ODF Explorer
Hi All, this is something of a self promotion but I have a tool that is intended to be of use to ODF developers and testers. It is available via GitHub see http://hammyau.github.io/ODFExplorer/ for some details. Thanks for you time. Any and all feedback welcome. Ian C - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cppunit - Google Test migration and old failing tests
Am 08/28/2015 06:07 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 08/27/2015 09:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: Hi I am in the process of migrating our unit tests from cppunit to Google Test. However AOO doesn't build with cppunit and hasn't been routinely built with cppunit for a while, which means our unit tests are in a state of neglect, and unsurprisingly, there are many failures both compiling and running our unit tests. Ideally we should investigate why and fix the tests. But the APIs being tested are complex and unfamiliar to me (eg. SVG parsing), and would take very long to investigate properly. I could commit changes that will just get the tests to compile, then fail during testing and stop the build, thus forcing others to fix them quickly :-), but I don't imagine that will go down well. So I am taking this approach instead: // FIXME: #define RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS 0 #if RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS broken_test(); #endif Also I am making unit tests run on every build. This way at least some unit tests will be run, and any future regressions to tests can be caught immediately, while the broken tests can be fixed gradually. Everyone happy? Well pretty much. :) I've been watching your commits. Thank you for taking on this challenging task. also from my side a big thank you for your migration efforts. I'm not a developer, so I don't know how much work it is. But it's good to see that you want to bring these area to a more modern base. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Meta data changes for 4.1.2
Am 08/29/2015 12:11 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 26/08/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: The three patches for the basic part are probably easier to understand separately: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst?r1=1583558r2=1602195pathrev=1602195diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/odk/util/makefile.pmk?r1=1571604r2=1602195pathrev=1602195diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk?r1=1587478r2=1602195pathrev=1602195diff_format=h I started the changes by porting these 3 patches. Note that in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126480 I will follow exactly the order of the commits in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125084 so that others can verify step-by-step or take over if needed (in reality this means changing the same files multiple times, so it is slower, but it is safer). The revision now in SVN already builds as OpenOffice 4.1.2, even though the metadata update is not yet complete. thanks for giving the new release a name. ;-) I'm always again astonished how many lines need to be touched to turn up the version number. I don't know if there is a logic in attributing the new build number. Me too. However, we should keep an eye on it that the trunk builds don't have or get the same build ID. Marcus I still don't know, but 9780 seemed a reasonable choice and I used 9780. Note that you will need to clean up your build environment when you build (I will send a dedicated mail once metadata update is completed). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cppunit - Google Test migration and old failing tests
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/27/2015 09:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: Hi I am in the process of migrating our unit tests from cppunit to Google Test. However AOO doesn't build with cppunit and hasn't been routinely built with cppunit for a while, which means our unit tests are in a state of neglect, and unsurprisingly, there are many failures both compiling and running our unit tests. Ideally we should investigate why and fix the tests. But the APIs being tested are complex and unfamiliar to me (eg. SVG parsing), and would take very long to investigate properly. I could commit changes that will just get the tests to compile, then fail during testing and stop the build, thus forcing others to fix them quickly :-), but I don't imagine that will go down well. So I am taking this approach instead: // FIXME: #define RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS 0 #if RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS broken_test(); #endif Also I am making unit tests run on every build. This way at least some unit tests will be run, and any future regressions to tests can be caught immediately, while the broken tests can be fixed gradually. Everyone happy? Well pretty much. :) I've been watching your commits. Thank you for taking on this challenging task. Thank you. OK, just to be clear. It looks like you're converting the cppunit calls to Google Test api calls. But, what you're saying is the actual use of the Google test routines needs additional modification to work correctly, right? Yes that's what I am doing. No, the C++ conversions are very easy (feel free to help ;-)): #include cppunit... = #include gtest/gtest.h class X : public CppUnit::TestFixture = class X : public ::testing:Test CPPUNIT_ASSERT_MESSAGE(msg, condition) = ASSERT_TRUE(condition) msg CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL(c1, c2)= ASSERT_EQ(c1, c2) CPPUNIT_FALSE(msg) = FAIL() msg private: = protected: test methods move outside of class declaration and become TEST_F(className, methodName) instead CPPUNIT_TEST...() registrations disappear but the problem is that tests themselves are wrong no matter what the testing library. For example: basegfx::tools::importFromSvgD( aPoly, aSvg ); won't compile, as importfromSvgD() requires 4 parameters now instead of just 2 (as I explained in an earlier email, this was caused by commit 1536730 on 2013-10-29 by alg). Damjan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list. I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails. Marcus Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes: So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the private list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamiltonorc...@apache.org wrote: From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The Other senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. [end of report] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects. On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list. I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails. Marcus Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes: So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the private list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamiltonorc...@apache.org wrote: From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.9 1.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The Other senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. [end of report] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects. I would discourage any reasoning based on aggregate message counts. Every +1 on a PMC member VOTE counts as a message, for example. The thing to look carefully at is what is being discussed on the private list. A lot of discussion bearing on topics important to the direction of the project is bad, bad, bad. Healthy projects have quiet private@ lists because pretty much everything they need to talk about they can and do talk about on the public lists. But committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic spikes when they do. So I would not draw conclusions or do comparisons based on message counts. Better to compare what is actually being discussed. Phil On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list. I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails. Marcus Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes: So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the private list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamiltonorc...@apache.org wrote: From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.9 1.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The Other senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
On Aug 29, 2015 12:21, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects. I would discourage any reasoning based on aggregate message counts. Every +1 on a PMC member VOTE counts as a message, for example. The thing to look carefully at is what is being discussed on the private list. A lot of discussion bearing on topics important to the direction of the project is bad, bad, bad. Healthy projects have quiet private@ lists because pretty much everything they need to talk about they can and do talk about on the public lists. But committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic spikes when they do. So I would not draw conclusions or do comparisons based on message counts. Better to compare what is actually being discussed. Absolutely. And I completely agree that aoo has too much traffic on private@. I'd just really like to see if it's as skewed as I perceive it is, statistically speaking.
RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
Good idea, Phil Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible. I will look into that as a refinement in future reports. (It will also be helpful if the practices for tagging mail threads are followed consistently.) It should be pretty easy to distinguish posts that are in scope for a PMC and those that are not, without revealing anything posted with an expectation of privacy. Rich, I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out of scope for me here. Maybe other projects might undertake it just to satisfy themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to be. -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 09:21 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July On 8/29/15 8:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects. [ ... ] But committer / PMC votes, security issues and occasional random legal or must-be-private people-related things pop up and cause traffic spikes when they do. So I would not draw conclusions or do comparisons based on message counts. Better to compare what is actually being discussed. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 120706] CRASH - navigating tables containing NULL timestamps in DataSourceBrowser using mysql JDBC connector causes AOO to crash
Keith N. McKenna k...@apache.org has asked for 4.1.2_release_blocker: Issue 120706: CRASH - navigating tables containing NULL timestamps in DataSourceBrowser using mysql JDBC connector causes AOO to crash https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120706 --- Comment #6 from Keith N. McKenna k...@apache.org --- As this issue causes a crash and there is a fix for it, I would nominate it as a 4.1.2 release blocker. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible. I will look into that as a refinement in future reports. I would save you some hours and rely on easy indicators and on a clear goal: full transparency (let me say, once again, that private traffic does not contain any important discussions or decisions, but still I appreciate that we commit to showing it). So, from my mailbox data (and they might be slightly imprecise but we do not want absolute precision here): the private list accounts for 20% of the traffic of English OpenOffice lists in the period considered (1 January to 31 July 2015). I obviously excluded the issues@ and commits@ list, and I excluded all native-language lists. 20% is high. OK, we had three Chair elections so far in 2015, PMC additions and several committer invitations; and the press and trademark inquiries are numerous. But still 20% is high. Thank you Dennis for the numbers, and now the focus should be on how we can improve them and explain them. Improve: we can aim at reducing that number to be below 20%, and to keep your other absolute numbers under control too (while other indicators, such as the thread length, do not add value and add work, and are not meaningful to me at least). Explain: I would appreciate to see a paragraph in the quarterly report about how (not numbers: topics) the private list was used in the previous reporting period (so: October 2015 Report contains a report about private activity in April-May-June). Five lines, saying what was discussed there, without revealing any specific details; and saying whether action was taken to move interesting conversations to the dev list (which happens quite often). I suspect that this is more interesting, to the community and the Board, than having better numbers without context. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
We could reduce private traffic if we discussed the policy for trademarks in public. The community can help write a clear policy statement with real and fictional examples. This would serve the community by reducing private inquiries to unusual cases not previously considered or unclearly explained. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Separating out [VOTE] and maybe even [DISCUSS] threads related to [VOTE]s and/or lazy consensus should be possible. I will look into that as a refinement in future reports. I would save you some hours and rely on easy indicators and on a clear goal: full transparency (let me say, once again, that private traffic does not contain any important discussions or decisions, but still I appreciate that we commit to showing it). So, from my mailbox data (and they might be slightly imprecise but we do not want absolute precision here): the private list accounts for 20% of the traffic of English OpenOffice lists in the period considered (1 January to 31 July 2015). I obviously excluded the issues@ and commits@ list, and I excluded all native-language lists. 20% is high. OK, we had three Chair elections so far in 2015, PMC additions and several committer invitations; and the press and trademark inquiries are numerous. But still 20% is high. Thank you Dennis for the numbers, and now the focus should be on how we can improve them and explain them. Improve: we can aim at reducing that number to be below 20%, and to keep your other absolute numbers under control too (while other indicators, such as the thread length, do not add value and add work, and are not meaningful to me at least). Explain: I would appreciate to see a paragraph in the quarterly report about how (not numbers: topics) the private list was used in the previous reporting period (so: October 2015 Report contains a report about private activity in April-May-June). Five lines, saying what was discussed there, without revealing any specific details; and saying whether action was taken to move interesting conversations to the dev list (which happens quite often). I suspect that this is more interesting, to the community and the Board, than having better numbers without context. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
On Aug 29, 2015 14:02, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Rich, I have no means to produce comparisons with other projects and it is out of scope for me here. Maybe other projects might undertake it just to satisfy themselves that their activity is as confined as it is thought to be. Or, possibly someone from infra that is fascinated with statistics could whip something up as part of the reporter tool. ;) No, it was just an idle what if.
4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 126258] javadoc fails to build
Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org has asked for 4.1.2_release_blocker: Issue 126258: javadoc fails to build https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126258 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org --- I suggest that we include this patch in 4.1.2: - One-line patch - Fixes a build problem when using a recent version of GNU Patch, which does not support patching files in the .. directory any longer, see http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=7361 - Affects the build process only and not the program operations It is needed unless one builds with --disable-odk or on an old system; so it's very helpful to include it in 4.1.2. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: build error
On 20/08/2015 Phillip Rhodes wrote: I ran into this bug: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126258 I just applied the patch in the bug, trying the build again now. Thank you for bringing it to the list's attention anyway (and thanks Alexander for contributing the patch in the first place!). I've now suggested that we integrate the patch in the next 4.1.2 release for a smoother build experience on recent systems. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: build breaker/Issue 126449/ svx module
On 14 Aug, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 09/08/2015 Don Lewis wrote: Looks like you are compiling with gcc 4.9. I ran into this same problem on FreeBSD and worked around it by changing the -Os optimization flag ... This is a gcc bug, see: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65009 This looks like very valuable information (I never saw this, but I build with gcc 4.8.x most of the times). Could you expand on it a bit? It apparently is an optimizer bug in gcc 4.9 that has been fixed in gcc 5 and was not present in 4.8. It is sometimes triggered by inline virtual class methods. I believe it only happens with -Os optimization. The workaround is to either disable optimization by using -O0, or disabling the problematic optimization step by using -fno-devirtualize -fno-devirtualize-speculatively, which I figured out based on comment #2 in the gcc bug report. I didn't attempt to figure out if only one of the flags would be sufficient. Do I understand correctly from the above issue than anybody building OpenOffice (I'm obviously particularly interested in the coming 4.1.2) with GCC 4.9.0 to 4.9.3 (and possibly later 4.9.x releases, since the issue is not fixed yet in 4.9.x) will have to manually edit their makefiles? Yes. If this is true, would you recommend that we either detect it at configuration time, or modify the makefiles, or anything else? It would be nice to detect it at configuration time, but configure doesn't really look at the compiler version. One half of the build framework does decipher the compiler version and that could be leveraged to change the optimization flags for gcc 4.9, but the other half of the build framework does not. Unfortunately there are two instances where this is broken, and the fix needs to be done in both places. I maintain the FreeBSD port and the approach that I took for package building is to detect the use of gcc 4.9 in the port Makefile, and then patch the freebsd.mk and unxfbsdi.mk on the fly when gcc 4.9 is detected. I didn't need to patch unxfbdx.mk because it uses -O2 optimization on x86_64. Is this related to https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125475 (where a patch by Ariel is available, but operates at a C++ code level and not at a Makefile level)? Yes. Early on I saw the LibreOffice folks do something similar, but I was not able to get that to work reliably and switched to -O0 optmization for a long time. My workaround above is fairly recent. Sorry for the many questions! At the bare minimum, it would be very helpful if you can update the building guide at https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step with some specific information; I know you build on FreeBSD which is not one of the platforms we provide binaries for, but you can add a whole section about it if you like. If you need a wiki account, just ask here. It would really be nice if this just worked out of the box. For the stuff that uses solenv/inc to build, the compiler version is available in $(CCNUMVER), which can be tested in the target .mk files to adjust the optimization flags. Unfortunately $(CCNUMVER) is not available on the solenv gbuild side. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Change contact on Reference List
Hello, I want to change my entry on the reference list (old company) - can you please tell me, who I have to contact for this matter? Thank you in advance and best regards, David
Programming Open Office
Dear Sir or Madam, If anyone who knows programming, can modify and change Open Office, how do you maintain control quality? Or are they only aloud to modify or change a copy of their Open Office that they downloaded? Thank You, Adrian
Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)
From the Chair, I don't know, off-hand, what the proportion of discussion of Trademark Policy is in the PMC private discussion activity so far this year. However, a discussion of trademark policy, as such, especially with real and fictional examples, is inappropriate on this list if it is about trademark enforcement. Trademark enforcement, when material to an issue before the PMC, is a private duty of the PMC. There are ways to reduce the discussion to essentials there, however. Let me illustrate what I mean by this. Let's say the Apache OpenOffice PMC has offered arrangements, ratified VP Brand Management, by which a third party can employ AOO marks as part of a Powered by Apache OpenOffice labeling. The PMC establishes the conditions under which that arrangement is available to individual parties and may propose custom arrangements based on the circumstances. That might be useful to describe and clarify here. On the other hand, proposal of conditions under which third parties might be *required* to enter into such an arrangement is entirely different, even hypothetically. As far as I know that is inconsistent with the ASF view of how its mission is accomplished and its being a good citizen in the world of open-source activities. The ASF is by nature not litigious and resolves concerns about inappropriate use of its marks by other means. I can't imagine it attempting to compel use of any of its marks. IMPORTANT. Trademark protection, infringement, and remedies are serious legal matters and they are not for inexpert discussion on public mailing lists. Suspicions of infringement and any acting on those suspicions in public pronouncements are unwelcome. Even disguised accounts of specific situations relevant to this project are inappropriate. And if not relevant to this project, they don't belong here either. To abbreviate the need for custom PMC discussions on cases of alleged trademark infringement, I have posted a policy applicable to how the AOO PMC shall deal with any allegations of infringement and prospective curing of such infringements at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/Policies/Trademark-Infringement-Allegations-2015-08.txt. Questions, comments, and suggestions about that text are welcome. - Dennis BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the Apache Software Foundation, the Board delegates the determination and resolution of trademark matters to the Vice President, Brand Management. All external engagement with respect to trademarks is handled discretely within the PMC and then always reviewed by, and possibly acted upon, by VP Brand Management and only VP Brand Management. Individual projects are expected to be vigilant about how marks are used and also allowed in the domain of the project. The Apache OpenOffice PMC conducts such activities. The web site page at http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html is sufficient information for those who have concerns for use of or infringing use of Apache OpenOffice marks. There are non-specific topical discussions on the use of marks and the naming of software distributions based on code from ASF projects, such as recent discussions on gene...@incubator.apache.org and legal-disc...@apache.org. There are some seemingly-borderline cases that the ASF may take a position on, and it might become necessary for the AOO PMC to be watchful for such cases. In general, VP Brand Management will establish what such cases are. The determination can easily be that some or all such cases are trifles in the context of the mission of the ASF and will not be pursued. The LEGAL JIRA section might also have issues related to branding issues. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 12:45 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July We could reduce private traffic if we discussed the policy for trademarks in public. The community can help write a clear policy statement with real and fictional examples. This would serve the community by reducing private inquiries to unusual cases not previously considered or unclearly explained. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Programming Open Office
All of the source code used in making an Apache OpenOffice distribution is available free to the public, in the same manner as the OpenOffice software the people directly. The code can be downloaded, modified (or not) and used to build the programs. The use of that code is governed by the Apache License Version 2.0, and some parts of the code may be subject to other licenses. So long as those licenses are honored, there is no limitation on what can be done with the code. The Apache Software Foundation also claims trademark over the name Apache OpenOffice, OpenOffice.org, and many of the other marks, including icons and other symbols associated with the Apache OpenOffice product. Distributing a modified version of the software must not be done in a manner that does not infringes those trademarks. Those who want to use the Apache trademarks in conjunction with a version of their own product can make application to the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee. See http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html. -Original Message- From: Adrian Burns [mailto:adrianbu...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:26 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Programming Open Office Dear Sir or Madam, If anyone who knows programming, can modify and change Open Office, how do you maintain control quality? Or are they only aloud to modify or change a copy of their Open Office that they downloaded? Thank You, Adrian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Programming Open Office
Hmm, I guess it has been a long day. Read: ... in the same manner as the OpenOffice software that people obtain to use directly. Read: Distributing a modified version of the software must not be done in a manner that infringes those trademarks. [;), Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 17:42 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: RE: Programming Open Office All of the source code used in making an Apache OpenOffice distribution is available free to the public, in the same manner as the OpenOffice software the people directly. The code can be downloaded, modified (or not) and used to build the programs. The use of that code is governed by the Apache License Version 2.0, and some parts of the code may be subject to other licenses. So long as those licenses are honored, there is no limitation on what can be done with the code. The Apache Software Foundation also claims trademark over the name Apache OpenOffice, OpenOffice.org, and many of the other marks, including icons and other symbols associated with the Apache OpenOffice product. Distributing a modified version of the software must not be done in a manner that does not infringes those trademarks. Those who want to use the Apache trademarks in conjunction with a version of their own product can make application to the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee. See http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html. -Original Message- From: Adrian Burns [mailto:adrianbu...@bellsouth.net] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:26 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Programming Open Office Dear Sir or Madam, If anyone who knows programming, can modify and change Open Office, how do you maintain control quality? Or are they only aloud to modify or change a copy of their Open Office that they downloaded? Thank You, Adrian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)
As me from my soapbox: Any proposal for reworking trademark policies would naturally grandfather prior arrangements. My hope is that any rework of policies would be more and not less generous than current reality. I think that the project should have an open source code test for Powered By that applies to all. The rights to use are clear for all. The obligations spelled out. Benefits given equally. We should (re)acknowledge what (re)based on Apache OpenOffice requires whatever that really is. Once we have a proposal that the community likes we can go through any type of confirmation or clearance the Brand committee requires. I expect that this discussion should proceed carefully and not rush into set form but instead collect ideas focusing on different parts. There must be an opportunity to heal rifts with respect for all. Are you open to that discussion? Are you open to any and all to that discussion? This process is not against any group, but for all. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: From the Chair, I don't know, off-hand, what the proportion of discussion of Trademark Policy is in the PMC private discussion activity so far this year. However, a discussion of trademark policy, as such, especially with real and fictional examples, is inappropriate on this list if it is about trademark enforcement. Trademark enforcement, when material to an issue before the PMC, is a private duty of the PMC. There are ways to reduce the discussion to essentials there, however. Let me illustrate what I mean by this. Let's say the Apache OpenOffice PMC has offered arrangements, ratified VP Brand Management, by which a third party can employ AOO marks as part of a Powered by Apache OpenOffice labeling. The PMC establishes the conditions under which that arrangement is available to individual parties and may propose custom arrangements based on the circumstances. That might be useful to describe and clarify here. On the other hand, proposal of conditions under which third parties might be *required* to enter into such an arrangement is entirely different, even hypothetically. As far as I know that is inconsistent with the ASF view of how its mission is accomplished and its being a good citizen in the world of open-source activities. The ASF is by nature not litigious and resolves concerns about inappropriate use of its marks by other means. I can't imagine it attempting to compel use of any of its marks. IMPORTANT. Trademark protection, infringement, and remedies are serious legal matters and they are not for inexpert discussion on public mailing lists. Suspicions of infringement and any acting on those suspicions in public pronouncements are unwelcome. Even disguised accounts of specific situations relevant to this project are inappropriate. And if not relevant to this project, they don't belong here either. To abbreviate the need for custom PMC discussions on cases of alleged trademark infringement, I have posted a policy applicable to how the AOO PMC shall deal with any allegations of infringement and prospective curing of such infringements at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/Policies/Trademark-Infringement-Allegations-2015-08.txt. Questions, comments, and suggestions about that text are welcome. - Dennis BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the Apache Software Foundation, the Board delegates the determination and resolution of trademark matters to the Vice President, Brand Management. All external engagement with respect to trademarks is handled discretely within the PMC and then always reviewed by, and possibly acted upon, by VP Brand Management and only VP Brand Management. Individual projects are expected to be vigilant about how marks are used and also allowed in the domain of the project. The Apache OpenOffice PMC conducts such activities. The web site page at http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html is sufficient information for those who have concerns for use of or infringing use of Apache OpenOffice marks. There are non-specific topical discussions on the use of marks and the naming of software distributions based on code from ASF projects, such as recent discussions on gene...@incubator.apache.org and legal-disc...@apache.org. There are some seemingly-borderline cases that the ASF may take a position on, and it might become necessary for the AOO PMC to be watchful for such cases. In general, VP Brand Management will establish what such cases are. The determination can easily be that some or all such cases are trifles in the context of the mission of the ASF and will not be pursued. The LEGAL JIRA section might also have issues related to branding issues. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday,
Re: build error
FWIW, that patch did indeed fix the build error I was seeing, so I endorse the idea of going ahead and merging that. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 20/08/2015 Phillip Rhodes wrote: I ran into this bug: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126258 I just applied the patch in the bug, trying the build again now. Thank you for bringing it to the list's attention anyway (and thanks Alexander for contributing the patch in the first place!). I've now suggested that we integrate the patch in the next 4.1.2 release for a smoother build experience on recent systems. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org