subject:"\[libreoffice\-users\] Re\: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same."

And now someone has jumped on my bug and changed my reporting so that it shows 
that it is only in 3.3 - that's the last straw. I will not have anything 
further to do with bug reporting. All those fine devs can choke on their bloody 
buggy product. Congratulations! You have alienated yet another volunteer.



On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Hi :)
 Interesting thought and a good diagram, thanks :)  
 
 Something i have wondered for a while is how to utilise what this particular 
 list has to offer, perhaps confirming bug-reports could be partially done 
 through this list?
 
 Occasionally someone new on this list expresses an interest in getting more 
 involved or somehow repaying the community.  Also this list is quite good at 
 eventually pinning-down exactly what an initial question was probably really 
 asking.  
 
 People here generally don't have much time or experience but might be willing 
 to push a couple of buttons to see if something really doesn't work, 
 especially if it's not risky.  
 
 Could we have a weekly report listing  unconfirmed bug-reports generated 
 during the week?  Would it be easier to have a link that listed all the 
 'thousands' of unconfirmed bug-reports?  Is it thousands or (as i suspect) 
 much much lower?  
 
 Ideally it would be great to have devs doing development rather than devs 
 spending time trying to work at customer-relations and guessing at what 
 people meant by certain bug-reports.  
 
 Just my 2pence-worth
 Regards from
 Tom :)  
 
 
 --- On Thu, 16/8/12, Andrew Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com wrote:
 
 From: Andrew Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com
 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply 
 unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.
 To: users@global.libreoffice.org
 Date: Thursday, 16 August, 2012, 1:16
 
 On 8/15/2012 3:20 PM, Marc Grober wrote:
 On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
 Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it
 matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  -
 I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
 to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
 that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
 was closed.
 
 In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
 reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go
 from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then
 in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
 have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's
 a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those
 questions will answer the question which one needs fixing?  If the
 process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
 status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
 wrote.
 
 Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
 in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
 state above.
 I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
 is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
 
 That diagram is in fact interesting.  Based on that diagram (which may or may 
 not be utilized by the LO team), then the process followed by the LO team is 
 in error.  They've chosen to dump unconfirmed bugs back on the user 
 community, instead of confirming the bugs themselves.  I can understand why 
 they've done it, the work is probably overwhelming and they're volunteers so 
 they've chosen to let each individual user/bug submitter either resubmit or 
 assume resolved status.  Not a bad choice from their point of view, it's the 
 path of least work for them.  It makes sense from that viewpoint.  The proper 
 way to do it would have been to check each bug themselves as normally would 
 be done prior to a production release.  They took the practical, expedient 
 approach instead and I don't think you can fault them for doing so.
 
 
 With respect to LO bugs,  it is still unclear what the various stages of
 the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
 the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot confirm a bug.
 
 Nor should you be able to confirm a bug.  And that of course is where the 
 model (or process) is broken, since as I mentioned above they've dumped the 
 testing back on the user - with decent reasoning - but it still breaks the 
 model as provided by the diagram.  So yes, somebody on the developer's side 
 needs to make some decisions as to how best to fix the model and/or process.  
 Personally I don't see a problem with their decision to dump the bugs back on 
 the user considering they themselves are volunteers, but somewhere somehow 
 the status needs to change from NEEDINFO to NEW (which is not provided for in 
 the model so clearly things

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-16 Thread Tom Davies

Gr, can't you just change it back?  

Don't go!  If you do you will be missed!  
Regards from
Tom :)




--- On Thu, 16/8/12, Marc Grober m...@interak.com wrote:

From: Marc Grober m...@interak.com
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply 
unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.
To: Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org users@global.libreoffice.org, Andrew 
Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com
Date: Thursday, 16 August, 2012, 16:01

And now someone has jumped on my bug and changed my reporting so that it shows 
that it is only in 3.3 - that's the last straw. I will not have anything 
further to do with bug reporting. All those fine devs can choke on their bloody 
buggy product. Congratulations! You have alienated yet another volunteer.



On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Hi :)
 Interesting thought and a good diagram, thanks :)  
 
 Something i have wondered for a while is how to utilise what this particular 
 list has to offer, perhaps confirming bug-reports could be partially done 
 through this list?
 
 Occasionally someone new on this list expresses an interest in getting more 
 involved or somehow repaying the community.  Also this list is quite good at 
 eventually pinning-down exactly what an initial question was probably really 
 asking.  
 
 People here generally don't have much time or experience but might be willing 
 to push a couple of buttons to see if something really doesn't work, 
 especially if it's not risky.  
 
 Could we have a weekly report listing  unconfirmed bug-reports generated 
 during the week?  Would it be easier to have a link that listed all the 
 'thousands' of unconfirmed bug-reports?  Is it thousands or (as i suspect) 
 much much lower?  
 
 Ideally it would be great to have devs doing development rather than devs 
 spending time trying to work at customer-relations and guessing at what 
 people meant by certain bug-reports.  
 
 Just my 2pence-worth
 Regards from
 Tom :)  
 
 
 --- On Thu, 16/8/12, Andrew Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com wrote:
 
 From: Andrew Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com
 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply 
 unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.
 To: users@global.libreoffice.org
 Date: Thursday, 16 August, 2012, 1:16
 
 On 8/15/2012 3:20 PM, Marc Grober wrote:
 On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
 Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it
 matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  -
 I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
 to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
 that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
 was closed.
 
 In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
 reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go
 from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then
 in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
 have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's
 a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those
 questions will answer the question which one needs fixing?  If the
 process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
 status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
 wrote.
 
 Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
 in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
 state above.
 I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
 is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
 
 That diagram is in fact interesting.  Based on that diagram (which may or may 
 not be utilized by the LO team), then the process followed by the LO team is 
 in error.  They've chosen to dump unconfirmed bugs back on the user 
 community, instead of confirming the bugs themselves.  I can understand why 
 they've done it, the work is probably overwhelming and they're volunteers so 
 they've chosen to let each individual user/bug submitter either resubmit or 
 assume resolved status.  Not a bad choice from their point of view, it's the 
 path of least work for them.  It makes sense from that viewpoint.  The proper 
 way to do it would have been to check each bug themselves as normally would 
 be done prior to a production release.  They took the practical, expedient 
 approach instead and I don't think you can fault them for doing so.
 
 
 With respect to LO bugs,  it is still unclear what the various stages of
 the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
 the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot confirm a bug.
 
 Nor should you be able to confirm a bug.  And that of course is where the 
 model (or process) is broken, since as I mentioned above

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

On 8/16/12 7:07 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
 Gr, can't you just change it back? 

rant

That is not the point, Tom.

This bug was only really a matter of a file having been dropped. But the
devs have spent more time fiddling with how it is listed than if they
had just added the missing file. More importantly, the most recent
change was apparently made because in trying to reopen the bug I failed
to do things the way they want them done,  though there is no
documentation of how that is supposed to work.

Specifically, the documentation states:
Version: The Version field is usually used for versions of a product
which have been released, and is set to indicate which versions of a
Component have the particular problem the bug report is about.

In many bug systems that means the reporter can in fact select all the
versions in which the errors appears,  but this product does not allow
that.  So what is one to do? Especially where a bug has been closed.  I
reopened and set the version to the most recent version in which I
observed the bug. I thought this would be reasonable especially in as
much as the history reflects the initial appearance of the bug. So then
a dev steps in and changes the version, stating, 'Version' is most old
version where bug is reproducible. Not current version. Changing to
3.3.1 back

I DID then change it back to 3.5.2 and commented that devs should spend
time writing tracker context help instead of fiddling with bugs that
were never going to be fixed.  My response IS NOT productive (as was
initially noted in this list, lol) but isn't it so much fun to be
passive aggressive?

 Don't go!  If you do you will be missed! 

Thanks for that (and I did get a chuckle from Marc Paré's reference to
the wiki provisions on top vs bottom posting, lol) but life is too short
to piss into the wind.  It is one thing to work collaboratively with
people who see things differently, another to labor in the dark with no
one listening - did you see any comment from any dev on THIS list
apologizing to users, acknowledging issues, etc? Maybe if we start a
discussion about whether paragraphs are appropriate in list posts we
could attract some attention?

I don't know that I am going anywhere.  but I am certainly not
interested in putting in time to run down bugs if this is how users are
treated.

/rant

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-16 Thread Michael Meeks

Hi Marc,

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 08:23 -0800, Marc Grober wrote:
 But the devs have spent more time fiddling with how it is listed 

One thing that frustrates me, since I've only just subscribed is that
we seem to be talking about a load of bugs with no numbers I can easily
lookup.

I'd greatly appreciate it if some kind soul could scrape the thread in
their mailbox for a list of bug links to the most significant issues and
aggregate them in a single mail - so I can go and triage them.

 did you see any comment from any dev on THIS list apologizing to
 users, acknowledging issues, etc. ?

I just subscribed ;-) [ for some reason my original subscription
bounced ]; if an apology is missing here it is:

Sorry !

The aim is not to annoy users, but to close a large number of old bugs
with (apparently) no response to them, that may have been mis-classified
in the past, due to random technical reasons (around not being able to
set bugs back to the UNCONFIRMED state) that will not affect new bugs.

We don't want to upset people. Having said that - I'm reasonably
optimistic that people watching bugs that have had 4x duplicate messages
(an unfortunate mistake) closing them will notice ;-) and re-open any
bugs that they care about - at least that is my hope; so it's not the
end of the world.

It should be noted, that doing this sort of mass-close is a response to
having a QA team which has no time to do a massive manual triage of each
of these old / indeterminate issues to see if they are already fixed /
obsolete etc.

There is a fairly easy solution here though - for all those who
complain about the consequences of the problem to get stuck into helping
out with triage / reproducing and confirming bugs etc.

Of course, suddenly reminding a load of people that their bug is still
not fixed generates some angst - but bugs don't magically fix themselves
over time, it takes real work :-)

Apologies,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

The latest from Florian in misspelled CAPS (which now brings us to the
fact that the devs have touched this bug some 8 times without ever
bothering to actually read it) - Bravo Florian, we read you 5 by 5:


https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35361
Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|reisi...@gmail.com  |
Version|3.5.2 release   |3.3.1 release

--- Comment #41 from Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com 2012-08-16
16:12:33 UTC ---
PLEASE LEAVE IT AT THE OLDEST REPRODUCABLE VERSION - Thanks


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

And here is the best bit:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35361
--- Comment #42 from Björn Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com
2012-08-16 16:58:22 UTC ---
@Marc:
Seeing you boasting here:

http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Excuse-me-but-your-opinion-is-simply-unimportant-Start-over-and-you-can-expect-more-of-the-same-tp4001269p4001858.html

that you knew you are creating extra work for the volunteers on the QA
team with intend is really disgusting given the workload of this team.

Also note that the version is clearly documented to be _first_ version
showing the bug:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA-FAQ

Even if it wasnt documented: If you take a moment to think about this,
there is also no other way the version field can be used: If the bug is
not present in the latest release the bug is closed anyway. If the bug
is present in the latest release, the bug is open and and the only
relevant information is: since when?

Please refain from continuing with abusive behaviour like the one you
are boasting about. I dont think repeating such behaviour is going to be
tolerated.

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

I put the bug back into Resolved-Invalid status.
Done. Excuse me while I go abuse myself :-)

On 8/16/12 9:03 AM, Marc Grober wrote:
 And here is the best bit:
 
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35361
 --- Comment #42 from Björn Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com
 2012-08-16 16:58:22 UTC ---
 @Marc:
 Seeing you boasting here:
 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Excuse-me-but-your-opinion-is-simply-unimportant-Start-over-and-you-can-expect-more-of-the-same-tp4001269p4001858.html
 
 that you knew you are creating extra work for the volunteers on the QA
 team with intend is really disgusting given the workload of this team.
 
 Also note that the version is clearly documented to be _first_ version
 showing the bug:
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA-FAQ
 
 Even if it wasnt documented: If you take a moment to think about this,
 there is also no other way the version field can be used: If the bug is
 not present in the latest release the bug is closed anyway. If the bug
 is present in the latest release, the bug is open and and the only
 relevant information is: since when?
 
 Please refain from continuing with abusive behaviour like the one you
 are boasting about. I dont think repeating such behaviour is going to be
 tolerated.
 


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread Thomas Taylor

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:13:01 +0200
Andreas Säger ville...@t-online.de wrote:

 Am 14.08.2012 20:48, Marc Grober wrote:
 
  This (see the quote below) is simply unacceptable. In fact, with
  respect to the bug on which I received this little gem quite a few
  people had been at pains to clearly identify the problem and the
  potential solution, and neither having changed at all, there had
  been no changes to the bug report save angry responses everytime
  someone tried to close it because it had not been updated. What is
  Florian really saying?  It would appear to be either that the
  product is SO buggy we have decided to ignore all the bug
  reports OR that users are S stupid that we are going to ignore
  all bug reports  Thank you, Florian, for the vote of confidence.
 
 
 +1
 
 Today I got 16 such mails.
 
 LibreOffice is out of control. Everybody is free to fix things that
 are not broken. Like the supporters on this list, the QA testers do
 not know the software, let alone any new features added without 
 specification nor investigation on side effects. Some of the QA
 people are not even able to run a macro to check out an issue.
 
 I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1 which
 works as expected with all the features I need.
 
 
 
 

Hi Andreas,
I am not trying to be critical but for the last 2-3 releases no email
message was received about NEED INFO.  That had been done in earlier
releases.  Is there a malfunction in the bug reporting system?  My
programming days are many years behind but it seems to me an automated
tracking system should send a message to the reporter when additional
information is needed.  Then if a response is not received within a
specified time-frame the report could be downgraded or closed.

Thanks, Tom

-- 
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the
world remains and is immortal.”  Albert Pine
--
Tom Taylor - retired penguin
AMD Phenom II x4 955 -- 4GB RAM -- 2x1.5TB sata2
openSUSE 12.1x86_64openSUSE 12.2x86_64
KDE 4.7.2, FF 7.0  KDE 4.8.4, FF 13.0
claws-mail 3.8.0
registered linux user 263467
linxt-At-comcast-DoT-net

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 15.08.2012 08:03, Thomas Taylor wrote:


Hi Andreas,
I am not trying to be critical but for the last 2-3 releases no email
message was received about NEED INFO.  That had been done in earlier
releases.  Is there a malfunction in the bug reporting system?  My
programming days are many years behind but it seems to me an automated
tracking system should send a message to the reporter when additional
information is needed.  Then if a response is not received within a
specified time-frame the report could be downgraded or closed.

Thanks, Tom



Sorry, I have no idea how to make my bug reports any clearer. Only on 
very rare occasions I've had this kind of problem with the 
OpenOffice.org QA.
One of my NEEDINFO issues has been fixed after I added a document for a 
most obvious bug (most obvous means: apply built-in feature with 
options and see).

Some other guy could not copy and run a Basic snippet (facepalm).
I recognize that some other bug is intended (implicit conversion of 
ambiguous strings).
I recognize that *any* new feature from anybody is embraced even when it 
comes without documentation, without API, without reason, let alone 
specification.
I recognize that there are plenty of resources for proprietary file 
formats and unapproachable VBA compatibility.


This software is like a sandheap where some people pile up more material 
while others inject water. To the outside world everything looks great 
so far ...




--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread V Stuart Foote

Marc Grober wrote

First, I may be inconsequential, but I did not see any apology.
Perhaps it only went out on the dev list.

Yes the apology was issued over on the Dev and QA lists--inserted below.
But we folks on the QA and User side do have a responsibility to follow our
bugs when posted, and to participate when calls for NEEDINFO are issued. And
also, that when bugs are closed we reopen them with careful attention to the
information needed to fully describe the bug and the quality of detail the
Devs will needs to resolve.

Otherwise, let's move on folks!

Stuart

Joel Madero (to the Devs and QA lists) wrote

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:33:49 -0700
From: Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
Subject: Bug Closing Automation - Apology

Hi All,

First off, sorry that I'm starting a new thread, I'm not sure how to
reply to something from the digest in gmail.

A couple days ago there was a very brief discussion about NEEDINFO and
that it wasn't very useful to have the NEEDINFO status sit for weeks or
months on end if the users weren't responding to our requests for more
information. I jumped the gun and asked if there was a way to automate
closing these bugs if they were open for some period of time, another user
volunteered to do this and went ahead and did it. I take full
responsibility for the ill feelings, I should have waited longer for more
input and thought about it more clearly before requesting if someone had
the ability to automatically close these bugs. It has pissed off quite a
few people, I take the blame, please direct your irritation my way and not
at Florian or any other member of the QA team.

Best wishes to everyone,

Joel

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Excuse-me-but-your-opinion-is-simply-unimportant-Start-over-and-you-can-expect-more-of-the-same-tp4001269p4001571.html
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread Andreas Säger


Am 15.08.2012 20:05, leif wrote:


https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39523

The bug has never been commented by humans and all later activity was
automated (except the once from my hand).



The perfect example for what went wrong here. Someone tagged it blindly 
as NEEDINFO although the request for improvement is perfectly clear 
even for me who never used Impress for anything but viewing.
I open an Impress window, call 2 built-in menu commands and I do not 
need any more info.



--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

Ditto on mine.  this was just mindless



On 8/15/12 10:50 AM, Andreas Säger wrote:
 Am 15.08.2012 20:05, leif wrote:

 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39523

 The bug has never been commented by humans and all later activity was
 automated (except the once from my hand).

 
 The perfect example for what went wrong here. Someone tagged it blindly
 as NEEDINFO although the request for improvement is perfectly clear
 even for me who never used Impress for anything but viewing.
 I open an Impress window, call 2 built-in menu commands and I do not
 need any more info.
 
 


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.



I was curious as to what the commotion on this subject was so I looked 
at the bug submitted wherein I found the automated message:


   Björn Michaelsen 2011-12-23 12:27:51 UTC
   [This is an automated message.]
   This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
   started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed.
   The bug is
   changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from
   NEEDINFO back
   to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1
   or beta2
   prereleases.
   Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
   http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

   more detail on this bulk operation:
   
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html


Seems pretty clear to me.  In fact, if one actually goes to the trouble 
of clicking on the bulk operation link, one finds complete information 
regarding what was done and why.  To make it more convenient for you 
all, I present a portion of the information here:




here is an urgent request for comments. We still have ~2400 bugs in 
state NEW
from the pre-Bugzilla 4.0 days. Back then we had no initial state 
UNCONFIRMED,
so unfortunately they started with NEW. This is changed now for new 
bugs, but

the old ones are still in state NEW because we did not want to spam the
subscribers of 2400 bugs just by changing those bugs. This leaves us 
in the
unfortunate situation to having to check dates etc. to see what the 
status

really means, which is really bad.

So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old 
unconfirmed bugs
(without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state 
NEEDINFO.
We can then be sure that a bug in state NEW is actually confirmed. 
This is

urgent, because I think we have a good opportunity right now.
I want to do the bulk change with this comment:

[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The 
bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from 
NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 
prerelease.

Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

By doing this, we would:
 a) get our bug data consistent (all NEW bug would have basic 
confirmation)

 b) lure a lot more people into participating in the beta1 bug hunt
 c) do so without spamming a lot of people in vain.
 d) could get rid of the confusing UNCONFIRMED,CONFIRMED tags in 
whiteboard status


To be effective for the bug hunting session this would have to be done 
rather

fast. Thus, if nobody vetos this, I would do that tommorrow in ~500 bug
batches.

Objections? Vetos? Comments?

Best,

Bjoern

This at least provides the history of how things got from there to here 
and so could help provide a better understanding.


I do agree that there needs to be better information regarding how to 
change the status, as it's unclear (to me at least) how the status got 
changed to RESOLVED INVALID, other than the fact that Leif stated very 
clearly in this particular bug:



_Not actually a bug _but more an easy improvement to the user interface.


Perhaps that's the reason it became invalid.  I'm simply guessing.

It would seem any perceived problems stem from Bugzilla and attempts to 
make improvements to the bug fixing process.  Where it may have broken 
down is in the uncertain area of what happened when Leif responded to 
the NEEDINFO request.  The question becomes, did Bugzilla change the 
status to NEW as Bjoern implies would happen and then a developer 
further changed the status to RESOLVED INVALID?  If so, then perhaps 
that particular status needs better detail from the developer (or QA) as 
Leif requests - something like Not a bug, but an enhancement request.  
And then perhaps a pointer to how to submit enhancement requests.  To 
me, a better status message would have simply been ENHANCEMENT REQUEST 
and then left in that state as an open request rather than RESOLVED.  
That way developers could easily find such requests.


Obviously I'd have to look at each individual bug to see if these 
comments apply, but since Andreas stated in another post that this bug 
was...
The perfect example for what went wrong here. Someone tagged it 
blindly as NEEDINFO although the request for improvement is 
perfectly clear even for me who never used Impress for anything but 
viewing. 
... I thought I'd take a look at the perfect example.  We now see why 
it was tagged blindly.



Leif is perfectly right when he states:

Half the problem is communication. If the process has been more clear 
and accurate it wouldn't have been a problem. Why not explain the 
process and the reason for closing these issues? Why not explain what 
it means that the issue has

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

Yes and no.

The initial news about bug tracker issues went out in March.
Many responded, as did I,  updating the bug to confirm that it was still
a bug  In fact, at the time I specifically asked why we needed to
confirm the bug if in fact the bug was long stnding and nothing had been
done by developers about the resolution suggested.  The response was a
thank you for updating.

THEN, 5 MONTHS LATER, we received post facto notice that the bug had
been closed, an across the board second effort to change bug status
without regard to anything that had been done in March.

The March notice re 'my' bug was in fact bogus, because the bug was
documented very well, and status was simply not changed because no dev
took the time to address the bug.

On 8/15/12 12:54 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
 
 I was curious as to what the commotion on this subject was so I looked
 at the bug submitted wherein I found the automated message:
 
Björn Michaelsen 2011-12-23 12:27:51 UTC
[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed.
The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from
NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1
or beta2
prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1
 
more detail on this bulk operation:
   
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html
 
 
 
 Seems pretty clear to me.  In fact, if one actually goes to the trouble
 of clicking on the bulk operation link, one finds complete information
 regarding what was done and why.  To make it more convenient for you
 all, I present a portion of the information here:
 

 here is an urgent request for comments. We still have ~2400 bugs in
 state NEW
 from the pre-Bugzilla 4.0 days. Back then we had no initial state
 UNCONFIRMED,
 so unfortunately they started with NEW. This is changed now for new
 bugs, but
 the old ones are still in state NEW because we did not want to spam the
 subscribers of 2400 bugs just by changing those bugs. This leaves us
 in the
 unfortunate situation to having to check dates etc. to see what the
 status
 really means, which is really bad.

 So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old
 unconfirmed bugs
 (without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state
 NEEDINFO.
 We can then be sure that a bug in state NEW is actually confirmed.
 This is
 urgent, because I think we have a good opportunity right now.
 I want to do the bulk change with this comment:

 [This is an automated message.]
 This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
 started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The
 bug is
 changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from
 NEEDINFO back
 to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1
 prerelease.
 Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

 By doing this, we would:
  a) get our bug data consistent (all NEW bug would have basic
 confirmation)
  b) lure a lot more people into participating in the beta1 bug hunt
  c) do so without spamming a lot of people in vain.
  d) could get rid of the confusing UNCONFIRMED,CONFIRMED tags in
 whiteboard status

 To be effective for the bug hunting session this would have to be done
 rather
 fast. Thus, if nobody vetos this, I would do that tommorrow in ~500 bug
 batches.

 Objections? Vetos? Comments?

 Best,

 Bjoern

 This at least provides the history of how things got from there to here
 and so could help provide a better understanding.
 
 I do agree that there needs to be better information regarding how to
 change the status, as it's unclear (to me at least) how the status got
 changed to RESOLVED INVALID, other than the fact that Leif stated very
 clearly in this particular bug:
 
 _Not actually a bug _but more an easy improvement to the user interface.
 
 Perhaps that's the reason it became invalid.  I'm simply guessing.
 
 It would seem any perceived problems stem from Bugzilla and attempts to
 make improvements to the bug fixing process.  Where it may have broken
 down is in the uncertain area of what happened when Leif responded to
 the NEEDINFO request.  The question becomes, did Bugzilla change the
 status to NEW as Bjoern implies would happen and then a developer
 further changed the status to RESOLVED INVALID?  If so, then perhaps
 that particular status needs better detail from the developer (or QA) as
 Leif requests - something like Not a bug, but an enhancement request. 
 And then perhaps a pointer to how to submit enhancement requests.  To
 me, a better status message would have simply been ENHANCEMENT REQUEST
 and

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it 
matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  - 
I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position 
to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in 
that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it 
was closed.


In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you 
reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go 
from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then 
in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should 
have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's 
a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those 
questions will answer the question which one needs fixing?  If the 
process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional 
status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously 
wrote.


Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were 
in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I 
state above.



On 8/15/2012 2:18 PM, Marc Grober wrote:

Yes and no.

The initial news about bug tracker issues went out in March.
Many responded, as did I,  updating the bug to confirm that it was still
a bug  In fact, at the time I specifically asked why we needed to
confirm the bug if in fact the bug was long stnding and nothing had been
done by developers about the resolution suggested.  The response was a
thank you for updating.

THEN, 5 MONTHS LATER, we received post facto notice that the bug had
been closed, an across the board second effort to change bug status
without regard to anything that had been done in March.

The March notice re 'my' bug was in fact bogus, because the bug was
documented very well, and status was simply not changed because no dev
took the time to address the bug.

On 8/15/12 12:54 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:

I was curious as to what the commotion on this subject was so I looked
at the bug submitted wherein I found the automated message:

Björn Michaelsen 2011-12-23 12:27:51 UTC
[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed.
The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from
NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1
or beta2
prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

more detail on this bulk operation:
   
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html




Seems pretty clear to me.  In fact, if one actually goes to the trouble
of clicking on the bulk operation link, one finds complete information
regarding what was done and why.  To make it more convenient for you
all, I present a portion of the information here:


here is an urgent request for comments. We still have ~2400 bugs in
state NEW
from the pre-Bugzilla 4.0 days. Back then we had no initial state
UNCONFIRMED,
so unfortunately they started with NEW. This is changed now for new
bugs, but
the old ones are still in state NEW because we did not want to spam the
subscribers of 2400 bugs just by changing those bugs. This leaves us
in the
unfortunate situation to having to check dates etc. to see what the
status
really means, which is really bad.

So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old
unconfirmed bugs
(without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state
NEEDINFO.
We can then be sure that a bug in state NEW is actually confirmed.
This is
urgent, because I think we have a good opportunity right now.
I want to do the bulk change with this comment:

[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The
bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from
NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1
prerelease.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

By doing this, we would:
  a) get our bug data consistent (all NEW bug would have basic
confirmation)
  b) lure a lot more people into participating in the beta1 bug hunt
  c) do so without spamming a lot of people in vain.
  d) could get rid of the confusing UNCONFIRMED,CONFIRMED tags in
whiteboard status

To be effective for the bug hunting session this would have to be done
rather
fast. Thus, if nobody vetos this, I would do that tommorrow in ~500 bug
batches.

Objections? Vetos? Comments?

Best,

Bjoern


This at least provides the history of how things got from there to here

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
 Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it
 matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  -
 I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
 to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
 that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
 was closed.
 
 In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
 reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go
 from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then
 in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
 have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's
 a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those
 questions will answer the question which one needs fixing?  If the
 process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
 status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
 wrote.
 
 Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
 in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
 state above.

I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html

With respect to LO bugs,  it is still unclear what the various stages of
the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot confirm a bug.
Moreover, there is no context help available regarding status hierarchy.

What I think I am seeing, as in so many such projects,  is a disconnect
between what devs think is happening and what bug reporters think is
happening.

-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.


On 8/15/2012 3:20 PM, Marc Grober wrote:

On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:

Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it
matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  -
I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
was closed.

In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go
from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then
in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's
a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those
questions will answer the question which one needs fixing?  If the
process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
wrote.

Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
state above.

I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html


That diagram is in fact interesting.  Based on that diagram (which may 
or may not be utilized by the LO team), then the process followed by the 
LO team is in error.  They've chosen to dump unconfirmed bugs back on 
the user community, instead of confirming the bugs themselves.  I can 
understand why they've done it, the work is probably overwhelming and 
they're volunteers so they've chosen to let each individual user/bug 
submitter either resubmit or assume resolved status.  Not a bad choice 
from their point of view, it's the path of least work for them.  It 
makes sense from that viewpoint.  The proper way to do it would have 
been to check each bug themselves as normally would be done prior to a 
production release.  They took the practical, expedient approach instead 
and I don't think you can fault them for doing so.




With respect to LO bugs,  it is still unclear what the various stages of
the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot confirm a bug.


Nor should you be able to confirm a bug.  And that of course is where 
the model (or process) is broken, since as I mentioned above they've 
dumped the testing back on the user - with decent reasoning - but it 
still breaks the model as provided by the diagram.  So yes, somebody on 
the developer's side needs to make some decisions as to how best to fix 
the model and/or process.  Personally I don't see a problem with their 
decision to dump the bugs back on the user considering they themselves 
are volunteers, but somewhere somehow the status needs to change from 
NEEDINFO to NEW (which is not provided for in the model so clearly 
things have changed either with the model as supplied by bugzilla, or 
the LO team has customized their copy.  So, I reiterate my previous 
comment that more info. is needed from the bug submitters as to what 
stages the status flags went through to determine whether it's the 
process or bugzilla that needs fixing.



Moreover, there is no context help available regarding status hierarchy.

What I think I am seeing, as in so many such projects,  is a disconnect
between what devs think is happening and what bug reporters think is
happening.

I agree with your assessment.  But until someone starts providing the 
missing info. I fear there can be no resolution.  Ultimately someone 
from the developer's and/or administrative side of the fence needs to 
figure out how to resolve this to most people's satisfaction.




--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

I've seen at least one or two people respond to the question.  For some 
reason you don't appear to be seeing all the posts here.  In particular 
you didn't respond to one of my own, specifically addressing your font 
issue wherein I provided a possible resolution.


This particular message I'm sending now I would normally provide 
privately.  But since everyone on this list seems to be up in arms about 
sharing info. I post it here.




On 8/15/2012 5:34 PM, anne-ology wrote:

I too would like to know.

It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it, yet
no one responds  ;-)
or are they responding privately  ???



On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:

On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:

I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1


What is AOO?





--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

In fact it was explained twice before,  so perhaps some of the list mail
is going in to your spam folder?

AOO is the apache branch of OpenOffice

On 8/15/12 4:34 PM, anne-ology wrote:
I too would like to know.
 
It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it, yet
 no one responds  ;-)
or are they responding privately  ???
 
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
 gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:
 
 On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:

 I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1


 What is AOO?


 


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread Robert Funnell


It was answered in this message:
  http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg22778.html
And also (unnecessarily snarkily) in this one:
  http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg22784.html

AOO = Apache Open Office

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, anne-ology wrote:


  I too would like to know.

  It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it, yet
no one responds  ;-)
  or are they responding privately  ???



On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:

On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:



I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1



What is AOO?



--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread anne-ology

   Ok, I've received your message of 2 paragraphs [still below] -
   you state you will answer the question; where is the answer
???  ;-)

   Maybe I'm not receiving all the messages ... maybe your message was
clipped for some reason ...
   but if you sent more than is below, could you please explain how
to view it.



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Andrew Brager apb3...@bak.rr.com wrote:

I've seen at least one or two people respond to the question.  For some
 reason you don't appear to be seeing all the posts here.  In particular you
 didn't respond to one of my own, specifically addressing your font issue
 wherein I provided a possible resolution.

 This particular message I'm sending now I would normally provide
 privately.  But since everyone on this list seems to be up in arms about
 sharing info. I post it here.



 On 8/15/2012 5:34 PM, anne-ology wrote:

 I too would like to know.

 It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it,
 yet
 no one responds  ;-)
 or are they responding privately  ???



 On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker 
 gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:

 I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1

  What is AOO?



-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread anne-ology

   Thank you.



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Robert Funnell robert.funn...@mcgill.cawrote:

It was answered in this message:
   
 http://listarchives.**libreoffice.org/global/users/**msg22778.htmlhttp://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg22778.html
 And also (unnecessarily snarkily) in this one:
   
 http://listarchives.**libreoffice.org/global/users/**msg22784.htmlhttp://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg22784.html

 AOO = Apache Open Office


 On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, anne-ology wrote:

I too would like to know.

   It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it, yet
 no one responds  ;-)
   or are they responding privately  ???



 On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
 gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:


  I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1


 What is AOO?



-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

2012-08-15 Thread anne-ology

   Thank you.

   Obviously, some of the list mail is not getting through -

   BTW - as for me, these can't be landing in the 'spam folder' since I
always check to be sure there's nothing there by mistake, before deleting
these



On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Marc Grober m...@interak.com wrote:

In fact it was explained twice before,  so perhaps some of the list mail
 is going in to your spam folder?

 AOO is the apache branch of OpenOffice

 On 8/15/12 4:34 PM, anne-ology wrote:
 I too would like to know.
 
 It's been mentioned a few times now ... someone asks what is it,
 yet
  no one responds  ;-)
 or are they responding privately  ???
 
 
 
  On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker
  gbpli...@gmail.comwrote:
 
  On 14/08/12 21:13, Andreas Säger wrote:
 
  I'm going to upgrade all our production systems to AOO 3.4.1
 
 
  What is AOO?
 


-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.