license need to be changed to Apache 2.0 License 4) References to old NLC email addresses, marketing leads, etc., need to be replaced by the new Apache email lists. 5) Other similar changes. You don't need to do a complete rewrite of the pages. But we should refresh the page with information on the AOO 3.4 release. Timeline looks like this: -- Wednesday May 2nd -- Vote ends on approving the 3.4 release -- Thursday-Friday -- Update the mirrors with the release, test the new download websites. -- Over the weekend, additional website updates and testing -- Monday or Tuesday, if everything is working well, then we make public announcement I can't help with any of these but thank you VERY much for the timeline...hopefully good for many of us working away on back-end stuff. So ideally we would have the NL website updates done at the end of this week. However, we should not make them be live on the production server until after the mirrors are populated. Maybe easiest way to coordinate is to submit patches for the changes into BZ? Any other ideas? Any volunteers? -Rob I can see what I can do. I speak or at least utterly destroy by trying to speak, a few of these languages (all but the really cool ones; those are Greek to me, and where is Greek?) But I also think it would be useful to use a BZ issue? Louis
Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist
Am 05/01/2012 11:09 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt: On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:11, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com �wrote: snip Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is setup in the old way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build client downloads. So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will they just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs -- i.e. root/files/stable/version/ pack name and root/files/localized/language/version/pack name I'm hoping the answer is YES. Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not something where it will be easier to clean up later. Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work. Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release. However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this way, too. As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I wouldn't do bigger changes now. Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a 3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful? The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big changes. For further releases see above. Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project, so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal. It seems the easiest way to go to me too. Roberto OK, I need some clarification here -- again. I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK, we just need some awareness. So -- can someone tell me what's what here. I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure in the beginning of this thread if it is possible. That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including the checksum files) for each downloadable file. Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download webpages. For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload everything into a flat structure. I can't really see a flat structure in the old directory tree. One directory for each language etc. OK, maybe it was not the right wording and my thinking not correct. So, your idea is the following: root path/ooo/version/source/... root path/ooo/version/platform/... root path/ooo/version/platform/languagepacks/... It seems there is not other ASF project with releases for specific platforms *and* languages (otherwise please point me to the project), so maybe we can stick with this and divide only into platform-specifc directories. Maybe we can agree on the following structure for a AOO 3.5 release? root path/dist/incubator/ooo/version/src/... root path/dist/incubator/ooo/version/bin/platform/... If necessary we can provide additional files as subdirs inside the version/ directory (e.g., documentation in docs/, hotfixes in patches/, etc.). And new releases as Beta or RC can be uploaded into a new and own version/ subdirectory. BTW: The checksum files are created for every file and checksum format separately, right? Do we have to store them together with the respective files? Or is it allowed to store them in a separate directory? To have every version, platform and language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the DL scripts. My proposed structure used the version as start directory and than only split the platforms and the language packs but that can be dropped if it makes things easier. Then we would have a very flat structure. I would prefer to have them together with the full builds. I really don't see here a technical problem to put the already collected items (platform, lang, version, mirror...) in the right order to prepare a download url. There is indeed no technical problem. It's only a problem to get there in time. ;-) But anyway we will keep the old structure for now Thanks again. :-) Marcus Currently we can assume that all platform files are in the same location. You would like to split them up into different this has to be taken into account. Plus the
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean In case it is not clear: this is the mad rush to do the final touches on the AOO 3.4 release. We're completing the vote, mapping out release directory structures, updating download scripts, doing final website translations, preparing blog posts and release announcements, etc. Anyone involved in the project is already working at 110% this week. So don't be demotivated if you don't get immediate feedback on your user guides. But next time maybe try to have these ready for review at the same time we're prepping the Release Candidate build. You're more likely to get cycles from project members then. -Rob I first brought this specific book project up on this list on 15 February, at which time there was a bit of discussion but no one came forth to actually do any work. I also brought it up at ODFAuthors, with similar lack of response. So I forged ahead on my own. On 4 April I asked for reviewers on both this list and ODFAuthors. I may be wrong, but I think that was before the RC prep cycle. My note at the start of this thread was as much to do with the lack of interest (at ODFAuthors as well as here) from people to work on preparing the drafts, as it was about lack of reviewers. The lack of techwriters could be due to any number of factors, but the nett result is as I mentioned in my first note on this thread. --Jean
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: The lack of interest in this book is quite conspicuous, and very demotivating for me to continue to work on it. I've put the updated draft chapters on the ODFAuthors website and will put the compiled draft book there soon. Then I'll go back to my travel photos and to the LibreOffice books. Someone can let me know if/when anything happens at AOO userdocs. Cheers, Jean In case it is not clear: this is the mad rush to do the final touches on the AOO 3.4 release. We're completing the vote, mapping out release directory structures, updating download scripts, doing final website translations, preparing blog posts and release announcements, etc. Anyone involved in the project is already working at 110% this week. So don't be demotivated if you don't get immediate feedback on your user guides. But next time maybe try to have these ready for review at the same time we're prepping the Release Candidate build. You're more likely to get cycles from project members then. -Rob I first brought this specific book project up on this list on 15 February, at which time there was a bit of discussion but no one came forth to actually do any work. I also brought it up at ODFAuthors, with similar lack of response. So I forged ahead on my own. On 4 April I asked for reviewers on both this list and ODFAuthors. I may be wrong, but I think that was before the RC prep cycle. My note at the start of this thread was as much to do with the lack of interest (at ODFAuthors as well as here) from people to work on preparing the drafts, as it was about lack of reviewers. The lack of techwriters could be due to any number of factors, but the nett result is as I mentioned in my first note on this thread. I think the trick is finding the right people, of connecting volunteers with volunteer opportunities. Realistically, if someone was really interested in tech writing, they probably would not be on this list. The traffic level and the topics covered would make this list nearly unbearable to someone unless they were interested in the project in general. I don't think it is necessarily lack of interest or lack of writers. It could just be a question of finding them. So instead of having posts lost in the ocean of ooo-dev, maybe we'd have better luck with: 1) Adding some specific ODF Authors call for volunteers info on our help wanted page; https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted 2) cc'ing ooo-users on a call for volunteers (or reviewers) post. (ooo-users is more power users than normal users) 3) Write a blog post on the project blog, explaining the documentation program you have in general, what you've accomplished and then explain how interested parties can get involved. We can promote that post via social networking sites and get thousands of views, This is probably your best bet. 4) In general, promote the idea of volunteering. For example, imagine something like this: Just in time for the release of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 we have refreshed content for the User Guides. Technical writers with the ODF Authors project have worked hard to create these updates, but we need to your help to review these new guides. Both technical and editorial reviews are valuable. This is a great opportunity for new volunteers on the project, since it assumes no previous knowledge about OpenOffice, and in fact you will learn a lot about it in the process! To volunteer, please join the following mailing list XX and introduce yourself. Our editors are standing by. See? Make it interesting, exciting and actionable. -Rob --Jean
Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction
Hi Joe, I now understand what needs to be done to use the aoo-closer.cgi as a webpage of our own design. For example: (1) Create create trunk/cgi-bin/aoo-download.cgi in the project or ooo-site using the aoo-mirrors.list. Use the MIRRORS_LIST env. (2) Create downloads/aoo.mdtext file by cribbing http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.mdtext. Use the SCRIPT_FILENAME env to set the path to this page in the content tree. aoo-download.cgi should look like this: #!/bin/sh export MIRRORS_LIST=as seen on a private email export SCRIPT_FILENAME=/openofficeorg/downloads.html exec /www/www.apache.org/dyn/mirrors/mirrors.cgi Is this correct? I'd get on the IRC, but I'm afraid I have more of a learning curve with that than I thought. Regards, Dave On Apr 30, 2012, at 8:30 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Kay- I've setup a new script for you to use for Openoffice downloads from Apache mirrors- simply replace closer.cgi with aoo-closer.cgi in your paths. Please don't forget this or users could be directed to mirrors which have opted out of carrying AOO releases. From: Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction Regina-- Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below... On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.dewrote: Hi, my test results are below, all on German WinXP Home, SP3. kind regards Regina Marcus (OOo) schrieb: Am 04/30/2012 11:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 04/30/2012 11:37 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 04/30/2012 04:53 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/27/2012 01:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.org wrote: Kay Schenk wrote: Please take a look at and give feedback on a test page for the new /download/index.html page at: http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/index_new_dl.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/index_new_dl.**html http://www.openoffice.**org/download/test/index_new_**dl.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html Yes, it's a bit strange with lots of nonsense at the top that I wanted you to see, but will of course go away in production. The page is nice, but it's the concept that leaves me dubious. We have another thread http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.**http://comments.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.apache.incubator.** ooo.devel/16219http://**comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.** apache.incubator.ooo.devel/**16219http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.ooo.devel/16219 where there seems to be consensus towards a solution that: 1) Uses SF (and possibly Apache) for the web-based downloads 2) Does not phase out MirrorBrain, and uses it for the updates (i.e., downloads initiated by OpenOffice with the Look for updates function) That's what I understand as well. oh -- OK. I thought we were going to use MirrorBrain for 3.3 DLs as well -- i.e. what Marcus will be working on. I know right now, we're using SourceForge for that though. The possibly Apache in 1) is due to the fact that I haven't understood yet what technology Apache will be using and if Apache will distribute only sources or binaries too (it's obvious that we as a project will release sources and binaries, but I'm not 100% sure that Apache wants to put binaries on its mirrors too: I think so). Well it's not all that complicated actually. Take a look at the security patch info page... http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/**security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.**html http://www.openoffice.**org/security/cves/CVE-2012-**0037.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.html and you can see what the link looks like. Actual source/binaries are, for us, put in: http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/ http://www.**apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/ ** This said, you could be right in having issues tracking down problems. Right now, the SF setup is more user friendly in my opinion. I thought we were *required* to use Apache for downloads, but maybe we've gotten a dispensation for this release. Though I didn't think is was 100% someplace else. I admit I haven't kept up as much as I should have though. The other issue is how will it LOOK to users -- one moment they may be one place; if they happen to do a shift-reload, they may go someplace else with an entirely different look and feel. Fact is, we should avoid the random selection as much as possible, mainly to be able to quickly identify problems,
Re: Getting Started with AOO book
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I think the trick is finding the right people, of connecting volunteers with volunteer opportunities. Realistically, if someone was really interested in tech writing, they probably would not be on this list. The traffic level and the topics covered would make this list nearly unbearable to someone unless they were interested in the project in general. I don't think it is necessarily lack of interest or lack of writers. It could just be a question of finding them. So instead of having posts lost in the ocean of ooo-dev, maybe we'd have better luck with: 1) Adding some specific ODF Authors call for volunteers info on our help wanted page; https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted I'm actually surprised that you are suggesting calling for techwriters to join ODFAuthors instead of trying to get them involved with official Apache-licensed user docs. I'm not objecting, mind you, but I am surprised. 2) cc'ing ooo-users on a call for volunteers (or reviewers) post. (ooo-users is more power users than normal users) 3) Write a blog post on the project blog, explaining the documentation program you have in general, what you've accomplished and then explain how interested parties can get involved. We can promote that post via social networking sites and get thousands of views, This is probably your best bet. We don't actually have a documentation program at this point. All the official stuff is still under discussion as to which way to go, what to do, where to do it. 4) In general, promote the idea of volunteering. For example, imagine something like this: Just in time for the release of Apache OpenOffice 3.4 we have refreshed content for the User Guides. Technical writers with the ODF Authors project have worked hard to create these updates, but we need to your help to review these new guides. Both technical and editorial reviews are valuable. This is a great opportunity for new volunteers on the project, since it assumes no previous knowledge about OpenOffice, and in fact you will learn a lot about it in the process! To volunteer, please join the following mailing list XX and introduce yourself. Our editors are standing by. See? Make it interesting, exciting and actionable. Over the years I've done quite a bit of that type of recruitment. My experience is that such efforts mostly bring forth a collection of wannabe writers who waste enormous amounts of my time and produce nothing useful, and reviewers who nitpick but don't notice actual errors in content. The few productive members of the ODFAuthors team appear to have come on their own, and those few make great contributions. For the various reasons mentioned above, I personally am not motivated to do any of the sort of recruitment you suggest at this time. If someone else wants to do so, that's fine. I totally agree with your comment in the first paragraph about techwriters probably not being on this list. I think we need a separate list. But every time the topic has come up, it's been lost in the wait until the traffic gets high enough and then we'll consider a separate list syndrome (not specifically about a docs list). No, I'm not going to attempt to look up when I brought up the subject. --Jean
Re: [Spi-private] OpenOffice funds
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM, MJ Ray m...@debian.org wrote: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com I'm jumping in and speaking as a mentor of AOO and ASF VP of Community Development. Thanks - and just to be clear, I'm only speaking as an ordinary contributing member of SPI, who felt a responsibility to ask what I felt were obvious questions. So, I can't see any of these emails: [...] For more information on this please see the mail sent by Wolf Halton to treasu...@spi-inc.org on 19 March 2012 (subject monies collected for OpenOffice.org) and copied to bo...@spi-inc.org by Michael Schultheiss on the same day. [...] as - for reasons which I think I know and agree with - those mailboxes are not visible to all members. Thanks for quoting parts of it, but it's enough to learn that assurances have been sent. I trust the board to judge whether they feel that they are sufficient to ensure that SPI-held funds are used honestly, as described at the time they were raised. Thanks also for explaining the absence from the projects listing. (I am, of course, saddened to see an association-supported project now apparently forked into two(?) foundation-supported projects, because open and voluntary membership and equality are important to me, but I'm just odd like that.) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ Thanks for getting the funds released. Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Re: AOO nears graduation
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: I just published a piece on ComputerWorld titled Is OpenOffice.org an Apache project yet? [1] In this piece I examine what the common behaviours found in a typical Apache Top Level Project are and comment on how AOO is performing in these respects. When reading this peice you must bear in mind that I am only one mentor and others might have different opinions. Nevertheless, I'm sufficiently confident in my position on this to state them publicly. Well done AOO Ross [1] http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/apache-asserts/2012/04/is-openofficeorg-an-apache-project-yet/index.htm -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com Thanks for the nice write-up, Ross. Your multi-project experience in The Apache Way and all the mentors' demonstration of that has made the transition easier for all of us. Wolf -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Assisting Libraries in Assessing Open-Source Software - http://foss4lib.org Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Re: After AOO 3.4?
From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon for all tester in this project. Thanks Best Regards, Yan Ji On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm able to speak confidently about a few things: 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning Beyond that, do we have anything to say? I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would: A) Add some additional translations B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4 C) Uncertain if it would have new features? What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6 weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out, plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing. Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release? -Rob
Re: After AOO 3.4?
In addition, QA site is too old and need updated. 2012/5/2 Yan Ji yanji...@gmail.com: From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon for all tester in this project. Thanks Best Regards, Yan Ji On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm able to speak confidently about a few things: 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning Beyond that, do we have anything to say? I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would: A) Add some additional translations B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4 C) Uncertain if it would have new features? What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6 weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out, plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing. Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release? -Rob -- Best Regards From aliu...@gmail.com
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: ... For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? I committed it so I will answer what is my personal position on this. The patches were submitted to Oracle which provided the bugzilla dump to us. At the time the patches were committed, the codebase was under LGPLv3. The license for the code headers were later changed by Oracle in hands of Andrew Rist. Nice ex-post facto rationalization... so lets take r1226336 where you pushed code that was not yours _after_ the AL2 re-license of the base by Andrew... In any case, the point is that Rob's claim that My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. does not seems to be enforced in practice. As for review... I have yet to see any questions from reviewers, mentors or ppmc members, to clarify the provenances of these sort of patches nor the licensing ground behind them. In all this process, people that have submitted patches were notified through bugzilla that we were integrating the code and one person even went ahead and requested his patch were reverted (and I did it despite considering the patch was not copyrightable). yeah that was r1195527 - which met Rob's 10 lines threshold - and yet he did not veto it. in fact it only got reverted (r1198909) because the author noticed and complained. So the process is to add code, and wait for the original author to complain... if he doesn't complain before the release, then it is deemed to have met the rigorous IP scrutiny that Rob tout ? Norbert PS: the specific svn revisions here are not the central point, the point is the lack of any discussion/scrutiny on any of these followed by the self-fulfilling prophecy: To be released the code must be clean. Releasing imply a detailed IP review (RAT was run), so surely if the release was approved by a vote then the release _is_ IP clean, and therefore if it is released then it is clean. Rob's 'holier than thou' public attitude on the topic remind me of the old saying: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Re: Introduces
Welcome Luiz, Great timing. AOO3.4 is almost complete and planning is starting for upcoming releases. For my part, I've recently joined the project and will be focusing on the user experience design and product direction. Your experience and background could be of huge assistance to the UX effort moving forward. Product design is a multidisciplinary activity, and your skills and experience are really impressive. I want to transform the AOO design approach to be more oriented around people, versus technology. I want to focus the strategic planning and design direction less on features, and more on how people use AOO in the context of their lives - multi-device, cloud and social and more... Your journalism background, and familiarity with how people use AOO could really help us tell stories that describe how people will continue to use AOO in a way that compliment their lives, where the technology is complimentary to the things they like to get done. Such stories are a great tool to communicate the product vision internally, and can also be used to validate design direction direction with end users I'll be looking to re-invigorate the UX sub-community moving forward. We'd love to have your support. Thoughts? Best regards, Kevin On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:36 AM, luizheli luizh...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am Luiz Oliveira, a journalistfrom Brazil. I led for a time the nationwide BrOffice users group. At the time we still had a magazine[1] created to give tips on the use of OpenOffice.org suite / BrOffice, designed by my friend Claudio Filho. I helped organize some editions of the National BrOffice event held via videoconference with the participation of up to 04 countries, along with other comrades here in Brazil. I believe in the Apache OpenOffice project and want to contribute to more Brazilians know it. [1] http://wiki.broffice.org/raw-attachment/wiki/Zine/Edicoes/RB-ED017.pdf?format=raw rgds, Luiz Oliveira
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Hello All, From a UX perspective, we need a story about how people use our product in the context of their lives. Features lists are good for planning, but alone aren't enough to understand how we will deliver a compelling offering that helps people do the stuff they want to get done. Who are our target users, what is the value we offer each? Thoughts? Kevin On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Zhe Liu aliu...@gmail.com wrote: In addition, QA site is too old and need updated. 2012/5/2 Yan Ji yanji...@gmail.com: From QA perspective, I think we need to build up the QA project and process asap. Automation framework and test tool should be available soon for all tester in this project. Thanks Best Regards, Yan Ji On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:32 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I'm already starting to get questions on what we'll be doing after AOO 3.4 is released. Based on previous conversations on this list, I'm able to speak confidently about a few things: 1) We'll probably graduate to a Top Level Project 2) IBM says they will contribute Symphony source code after 3.4 is released 3) We have some initial feature ideas for AOO 4.0 on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning 4) We also have some ideas listed for an AOO 4.1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Feature+Planning Beyond that, do we have anything to say? I've heard some discussions that we might want an AOO 3.4.1, which would: A) Add some additional translations B) Fix any important bugs that are found in AOO 3.4 C) Uncertain if it would have new features? What time frame would this be? It seems like it takes around 4-6 weeks to iterate on dev builds, do regression testing, cut a Release Candidate, have a two-stage release vote and get the new build distributed. So it seems it would need to be at least that far out, plus whatever time it takes to do the translations and bug fixing. Does anyone want to start a wiki page for AOO 3.4.1 and start collecting proposed translations and bugs for that release? -Rob -- Best Regards From aliu...@gmail.com
[USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN] - Story tellers wanted
Do you like to write and tell stories? Do you want to bring an Apple-like approach to designing our products? AOO UX could use your support. To better understand how people integrate our product into their lives, the UX sub-community is looking to author a series of stories and usage scenarios. The goal is to understand how people use AOO, and how they want it to compliment their physical and virtual realities. Thoughts? Interested?
Re: [USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN] - Story tellers wanted
Kevin, On 1 May 2012 23:11, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com wrote: Do you like to write and tell stories? Do you want to bring an Apple-like approach to designing our products? AOO UX could use your support. To better understand how people integrate our product into their lives, the UX sub-community is looking to author a series of stories and usage scenarios. The goal is to understand how people use AOO, and how they want it to compliment their physical and virtual realities. I am curious and interested in learning how the new UX project relates to Inclusive Design (aka accessibility) paradigms. Thanks Louis Thoughts? Interested?
Re: [USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN] - Story tellers wanted
Hi Kevin, This is an interesting topic. I am keen to write stories on using AOO for work. Could you provide more details? Cheers Minsk On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts lsuarezpo...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin, On 1 May 2012 23:11, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com wrote: Do you like to write and tell stories? Do you want to bring an Apple-like approach to designing our products? AOO UX could use your support. To better understand how people integrate our product into their lives, the UX sub-community is looking to author a series of stories and usage scenarios. The goal is to understand how people use AOO, and how they want it to compliment their physical and virtual realities. I am curious and interested in learning how the new UX project relates to Inclusive Design (aka accessibility) paradigms. Thanks Louis Thoughts? Interested?
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On 05/01/12 21:42, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: ... For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need to meet a high bar to get into the code. My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ? I committed it so I will answer what is my personal position on this. The patches were submitted to Oracle which provided the bugzilla dump to us. At the time the patches were committed, the codebase was under LGPLv3. The license for the code headers were later changed by Oracle in hands of Andrew Rist. Nice ex-post facto rationalization... so lets take r1226336 where you pushed code that was not yours _after_ the AL2 re-license of the base by Andrew... I am really flattered that you have followed my commits so carefully, no matter the reasons ;). In the case of r1226336 I replicated for FreeBSD a change for linux that was already committed before the move to ASF. The author of the code was, a SUN/Oracle employee so I don't see how he would've complained, but much more relevant for licensing purposes, the code was already under AL2. The issue number was noted only for reference / background information. In any case, the point is that Rob's claim that My default posture would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an iCLA. does not seems to be enforced in practice. I don't speak for Rob. I personally would argue against his specific 10 line limit and focus more about the quality of the contribution if the argument comes to be. I do think iCLAs are really about community building than enforcing laws although I do recognize one needs rules at some point. PS: the specific svn revisions here are not the central point, the point is the lack of any discussion/scrutiny on any of these followed by the self-fulfilling prophecy: To be released the code must be clean. Releasing imply a detailed IP review (RAT was run), so surely if the release was approved by a vote then the release _is_ IP clean, and therefore if it is released then it is clean. I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle and all the code, and I mean *all* of it, has been carefully audited in ways that no OpenOffice derivative has done before. Pedro.
Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle That is not what was said in the ooo-dev list http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3CCAKQbXgCF0b8qtXkF1C_Yryx=EXfww4gX=-+vfkv15k_nnme...@mail.gmail.com%3E clearly your assumption that the SGA extend to everything that one can put his hands on does not seems supported by the document itself. At the very least there are serious doubt as to the extent the SGA cover CWSs and/or random patch from bugzilla that had not been integrated into the project prior to the grant. But to my point: there are questions about the extent of the scope of the SGA, question that have been brushed-off with a 'let's cross-that-bridge-when-we-get-there' to avoid addressing the complex 'general statement'. Fine, but thn one would expect the actual applied instance of this general problem to be at least discussed and resolved with the copyright owner(s) no such things occurred, at least not on publicly accessible mailing-list. Norbert
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1 has concluded. The ballot passed. VOTE TALLY +1: IPMC members: +1 Marvin Humphrey +1 Dave Fisher +1 Jim Jagielski For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E Thank you for your support Juergen
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
congratulations! 2012/5/2 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1 has concluded. The ballot passed. VOTE TALLY +1: IPMC members: +1 Marvin Humphrey +1 Dave Fisher +1 Jim Jagielski For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-** dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.**9000707%40googlemail.com%3Ehttp://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E Thank you for your support Juergen
Re: After AOO 3.4?
Agree with having a maintenance branch for traslation and critical bug fix. It is time to unlock the code base to allow contributors to submit improvments for later release. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: 1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver quick-turnaround releases. ... 2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. Almost anything can go into them. ... 3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. These are similar to #2, only more substantial. Was there a similar distinction made in OOo? Yes, quite similar. For sure here we would need a 3.4.x branch for incremental updates (bugfixes only) and one for 4.0 (with a major focus on specific new features, say, user interface and usability). The need for other releases like 3.5, 3.6... will depend on how long it takes to reach 4.0. If I recall correctly, OpenOffice.org used to maintain one stable branch (bugfixes only, explicitly backported from trunk) and one main development trunk. Regards, Andrea.
Re: After AOO 3.4?
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: On 04/29/12 23:55, Juergen Schmidt wrote: ... I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0. It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo, so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short lived. (I don't know for sure though). One thing here that I should've mentioned is that it's rather inconvenient that we will not have the symphony history. It would've made it much easier to merge features. This can be discussed when the code is available. I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk and are later merged. I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on the related stable branch and also merged into trunk. Well, developing an OS is different than developing an Office Suite but direct commits to the stable branch in my favorite OSS project are prohibited except for specific cases (like if the code disappeared from trunk already) for good reasons. For one thing we are many committers and it's easy to lose track if the change was merged to the trunk so it is a good policy to ensure consistency in the different versions. It also keeps the SVN merge properties consistent. I am by no means a SVN expert but it's likely that using svn merge, instead of svn commit in branches is the recommended practice. Just my $0.02, Pedro.
