Re: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Mechtilde]

Am 17.09.2016 um 07:25 schrieb Mechtilde:
> Hello,
> 
> is there a first "nightly build for version 4.1.3 available?
I forgot:

my system is Debian 64-bit
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
> Am 15.09.2016 um 17:15 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>> In response to truckman;
>>>
>>> On 14 Sep, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
 Should this go in 4.1.3 or in 4.1.4?

 4.1.3 will not be able to move on to building and testing unless we cut
 off additions at some point. I think that point has already passed, but
 I'm open to arguments.
>>>
>>> Have all of the necessary download site changes made it from trunk to
>>> 4.1.3?  The released source tarball for 4.1.3 won't include anything in
>>> ext_sources that comes from svn, so we need to verify that bootstrap
>>> succeeds with an empty ext_sources directory.
>>>
>>
>> The content of ext_sources should be irrelevant.  We temporarily used
>> that directory when the project was in incubation but the idea was to
>> deprecate it much sooner. The dependencies were always meant to be
>> downloaded as part as the build process.
>>
>>
>>> It would also be nice to merge r1758093 from trunk to update
>>> configure.ac to suggest the proper download URL for the dmake source.
>>> The old URL no longer works.
>>>
>> Yes, that certainly should be done.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
> 

-- 
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: Last call for 4.1.3 patches

[Mechtilde]

Hello,

is there a first "nightly build for version 4.1.3 available?

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 15.09.2016 um 17:15 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
> In response to truckman;
>>
>> On 14 Sep, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> Should this go in 4.1.3 or in 4.1.4?
>>>
>>> 4.1.3 will not be able to move on to building and testing unless we cut
>>> off additions at some point. I think that point has already passed, but
>>> I'm open to arguments.
>>
>> Have all of the necessary download site changes made it from trunk to
>> 4.1.3?  The released source tarball for 4.1.3 won't include anything in
>> ext_sources that comes from svn, so we need to verify that bootstrap
>> succeeds with an empty ext_sources directory.
>>
> 
> The content of ext_sources should be irrelevant.  We temporarily used
> that directory when the project was in incubation but the idea was to
> deprecate it much sooner. The dependencies were always meant to be
> downloaded as part as the build process.
> 
> 
>> It would also be nice to merge r1758093 from trunk to update
>> configure.ac to suggest the proper download URL for the dmake source.
>> The old URL no longer works.
>>
> Yes, that certainly should be done.
> 
> Pedro.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 

-- 
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: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Patricia Shanahan]

This is a binding vote.

On 9/15/2016 4:21 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

+1

On 9/15/2016 8:35 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
for Apache OpenOffice.

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and
subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of
the Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair
of the OpenOffice Project Management Committee.

Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the
resolution.

 [  ] +1 Approve
 [  ]  0 Abstain
 [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is
sufficient to carry the resolution.

Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on
this thread.

To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE]
reply rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.

The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.


-
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: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

+1
Louis


> On 15 Sep 2016, at 11:54, Keith N. McKenna  wrote:
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> [BCC to PMC]
>> 
>>RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
>>Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
>>for Apache OpenOffice.  
>> 
>> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and 
>> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the 
>> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the 
>> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
>> 
>> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.
>> 
>> [  ] +1 Approve
>> [  ]  0 Abstain
>> [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>> 
>> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
>> carry the resolution.
>> 
>> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this 
>> thread.
>> 
>> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply 
>> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
>> 
>> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
>> 
> [ X ] +1 Approve
> [  ]  0 Abstain
> [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
> Keith N. McKenna
> 
> 


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

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 

> > (b)
> > Or you choose a more formal type of label them.
> > OK, "AOO XP" would probably not so great, but what would 
> be, for example, with
> > "AOO NE" (for new experience)?
> 
>  From the view point of a normal user I find it confusing as 
> there is no 
> comparsion pattern and you don't know what was first and was next.

You are right on this issue, I had not thought.

> So, please no version numbering with words/text only.

I agree with you


Jörg


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

Re: Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Marcus]

Am 09/16/2016 07:29 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

Oh, OK.  It was the general | security category that did that then.

I think those *should* go to the security team and be made private 
automatically, just in case someone is inadvertently providing sensitive 
information that should be treated in confidence.

Then when the issue is seen by the Security Team, we can decide whether to 
change its classification, as I just did with Issue 127117.

I see that the explanation in the Bugzilla help for the general category is 
clear.  And we should continue to keep those automatically private until 
reviewed.

Removing general | security seems like a bad idea.  We just have to ensure it 
is used properly by providing the safeguard that's there now.

Does that work?


I've looked in BZ and it's not possible to change only 1 component of a 
product in a way that issues for this component are visible only for the 
sec team. This has to be done for the complete product.


We could create a product that is visible for the sec team only. But 
that would mean that issue creation is possible for everyone but 
accessing them again in the next second in only possbile for the sec 
team. This also won't improve the situation.


So, I think we cannot do much to avoid further confusion in the future

Marcus




-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 09:52
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Access denied on bugzilla ...

Dennis, please have a look into the history of the issue [1]. Here you
can see that *Pedro has not* set the assignee. The reason is the BZ
setting of the "security" component he has chosen at issue creation. So,
it's not wrong that the issue was send to the security team.

We should think about not rooting these kind of issues to the security
team.

[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_activity.cgi?id=127117

Marcus



Am 09/16/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

Pedro,

When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes

invisible to all but the security team.


Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to

the default assignment.


Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to

yourself, that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.


If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use

bugzilla.  Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.


   - Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
To: OOo Apache
Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...

FWIW ...
I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
and now I got
"You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
relationship).
While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it

is

clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure,

versions

of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users

and

some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative

and

have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the

versions

in trunk.
I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth

it.

Regards,
Pedro.


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

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Marcus]

Am 09/16/2016 02:07 PM, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]



Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?


Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically

improved build system, unit tests at build time, updates of a
lot of libraries, support for new languages, new
translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 4.2.0 it
should be named 5.0.




That was kind of my thoughts... or maybe call it 4.5.0

The idea is to represent the "re-charged" AOO project with
a meaningful change in version.


OK, an idea which I understand.

But one could, in this context, not to think about a completely different way of
naming?

(a)
What if we took us Ubuntu as an example?

Ubuntu 4.16 is called "Xenial Xerus" and AOO 4.2 or 4.5 or 5.0 (and so on) might
be called "Lively Phoenix"? (just an example)


as an addition to the numbering schema this could work. Then we can give 
the release a special touch/meaning/expression or whatever is best for 
the respective release time frame.



(b)
Or you choose a more formal type of label them.
OK, "AOO XP" would probably not so great, but what would be, for example, with
"AOO NE" (for new experience)?


From the view point of a normal user I find it confusing as there is no 
comparsion pattern and you don't know what was first and was next.


I think that the reason that Microsoft has come back to numbers for the 
versioning schema. I don't see any need to go their way, make the same 
experience and come back to the numbers.


So, please no version numbering with words/text only.

Marcus

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

Re: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]

[Xen]

Dennis E. Hamilton schreef op 16-09-2016 18:23:


However, OneDrive does accept ODT documents and they can be viewed
on-line via Microsoft Office Web Apps (now called Office Online).
There is online editing although it might require being a Microsoft
Office user.  I will have to check that.  Also, it might be that a
Linux-operating browser isn't compatible with what the Web Apps
require.


Oh, apologies. I seriously had not been able to find "Office Online" 
when I had searched for it :-/.


I haven't been able to test it and the site is very slow, also your 
screens didn't make it through(?).


I can say I instantly dislike it though. But then, I dislike most of 
anything Microsoft does these days (that started with Windows 7 and the 
ribbon and the new configuration screen and start menu, and got much 
worse with Windows 8).


I probably personally could not get myself to use this product (Office 
Online) even though it seems to work fine with Linux (I am not an 
exclusive Linux user, but for now..) and Google Docs is just a much 
better product from my point of view,


but I myself am currently also a Lumia user (and I detest it) and 
because Google has its accounts linked to everything (YouTube, etc.) I 
run a much larger risk of having to dump my "Google Accounts" because 
something happens in one of the other "services" that makes me want to 
get rid of it. This is why personally I hesitate strongly to use Google 
for anything permanent or even persistent.


For me, Microsoft is only : OneDrive and my (this) phone. Microsoft is 
also more married to the platform (of Windows). So for me personally 
Microsoft has a great advantage because the chances that I will dump my 
Microsoft account "for no good reason" are just much slimmer (knocks on 
dead wood).


Microsoft software is abysmal compared to android from my POV. But the 
platform itself has advantages for me (Windows 10, OneDrive). I guess my 
stance on OpenOffice should change.


But I still think there are two aspects that speak in its favour:

* the desktop is being abandoned by many suppliers. However it is in 
part hype. Tablets are not really that usable and even hybrid devices 
have their detriments. They are not sturdy, you can lose components, you 
cannot replace batteries, etc. etc. Ideally there'd be cloud services 
offered by smaller suppliers that do not have to be as big as the big 
software companies but that can "tackle on" to a larger framework where 
actual hosting is done by independents of some sort, but the framework 
is supported by a community or industry standard.


* Microsoft software is just very poor ;-).

LibreOffice does not really target Windows users at all. I hardly doubt 
I can find a person within 10 minutes of searching on the street (I live 
in a city centre, and it is friday night) who has ever heard about 
LibreOffice if I tried. Well, one person would, but it was a techie, and 
another whom I meet now and then is also a programmer.


"Free Software" does not inspire anyone outside of tech, really, apart 
from the fact that you don't have to pay money for it.


People are perfectly fine with not being in "control" of their devices 
in that sense.


As long as their devices do what needs to be done, they don't give jack 
shit about who is doing it or who controls the software, mostly.


So if LibreOffice's only selling point is "FOSS" or because of its 
superior build system or because of its lean code, well... that only 
applies to programmers, and programmer-lovers, not to actual real 
people.


I use LibreOffice today because it looks better, but even though I don't 
like it, I really have to use Google Docs or risk losing my work due to 
crashes or the inability to undo.


Of course (???) people mention that developing for LibreOffice is much 
easier (?) than for AOO.


But LibreOffice really has no future other than becoming like the only 
open source Linux solution that exists.


There is not going to be a future where Windows or Mac users will ever 
want to know about it. People are not interested in a product that only 
has great quality code, but not great quality features or anything of 
the kind.


So the future for AOO, if there is any, still lies with Windows users 
mostly.


It is still the free alternative, but these days the free alternative 
must also support cloud services.


That's all I can say. If Microsoft software doesn't support ODF all that 
well, then maybe you just have to deal with that in a way.


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

RE: Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Oh, OK.  It was the general | security category that did that then.

I think those *should* go to the security team and be made private 
automatically, just in case someone is inadvertently providing sensitive 
information that should be treated in confidence.

Then when the issue is seen by the Security Team, we can decide whether to 
change its classification, as I just did with Issue 127117.

I see that the explanation in the Bugzilla help for the general category is 
clear.  And we should continue to keep those automatically private until 
reviewed.

Removing general | security seems like a bad idea.  We just have to ensure it 
is used properly by providing the safeguard that's there now.

Does that work?

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 09:52
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> 
> Dennis, please have a look into the history of the issue [1]. Here you
> can see that *Pedro has not* set the assignee. The reason is the BZ
> setting of the "security" component he has chosen at issue creation. So,
> it's not wrong that the issue was send to the security team.
> 
> We should think about not rooting these kind of issues to the security
> team.
> 
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_activity.cgi?id=127117
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09/16/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > Pedro,
> >
> > When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes
> invisible to all but the security team.
> >
> > Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to
> the default assignment.
> >
> > Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to
> yourself, that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.
> >
> > If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use
> bugzilla.  Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
> >> To: OOo Apache
> >> Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> >>
> >> FWIW ...
> >> I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
> >> and now I got
> >> "You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
> >> It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
> >> patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
> >> relationship).
> >> While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it
> is
> >> clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure,
> versions
> >> of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
> >> minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users
> and
> >> some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative
> and
> >> have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the
> versions
> >> in trunk.
> >> I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth
> it.
> >> Regards,
> >> Pedro.
> 
> -
> 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: Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Marcus]

Dennis, please have a look into the history of the issue [1]. Here you 
can see that *Pedro has not* set the assignee. The reason is the BZ 
setting of the "security" component he has chosen at issue creation. So, 
it's not wrong that the issue was send to the security team.


We should think about not rooting these kind of issues to the security team.

[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_activity.cgi?id=127117

Marcus



Am 09/16/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

Pedro,

When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes 
invisible to all but the security team.

Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to the default 
assignment.

Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to yourself, 
that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.

If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use bugzilla. 
 Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.

  - Dennis



-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
To: OOo Apache
Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...

FWIW ...
I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
and now I got
"You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
relationship).
While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it is
clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure, versions
of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users and
some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative and
have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the versions
in trunk.
I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth it.
Regards,
Pedro.


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

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Mechtilde]

+1 binding for marcus

Am 15.09.2016 um 17:54 schrieb Keith N. McKenna:
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> [BCC to PMC]
>>
>> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
>> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
>> for Apache OpenOffice.  
>>
>> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and 
>> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the 
>> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the 
>> OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
>>
>> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.
>>
>>  [  ] +1 Approve
>>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
>>
>> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
>> carry the resolution.
>>
>> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this 
>> thread.
>>
>> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply 
>> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
>>
>> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
>>
> [ X ] +1 Approve
> [  ]  0 Abstain
> [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
> Keith N. McKenna
> 
> 

-- 
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: Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Pedro,

When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes 
invisible to all but the security team.  

Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to the default 
assignment.

Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to yourself, 
that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.

If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use bugzilla. 
 Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
> To: OOo Apache 
> Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> 
> FWIW ...
> I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
> and now I got
> "You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
> It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
> patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
> relationship).
> While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it is
> clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure, versions
> of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
> minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users and
> some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative and
> have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the versions
> in trunk.
> I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth it.
> Regards,
> Pedro.
> 



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

Re: Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Marcus]

Dennis was faster and fixed this in the meantime.

Marcus



Am 09/16/2016 05:41 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:

FWIW ...
I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place, and now I 
got
"You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the patch to 
do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good relationship).
While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it is clear 
that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure, versions of some very 
basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some minor low-hanging-fruit 
updates should save some pain to our users and some embarrassment to the 
project. The changes are very conservative and have been tested for a while in 
trunk but are superseded by the versions in trunk.
I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth it.


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

RE: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Minor touch-up about OneDrive and Microsoft Office Web Apps.

> -Original Message-
> From: Xen [mailto:l...@xenhideout.nl]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 04:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]
> 
[ ... ]

> - Since there is no Microsoft Office client on Linux, and neither do
> they have an online editor, it becomes product to become that client to
> Microsoft OneDrive that can also edit or save in .docx format. Now there
> are a few meagre solutions for using OneDrive on Linux, but it is not
> much.
[orcmid] 

True, the Microsoft Office Linux client-penetration case is via Android.  

However, OneDrive does accept ODT documents and they can be viewed on-line via 
Microsoft Office Web Apps (now called Office Online).  There is online editing 
although it might require being a Microsoft Office user.  I will have to check 
that.  Also, it might be that a Linux-operating browser isn't compatible with 
what the Web Apps require. 

I have attached two PNG that show an ODT being opened in Word Online from 
OneDrive.  If they come through, you can see what the Microsoft Office Web apps 
look like.  The browser in one case is Internet Explorer 11.  In the second 
case, I used Chrome (and notice the offer of an Office Online Extension for 
Chrome).  In both cases the document is a trivial .odt that I created just to 
be able to check to check on the improvement of Office Online support for ODF 
over time.

PS: Since I have a Microsoft Lumia (Windows 10) smartphone, I just used the 
OneDrive application there to access the same file. In this case, the file 
requests permission to use an on-line conversion service and then opens the 
result as read-only and editing is only available if I allow the document to be 
saved in an Office format.  
   An unfortunate aspect of this mobile OneDrive client is that it does not 
show filename extensions and I don't see any way to change that. There is a 
thumbnail icon, but it is for Word, so a .docx of the same name looks like a 
second copy of the same file.  I have no idea how the OneDrive application 
manages and the Office mobile applications work together on Android and iOS.

> 
> Suppose AOO had its own OneDrive client plugin? That you could use AOO
> to browse and modify, load and save, documents on OneDrive?
> 
> Just the same as that Microsoft Office would do, is what I mean. Just
> become cloud-ready. Just allow a person to save on OneDrive.
> 
[ ... ]


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

Access denied on bugzilla ...

[Pedro Giffuni]

FWIW ...
I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place, and now I 
got
"You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the patch to 
do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good relationship).
While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it is clear 
that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure, versions of some very 
basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some minor low-hanging-fruit 
updates should save some pain to our users and some embarrassment to the 
project. The changes are very conservative and have been tested for a while in 
trunk but are superseded by the versions in trunk.
I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth it.
Regards,
Pedro.

4.1.3_release_blocker requested: [Issue 127118] Update dmake URL in configure

[bugzilla]

Ariel Constenla-Haile  has asked  for
4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127118: Update dmake URL in configure
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127118



--- Description ---
configure help points to an URL that does not work:


AC_ARG_WITH(dmake-url,
[  --with-dmake-url=   Specify the location of downloadable dmake source
code. For example:
 
http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
  Note that dmake is under GPL license.],


Revision 1758093 should be cherrypicked in branch AOO413
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] 

> What's about AOO 42? ;-)

indeed, that would be an interesting play on words


Jörg


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

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 

> >> Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?
> > 
> > Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically 
> improved build system, unit tests at build time, updates of a 
> lot of libraries, support for new languages, new 
> translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 4.2.0 it 
> should be named 5.0.
> > 
> 
> That was kind of my thoughts... or maybe call it 4.5.0
> 
> The idea is to represent the "re-charged" AOO project with
> a meaningful change in version.

OK, an idea which I understand.

But one could, in this context, not to think about a completely different way of
naming?

(a)
What if we took us Ubuntu as an example?

Ubuntu 4.16 is called "Xenial Xerus" and AOO 4.2 or 4.5 or 5.0 (and so on) might
be called "Lively Phoenix"? (just an example)

(b)
Or you choose a more formal type of label them. 
OK, "AOO XP" would probably not so great, but what would be, for example, with
"AOO NE" (for new experience)?



Jörg


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

Re: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Dr. Michael Stehmann]

Am 16.09.2016 um 13:19 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?
>>
>> Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically improved build 
>> system, unit tests at build time, updates of a lot of libraries, support for 
>> new languages, new translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 4.2.0 it 
>> should be named 5.0.
>>
> 
> That was kind of my thoughts... or maybe call it 4.5.0
> 

What's about AOO 42? ;-)

Kind regards
Michael



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]

[Xen]

Phillip Rhodes schreef op 08-09-2016 22:18:

So anyway, just wanted to seed this discussion and hopefully provoke 
some
serious thinking around this.  Let's think hard about what we want to 
be so

that
we can easily say "Why develop/use AOO instead of X?" type questions.


I just wanted to take this opportunity to voice my ideas again ;-).

I will keep it short this time.

I am a user who is disgrunted by both the features and stability of 
LibreOffice and probably also OpenOffice, since many features are the 
same. One important feature for me is a GOOD undo facility and both 
products don't have it, because they don't store, or merge, block level 
undo's resulting from typing. In mostly any editor I can go infinitely 
into the past as I undo stuff but in OO and LO it is limited to a few 
sentences at most.


Last time this happened I swore to never use LO again and started using 
Google Docs.


The only reason I am not using Microsoft Office (365) now is that there 
is no Linux variant of it.


Given these flaws and failings for me (and sometimes LO just crashes and 
takes your work with you and it is unrecoverable) and given the fact 
that I think OO looks outdated (on Linux), I would have ventured in the 
past that these were the most important things for me:


* I do not want to be exclusively dependent on the ODT format editors 
anymore
- In Windows I have much better fonts available (or more of them) than 
in Linux
- Even Google Docs just has much better fonts than Linux and it even has 
the Linux fonts, so there you ahve that.


* I would like AOO (or anything) to be a glue between the platforms. 
Cloud is becoming very important or is already so. Being able to 
reference documents on Google Drive can be important. Being able to 
reference documents on Microsoft OneDrive can be important.


- Google Docs natively saves.. or ehm, downloads, documents in .docx, 
but can also process .odt, I believe. So in order to stay relevant you 
must focus, for instance, on perfect interoperability between AOO and 
the .docx that result from Google Docs.


- Since there is no Microsoft Office client on Linux, and neither do 
they have an online editor, it becomes product to become that client to 
Microsoft OneDrive that can also edit or save in .docx format. Now there 
are a few meagre solutions for using OneDrive on Linux, but it is not 
much.


Suppose AOO had its own OneDrive client plugin? That you could use AOO 
to browse and modify, load and save, documents on OneDrive?


Just the same as that Microsoft Office would do, is what I mean. Just 
become cloud-ready. Just allow a person to save on OneDrive.


* Fix the OpenOffice looks (at least on Linux). That black hard shadow 
behind the "page" is not good enough anymore. Make sure it looks nice 
enough and start with that thick black border.


Google Docs works awesomely if a bit slow (due to the internet 
connection) and you can't do everything you can do in a regular editor 
(particularly positioning and such things) (and you can only choose a 
few font sizes) but in general (apart from not being able to actually 
manually really save stuff) the editing experience is much nice than 
either OpenOffice or LibreOffice. And it's just a new product, right.


It's not perfect but looks much better than anything else I've seen and 
you don't run the risk of losing your content, that I constantly have 
with LibreOffice/OO.


I have probably lost important court battles due to LibreOffice.

So I will say 3 things:

- fix the looks
- interoperate with OneDrive and Google Drive if possible (OneDrive more 
important) and ensure perfect compability with these formats
- focus less on your own prominence as a True Alternative and become a 
slave, so to say, to the document formats used by the Big Two, (which 
are .docx and .odt) and just make sure your program can use these 
formats AND interface with the cloud storage that they use.


Then if you've got that settled you can eventually maybe migrate or move 
to your own cloud platform or provider or choice of providers so that 
you become like an IMAP client to IMAP servers, even being capable to 
copy documents in between, etc. Become the IMAP client for documents.


That's what I will say: become the IMAP "mail" client for documents, 
that can interface with various cloud platforms as you edit locally but 
can also save remotely.


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

Re: How do all the binaries get built?

[Jim Jagielski]

I'm in the process of bringing up a new CentOS5 system as we speak.

> On Sep 11, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> Volunteers to do the building?
> 
> I can help with linux-64 builds based on the information shared by Ariel 
> about the existing setup of his CentOS 5 VMs (of course, Ariel himself could 
> probably do it too; but it is good to split tasks so that the number of 
> people capable to build releases increases).
> 
> 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: 4.1.4 Release Manager?

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Any real reason to name it 4.2.0 ?
> 
> Two years of miscellaneous changes and fixes, a radically improved build 
> system, unit tests at build time, updates of a lot of libraries, support for 
> new languages, new translations, new dictionaries... if this is not 4.2.0 it 
> should be named 5.0.
> 

That was kind of my thoughts... or maybe call it 4.5.0

The idea is to represent the "re-charged" AOO project with
a meaningful change in version.


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

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Xen]

Jim Jagielski schreef op 09-09-2016 20:11:

One of the great things about FOSS is the tight connection
between users and developers. After all, most developers are
users that have an itch to scratch.

If there are things that the user community wants, then
chances are good that developers will be jazzed about working
on them, or, at least, the pool of potential developers
might be increased.


This is hardly ever the case.

The whole point of developing is that users who are not developers, can 
also use it.


There is no great project that can come about by mere itch-scratching. 
You cannot take a 100 developers that are not connected and have them 
agree on a product that needs to surface.


What I mean is that this might work for small deviations of an already 
existing project, but I venture that most successful (smaller) projects 
are started by individuals that may be scratching their own itch, but 
they are also visionary about it and are doing something they really 
like.


A bigger entity like OpenOffice needs vision that is shared by multiple 
people (or the group as a whole) and cannot depend on random or spurious 
individuals who seek about to change something. That's like individually 
trying to change the leaves of a tree, but only a small part of them. 
You can never change the tree that way.


Most of the stuff that has been suggested of what I've seen is only 
small, meagre changes, if I can put it that way. Changes that do not 
really require vision at all, at least not something bigger than what 
there already is.


If the user wants something but cannot develop it, and if the developer 
wants something, and can, we have a problem, because users (in general) 
and developers are not the same kind of people.


The general request in general of users in FOSS to endlessly file 
unwanted bug reports is one example. They are not treated as users, but 
as developers, and this doesn't work. People become disheartened over 
such onslaught of bugs and the constant requirement to file them.


A developer needs to be responsible, and needs to responsibly listen to 
the users. That's the only way it can work. You need to be a service 
provider.


For me, rare is the occasion that a FOSS developer will say: right, you 
are right, I am going to implement that thing for you.


It happens. But not that often.

Mostly they want your free time, and not do anything themlves, and then 
have you develop their feature that they might want, but they will only 
say so after the fact whether they actually do. Lazy bums, I call them 
;-).


Free labour and you can turn it down as much as you like ;-).

Recently for me the AutoFS developer was interested in a feature or 
discussion, and the libblkid developer instantly agreed to develop 
something, as it was apparently needed to fix other things.


Both are kernel projects, so maybe there is a hint ;-).

The only thing you can do, potentially, ever, is to envision a future 
and then agree on it. You need vision to start with. You cannot 
haphazardly have individuals make minor changes or even structural 
changes that don't change the base project or where it was going. There 
was once a company that had vision and a product came about.


And now, if you don't agree to have the same level of vision, you won't 
go anywhere. You will stay stuck where you are right now.




But open source, and open source projects, should not be
run in a normal, corporate s/w development mode, where some
"entity" decides what features are needed, etc... We should
be in touch with what our users, and our potential users, want.



You are right, and pardon me if I misinterpreted your message a little 
bit (you were top-posting).


But the corporate mode ideally also just listens to users.

And then creates a product that they know will sell.

And this is true of everyting. Just because you are FOSS and there is no 
money involved doesn't mean you should create unsellable products.


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

Re: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

[Stuart Swales]

[x] +1 Approve

On 15/09/2016 16:35, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

[  ] +1 Approve
[  ]  0 Abstain
[  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation


Stuart Swales (en-GB maintenance)

--
Stuart Swales


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