Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Mark Thomas]

On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis  
wrote: 

Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management 
Committee member hat on.

> which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice™ and
> OpenOffice.org®.
> However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.

Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice" is a 
trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification but, for the 
ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it is registered or 
not. Registration does make it easier to enforce compliance should the 
trademark be infringed.

> It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".

If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a 
trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we would be 
successful.

Domain registration is not trademark registration.

The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache 
OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to proceed 
is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally dealt with in 
private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a discussion about what to do 
about this specific issue on a public ASF mailing list.

Mark

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Release manager for 4.1.3

[Andrea Pescetti]

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

My objective is to complete 4.1.3 in November.


Thank you for volunteering for the November release. I'll be available 
for anything I can help with.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: dmake

[Gav]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:

> On 29 Aug, Gav wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Don Lewis  wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Aug, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >> >> On 28 Aug, Gav wrote:
> >> >>> when did you try that last Don?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That url comes up oops 404
> >> >>
> >> >> I last tried that in the last few weeks, but have been using a cached
> >> >> copy since then.
> >> >>
> >> >> This page lists lots of mirrored copies:
> >> >> 
> >> >>
> >> >> It looks like development has moved to GitHub:
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > and this is exactly what I was going to say ...
> >> >
> >> > With the demise of Google code the project moved to github and is
> under
> >> > a new maintainer (FreeBSD uses the new github version).
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps we should mirror dmake-4.12.2, which was the last version
> >> > released on apache-extras, on sourceforge and update the build link.
> >>
> >> That seems like the easiest thing to do.  I tried downloading from
> >> GitHub and ran into a complication.  The tarfile name downloaded from
> >> github is DMAKE_4_12_2_2.tar.gz, but it unpacks into the directory
> >> dmake-DMAKE_4_12_2_2 and bootstrap can't cope with that.  I could fix
> >> bootstrap, but that only helps trunk.  Nothing could be done to fix
> >> 4.1.2 other than re-rolling the tarball.
> >>
> >> At least for now, the new dmake download URL is:
> >>  files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > Thanks Don, that works fine.
>
> The Windows buildbot still needs the dmake fix.
>

Done - I replaced 7 occurrences of the old url with the new in the
openoffice.org config.

Gav...


>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Gav...

Re: Release manager for 4.1.3

[Mechtilde]

Hello Patrizia,

thanks for your engagement.

Please give me a hint, if there is a linux build for testing and/or some
new strings to translate.

I will do when I can help.

Kind regards

Am 08.09.2016 um 09:33 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> My objective is to complete 4.1.3 in November.
> 
> Thank you for volunteering for the November release. I'll be available
> for anything I can help with.
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Mechtilde Stehmann
--
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Presence at ApacheCon Europe, November

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 03/09/2016 Roberto Galoppini wrote:

If a bunch of us is willing to go I might join the party.


The "bunch" is still small and the deadline for submissions is tomorrow. 
Anyone else from Europe interested in attending?


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jose R R]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
>
> Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look like.
>
>   A. PERSPECTIVE
>   B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>  1. Code Base
>  2. Downloads
>  3. Development Support
>  4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
>  5. Social Media Presence
>  6. Project Management Committee
>  7. Branding
>
> A. PERSPECTIVE
>
> I have regularly observed that the Apache OpenOffice project has limited 
> capacity for sustaining the project in an energetic manner.  It is also my 
> considered opinion that there is no ready supply of developers who have the 
> capacity, capability, and will to supplement the roughly half-dozen 
> volunteers holding the project together.  It doesn't matter what the reasons 
> for that might be.
>
> The Apache Project Maturity Model,
> , 
> identifies the characteristics for which an Apache project is expected to 
> strive.
>
> Recently, some elements have been brought into serious question:
>
>  QU20: The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
>  QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a timely 
> manner.
>
> There is also a litmus test which is kind of a red line.  That is for the 
> project to have a PMC capable of producing releases.  That means that there 
> are at least three available PMC members capable of building a functioning 
> binary from a release-candidate archive, and who do so in providing binding 
> votes to approve the release of that code.
>
> In the case of Apache OpenOffice, needing to disclose security 
> vulnerabilities for which there is no mitigation in an update has become a 
> serious issue.
>
> In responses to concerns raised in June, the PMC is currently tasked by the 
> ASF Board to account for this inability and to provide a remedy.  An 
> indicator of the seriousness of the Board's concern is the PMC been requested 
> to report to the Board every month, starting in August, rather than 
> quarterly, the normal case.  One option for remedy that must be considered is 
> retirement of the project.  The request is for the PMC's consideration among 
> other possible options.  The Board has not ordered a solution.
>
> I cannot prediction how this will all work out.  It is remiss of me not to 
> point out that retirement of the project is a serious possibility.
>
> There are those who fear that discussing retirement can become a 
> self-fulfilling prophecy.  My concern is that the project could end with a 
> bang or a whimper.  My interest is in seeing any retirement happen 
> gracefully.  That means we need to consider it as a contingency.  For 
> contingency plans, no time is a good time, but earlier is always better than 
> later.
>
>
> B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
>
> Here is a provisional list of all elements that would have to be addressed, 
> over a period of time, as part of any retirement effort.
>
> In order to understand what would have had to happen in a graceful process, 
> the assumption below is that the project has already retired.
>
> Requests for additions and adjustments to this compilation are welcome.
>
>  1. CODE BASE
>
> 1.1 The Apache OpenOffice Subversion repository where code is maintained 
> has been moved to "The Attic."  Apache Attic is an actual project, 
> .  The source code would remain
> available and could be checked-out from Subversion by anyone interested in 
> making use of it.  There is no means of committing changes.
>
> 1.2 Apache Externals/Extras consists of external libraries that are 
> relied upon by the source code but are not part of the source code.  These 
> were housed on SourceForge and elsewhere.  (a) They might have been archived 
> in conjunction with the SVN (1.1).  (b) They might be identified in a way 
> that someone attempting to build from source later on would be able to work 
> with later versions of the external dependencies.  There are additional 
> external dependencies that might have become obsolete.
>
> 1.3 Build Dependencies/Tool Chains.  The actual construction of the 
> released binaries depends on particular versions of specific tools that are 
> used for carrying out builds of binaries from the source.  The dependencies 
> as they last were used are identified in a historical location.  Some of the 
> tools and their use become obsolete over time.
>
> 1.4 GitHub Mirror.  For the GitHub Mirror of the Apache OpenOffice SVN 
> (a) pull requests are not accepted.  (b) Continuation of the presence of the 
> GitHub repository might be shut down at some point depending on GitHub policy 
> and ASF support.
>
>  2. DOWNLOADS
>
> 2.1 The source code releases, patches, and installable binaries are all 

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Jim Jagielski]

Fine then. I'll drop it. It did deserve to be brought up though.

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> On 06/09/2016 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
> 
> There is no relation whatsoever between Rob Weir and the collective 
> science-fiction work under development in this thread.
> 
> Still, I have to say that even though Rob wrote questionable posts on his own 
> blog (never speaking for Apache or OpenOffice) and even though his bad temper 
> is not under discussion, he also was an outstanding contributor and a decent 
> community member. This should not be forgotten so easily.
> 
> 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: Releasing OpenOffice 4.1.3 (reopening the AOO410 branch)

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/8/2016 6:04 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3 sooner or 
later, with some duplication of work with respect to 4.1.2-patch1 but with more 
clarity for those who couldn't see that we made a release last month.

I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed structural 
fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take care of fixing 
version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2.



We should likely make some sort of public notice that work on 4.1.3
in effort for a release is in the works, to sooth and reassure our
user community.


I would like to get an idea how soon we can release 4.1.3 first. If we 
keep it simple, we may be able to aim earlier.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Releasing OpenOffice 4.1.3 (reopening the AOO410 branch)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3 sooner 
> or later, with some duplication of work with respect to 4.1.2-patch1 but with 
> more clarity for those who couldn't see that we made a release last month.
> 
> I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed 
> structural fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take care of 
> fixing version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2.
> 

We should likely make some sort of public notice that work on 4.1.3
in effort for a release is in the works, to sooth and reassure our
user community.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
> malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.
>

The malicious website has the Google AdWords UA ID "UA-19309218-3".
That ID is also used in the following websites,
http://pub-db.com/google-analytics/UA-19309218.html

Simos

>  - Dennis
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>>
>> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
>> Committee member hat on.
>>
>> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
>> and
>> > OpenOffice.org®.
>> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
>> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
>>
>> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
>> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
>> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
>> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
>> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
>>
>> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
>> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
>> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
>> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
>> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
>>
>> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
>> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
>> would be successful.
>>
>> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
>>
>> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
>> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
>> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
>> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
>> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -
>> 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
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Releasing OpenOffice 4.1.3 (reopening the AOO410 branch)

[Marcus]

Am 09/08/2016 03:09 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 9/8/2016 6:04 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3
sooner or later, with some duplication of work with respect to
4.1.2-patch1 but with more clarity for those who couldn't see that we
made a release last month.

I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed
structural fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take
care of fixing version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2.



We should likely make some sort of public notice that work on 4.1.3
in effort for a release is in the works, to sooth and reassure our
user community.


I would like to get an idea how soon we can release 4.1.3 first. If we
keep it simple, we may be able to aim earlier.


maybe there is one simple fix - at least what I can see from the fix - 
that could be included:

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114963

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

4.1.3_release_blocker granted: [Issue 125980] Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale

[bugzilla]

Ariel Constenla-Haile  has granted  4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 125980: Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125980



--- Comment #19 from Ariel Constenla-Haile  ---
Requesting release blocker status for 4.1.3 release.
Revision 1652476 should be merged to AOO410 branch
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>  wrote:
> 
> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
> Committee member hat on.
> 
> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
> and
> > OpenOffice.org®.
> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
> 
> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
> 
> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
> 
> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
> would be successful.
> 
> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
> 
> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
> mailing list.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -
> 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: [4.1.3 Release] Bugzilla admin tasks

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/8/2016 1:02 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi Patricia,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:38:50PM -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

@Patricia: do you have a bugzilla account? https://bz.apache.org/ooo/
You should be added to the relman group, so that you can grant/deny the
release blocker status on bugs.


Yes, I have an account with user name p...@acm.org. What do I have to do to
get added to the relman group?


A bugzilla admin can add you to this user group, I think I already did
it, please check with the few release blockers we already have ;)

This one is uncontroversial:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127103

You should see a field named Flags, with the flag 4.1.3_release_blocker
and a question mark, which means that this flag has been requested. If
you belong to the RelMan group, you can grant/deny the flag, in the list
box you should see a - sign (deny) and a + sign (grant).


Yes, setting the metadata for the new release seems necessary, so I have 
granted "Release blocker".


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Question about binary upload process

[Patricia Shanahan]

Part of getting a release into our user's hands is uploading the 
binaries to both ASF and, with more practical effect, to SourceForge.


Because of the number of natural languages and target operating systems, 
we have a lot of binaries to upload.


Could someone with experience or knowledge of the process tell me a bit 
about how it is done, how long it takes, and what, if anything, it costs 
ASF?



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Hagar Delest]

Le 07/09/2016 à 16:55, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :

3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would arise 
on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums. That would happen 
naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide any 
kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.


I was rather surprised but there has been almost no question from users about 
that.
We opened a discussion (as already linked) in the EN forum and mainly power 
users posted. Too early to conclude if forum users are not aware yet or just 
don't care.
Very few messages on the users ML also for an alternative.

The wiki page is a great idea so that this discussion can slowly die and the 
energies can be focused on more efficient matters.

Anyway, even if the topic raised fears, if the outcome is a quick new release 
as it seems the case, it will prove that all those who propagated FUD were 
wrong. It may give AOO some visibility again (and new contributors). So in the 
end, not that bad.

Hagar

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Keith N. McKenna]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> subj sez it all
> 
Jim;
 I just checked your permissions on the CWiki and it appears that you
are all set. If you have any problems reply here with the problem and I
will take a look again

Regards
Keith




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

4.1.3_release_blocker granted: [Issue 127103] Update metadata for OpenOffice 4.1.3 release

[bugzilla]

Patricia Shanahan  has granted Ariel Constenla-Haile
's request for 4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127103: Update metadata for OpenOffice 4.1.3 release
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127103

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

subj sez it all


Done. But if you are going to contribute build instructions/tips, you 
probably want the MWiki too. In that case, just supply your desired 
username and mail and we'll create an account for you there too.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Marcus wrote:

yes, please don't split up the new build instructions from the olders.
You can take one of the following and update with new data:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Build_Instructions


No, neither of them (but how many updated pages do we have?).

This is the one Jim will want to edit (since he already has an account, 
I assume no further permissions must be granted):

https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX

Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Jim Jagielski]

subj sez it all

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [CWiki] Account Whitelisting - Jim Jagielski (jimjag)

[Marcus]

Am 09/09/2016 12:35 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus wrote:

yes, please don't split up the new build instructions from the olders.
You can take one of the following and update with new data:
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX

https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Build_Instructions


No, neither of them (but how many updated pages do we have?).


you don't want to know it. I'm still counting and I'm already at 30. ;-)


This is the one Jim will want to edit (since he already has an account,
I assume no further permissions must be granted):
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX


OK, this looks indeed a bit newer.

As written I'll do my consolidation work but then touch the MacOS 
wikipages last. So, Jim has enough time to update the MacOS instructions.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

All done!! Thx!!

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [4.1.3 Release] Bugzilla admin tasks

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi Patricia,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:38:50PM -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> >@Patricia: do you have a bugzilla account? https://bz.apache.org/ooo/
> >You should be added to the relman group, so that you can grant/deny the
> >release blocker status on bugs.
> 
> Yes, I have an account with user name p...@acm.org. What do I have to do to
> get added to the relman group?

A bugzilla admin can add you to this user group, I think I already did
it, please check with the few release blockers we already have ;)

This one is uncontroversial:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127103

You should see a field named Flags, with the flag 4.1.3_release_blocker
and a question mark, which means that this flag has been requested. If
you belong to the RelMan group, you can grant/deny the flag, in the list
box you should see a - sign (deny) and a + sign (grant).


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[4.1.3 Release] Bugzilla admin tasks

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi *,

as part of the preparation for the 4.1.3 Release, Bugzilla has now:

- 4.1.3 target milestone, to be set on bugs targeted to this release

- 4.1.3 release blocker flag, request this flag on bugs you consider
  that should be included in the release. The Release Manager will
  grant/deny release blocker status

@Patricia: do you have a bugzilla account? https://bz.apache.org/ooo/
You should be added to the relman group, so that you can grant/deny the
release blocker status on bugs.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Another LWN article

[Donald Whytock]

Even though you were quoted three times in it?

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Note that the LWN article is protected under a subscriber
> paywall.
>
> I'd like to followup but I'm not going to pay to repeat
> on that thread what I've said numerous times in numerous
> locations :)
>
> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
> wrote:
> >
> > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/699755/533f89639e8b53f0/
> >
> > and the associated HN discussion, although I'm the only
> > commenter there as I type this:
> >
> > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12456071
> >
> >
> > Phil
> > ~~~
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 125980] Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale

[bugzilla]

Ariel Constenla-Haile  has asked  for
4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 125980: Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125980



--- Comment #20 from Ariel Constenla-Haile  ---
(In reply to Ariel Constenla-Haile from comment #19)
> Requesting release blocker status for 4.1.3 release.
> Revision 1652476 should be merged to AOO410 branch

Sorry for the noice, now requesting blocker status ;)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 125980] Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale

[Marcus]

Am 09/08/2016 09:21 PM, schrieb bugzi...@apache.org:

Ariel Constenla-Haile  has asked  for
4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 125980: Set default currency to Euro in Lithuanian locale
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125980



--- Comment #20 from Ariel Constenla-Haile  ---
(In reply to Ariel Constenla-Haile from comment #19)

Requesting release blocker status for 4.1.3 release.
Revision 1652476 should be merged to AOO410 branch


Sorry for the noice, now requesting blocker status ;)


IMHO no bad idea to fix this finally.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127103] Update metadata for OpenOffice 4.1.3 release

[bugzilla]

Ariel Constenla-Haile  has asked  for
4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127103: Update metadata for OpenOffice 4.1.3 release
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127103



--- Comment #1 from Ariel Constenla-Haile  ---
This is a release blocker, of course.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [4.1.3 Release] Bugzilla admin tasks

[Marcus]

Am 09/08/2016 09:38 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 9/8/2016 12:34 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi *,

as part of the preparation for the 4.1.3 Release, Bugzilla has now:

- 4.1.3 target milestone, to be set on bugs targeted to this release

- 4.1.3 release blocker flag, request this flag on bugs you consider
that should be included in the release. The Release Manager will
grant/deny release blocker status

@Patricia: do you have a bugzilla account? https://bz.apache.org/ooo/
You should be added to the relman group, so that you can grant/deny the
release blocker status on bugs.


Yes, I have an account with user name p...@acm.org. What do I have to do
to get added to the relman group?


you are already in the "relman" group and should be able to change the 
flag, e.g., the one in this issue:


https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127103

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Another LWN article

[Phillip Rhodes]

https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/699755/533f89639e8b53f0/

and the associated HN discussion, although I'm the only
commenter there as I type this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12456071


Phil
~~~
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

Re: Another LWN article

[Jim Jagielski]

Note that the LWN article is protected under a subscriber
paywall.

I'd like to followup but I'm not going to pay to repeat
on that thread what I've said numerous times in numerous
locations :)

> On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes  wrote:
> 
> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/699755/533f89639e8b53f0/
> 
> and the associated HN discussion, although I'm the only
> commenter there as I type this:
> 
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12456071
> 
> 
> Phil
> ~~~
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Another LWN article

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 16:32:16 -0400
Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Note that the LWN article is protected under a subscriber
> paywall.
> 
> I'd like to followup but I'm not going to pay to repeat
> on that thread what I've said numerous times in numerous
> locations :)

You should not have to pay to access the article via the subscriber
link.  But, regardless, I just dropped a subscription onto your LWN
account, just in case (1) you wish to participate in the discussion, and
(2) it helps.

Thanks,

jon

Jonathan Corbet / LWN.net / cor...@lwn.net

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [4.1.3 Release] Bugzilla admin tasks

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 9/8/2016 12:34 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi *,

as part of the preparation for the 4.1.3 Release, Bugzilla has now:

- 4.1.3 target milestone, to be set on bugs targeted to this release

- 4.1.3 release blocker flag, request this flag on bugs you consider
  that should be included in the release. The Release Manager will
  grant/deny release blocker status

@Patricia: do you have a bugzilla account? https://bz.apache.org/ooo/
You should be added to the relman group, so that you can grant/deny the
release blocker status on bugs.


Yes, I have an account with user name p...@acm.org. What do I have to do 
to get added to the relman group?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] 

> The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions 
> about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about 
> software that has zero cost.
> 
> I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have 
> millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader 
> does but 
> with 0% of the price." 


No, the success of free software is not a question of price.

The development model of free software is something else, but it's not free. 
That is not the goal.

read:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Furthermore:
The development and use of OpenOffice is not free, because developers have to 
be paid by their companies or donate their own time. Users have cost for 
installation, maintenance and staff training.

The work of Apache is also not free, because Apache needs donations to be able 
to work.

For example see:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html

on:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html

you can see that the sum of the sponsorship is (currently, per year):

Platinum: 700,000$
Gold: 320,000$
Silver: 260,000$
Bronze: 90,000$

 

Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Another LWN article

[toki]

On 08/09/2016 20:56, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

}> You should not have to pay to access the article via the subscriber link.

The link you posted enabled me to read the article, and the comments.

If somebody wants to post the following over there, they have my
blessing. ">" is my quoting that article

>LO. There are, to the best of my knowledge, four material differences
between AOO and LO:
>* A large number of features, code cleanups, and bug fixes are in LO
but not in AOO
>* LO has many active contributors and a community worthy of that name,
resulting in faster bugfix turnaround
>* LO has a working multi-platform build system
>* AOO has a permissive license.

For end users that care, the most significant difference between AOo and
LibO is that AOo has much better typographical control.  Furthermore,
the LibO road map implies that typographical control will get worse.

jonathon



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Release process and 4.1.3

[Patricia Shanahan]

I've looked at the Release Planning Template, 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release+Planning+Template


It is what I would want to do for a major release with user interface 
changes.


We also need something far, far more agile for getting simple bug fix 
releases out quickly and easily. I propose using 4.1.3 as a test case 
for a stripped down process. Alternatively, this can be regarded as 
adding binary distribution to the normal way ASF projects release.


The minimal process will be suitable for releases containing only a 
small set of bug fix changes that do not require any changes or 
additions to externally displayed strings, and do not make significant 
changes to the external interface.


No string changes means we do not need the "String freeze" or 
"Translation phase" steps. No significant changes to external 
interfaces, combined with a small number of relatively simple fixes, 
eliminates the "Beta Release" phase.


We still need to pick the bug fixes to go in the release, construct a 
release candidate, test it, write release notes etc.








-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Phillip;

The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions 
about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about 
software that has zero cost.


I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have 
millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader does but 
with 0% of the price." Yes, there are other software packages that 
comply with the same criteria and may even be better in some place, but 
we keep the same consistent interface and branding that people have come 
to love.


We *can* indeed still differentiate from *other-name*Office as long as 
we keep the application consistent with what our current users have come 
to love. In other words, we have to play conservative but we can 
innovate in the things that people don't see easily. OOXML is in that list.


About the license, it is certainly a strength. Not only it is finely 
recognized and permissive license, it is *one* license (well there are 
some minor pieces under other licenses but they are all permissively 
compatible). This quite honestly makes a difference as a starting point 
for other projects. LibreOffice, from the last time I looked, opted to 
obfuscate the parts of the code that are under ALv2 by just slapping 
MPLv2 on everything. This said, and IANAL so don't take this as legal 
advice, after the linux-vmware law suit it seems clear that restrictive 
licenses will be very difficult to enforce unless someone that ewants to 
enforce the licnese is getting copyright assignment.


If I had some resources, I think I would focus on the plugin mechanism, 
perhaps port some of LibreOffice features as extensions and encourage 
special purpose forks (I have also considered a personal closed-source 
fork as well). It would also be important to have some sandboxing 
capability there.


I just don't have resources for that, so for the time being I am toying 
with the idea of using APR to hijack the SAL layer, which would make AOO 
consistent with other Apache projects.


Pedro.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Release process and 4.1.3

[Phillip Rhodes]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

> We also need something far, far more agile for getting simple bug fix
> releases out quickly and easily. I propose using 4.1.3 as a test case for a
> stripped down process.
>

+1


Phil
~~
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM