Re: build breaker/Issue 126449/ svx module

[Don Lewis]

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

[David Sterr]

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

Re: build error

[Phillip Rhodes]

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 
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
>
>

Re: Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)

[Dave Fisher]

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  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
> .
>   
> 
> 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 
>  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-
> F

RE: Programming Open Office

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

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 .



-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: Programming Open Office

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

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 .



-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

Limiting Trademark Policy Discussion (was RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List ...)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

>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
.
  

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 
 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

Programming Open Office

[Adrian Burns]

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 

Re: build error

[Andrea Pescetti]

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

4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 126258] javadoc fails to build

[bugzilla]

Andrea Pescetti  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  ---
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: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

[Rich Bowen]

On Aug 29, 2015 14:02, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  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".

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

[Dave Fisher]

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  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

[Andrea Pescetti]

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

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

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

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

[Rich Bowen]

On Aug 29, 2015 12:21, "Phil Steitz"  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.

4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 120706] CRASH - navigating tables containing NULL timestamps in DataSourceBrowser using mysql JDBC connector causes AOO to crash

[bugzilla]

Keith N. McKenna  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  ---
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

[Phil Steitz]

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"  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. Hamilton
>>> 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.

Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July

[Rich Bowen]

I'd love to see a comparison with a half dozen other projects.
On Aug 29, 2015 02:42, "Marcus"  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. Hamilton
>> 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: cppunit -> Google Test migration and old failing tests

[Marcus]

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: cppunit -> Google Test migration and old failing tests

[Damjan Jovanovic]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Kay Schenk  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

ODF Explorer

[Ian C]

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