Re: Permissions on Pootle

[janI]

On Aug 14, 2013 1:16 AM, "Regina Henschel"  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> you know I'm currently reworking the Pootle User Guide. I come across the
topic "permission". I have permission to submit and upload with "merge" and
"overwrite", because I can login at Pootle with my Apache
username/password. But you can get a Pootle account without being a
commiter. Are there any differences in permissions? I think not, but to be
sure..

at the moment that identical, only admin can do a bit more, you need admin
to e.g. activate a new language and update our source tree

rgds
jan i
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
> > On 8/13/13, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy
>  people
>  in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how
>  many
>  people? Not many and most by one person.
> 
>  Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and
>  possible
>  variations?
> 
> >>>
> >>> ​I created this page:
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/File+handling+proposal+for+logos+and+graphics
> >>
> >> I edited the root files and made it into a table where the disposition
> of
> >> each file and folder can be developed and approved.
> >
> > ok but I do believe this proposal was for images and logo, and adding
> > all the other directories put some overhead to what the proposal is
> > about. I did include the files to identify possible conventions.
>
> We can separate the two or we can expand this into an overall ooo-site
> cleanup. Agree to the plan and then individuals can divide and conquer.
>
> I think that the tabular format is one qw should consider it will allow
> for a clear description of the plan. Redirection of old names to new could
> be helpful for name changes.
>

​Can we sort the table so that al images are on the top, then the html/css
and finally the directories?​



>
> Also, decisions made could easily effect various NL sites. We really need
> to be very deliberate here.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Please don't overwrite it. Allow others to contribute. I suggest a
> similar
> >> format for other directories.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>> ​
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to
> any
>  new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Dave
> 
>  On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> 
> > On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> >> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
> >>
> >>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>  On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado <
> j...@oooes.org>
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
>  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado
> >> 
> > wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>   
> >> wrote:
> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
> > there
> > has
> >> been
> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
> > of
> >> clean up
> > work to be done.
> >
> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> > AOOLogos
> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> > identify
> >> it
> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> > selected,
> >> the
> > current name is unecessary long.
> >
> >
> Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >
> >
> 
>  Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>  after
>  the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>  integration
>  immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>  actually
>  used in AOO 4.0 !!
> 
>  The one we actually used is this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> 
>  This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>  changes.
>  Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO
> 4.0,
>  which
>  I helped check in.
> 
>  My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> >>> "master-logo-40.svg"
> 
> >>>
> >>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as
> opposed
> >>> to
> >>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.s

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Dave Fisher]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

> On 8/13/13, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy
 people
 in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how
 many
 people? Not many and most by one person.
 
 Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and
 possible
 variations?
 
>>> 
>>> ​I created this page:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/File+handling+proposal+for+logos+and+graphics
>> 
>> I edited the root files and made it into a table where the disposition of
>> each file and folder can be developed and approved.
> 
> ok but I do believe this proposal was for images and logo, and adding
> all the other directories put some overhead to what the proposal is
> about. I did include the files to identify possible conventions.

We can separate the two or we can expand this into an overall ooo-site cleanup. 
Agree to the plan and then individuals can divide and conquer.

I think that the tabular format is one qw should consider it will allow for a 
clear description of the plan. Redirection of old names to new could be helpful 
for name changes.

Also, decisions made could easily effect various NL sites. We really need to be 
very deliberate here. 

Regards,
Dave



> 
>> 
>> Please don't overwrite it. Allow others to contribute. I suggest a similar
>> format for other directories.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> ​
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any
 new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
 
> On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
>> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
>> 
>>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>>> wrote:
 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
 wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado
>> 
> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
 >>> 
>> wrote:
> I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
> there
> has
>> been
> some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
> of
>> clean up
> work to be done.
> 
> For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> AOOLogos
> folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> identify
>> it
> between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> selected,
>> the
> current name is unecessary long.
> 
> Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
 
>> 
> 
>>> 
 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> 
> 
 
 Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
 after
 the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
 integration
 immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
 actually
 used in AOO 4.0 !!
 
 The one we actually used is this one:
 
 
 
 
>> 
> 
>>> 
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
 
 This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
 changes.
 Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
 which
 I helped check in.
 
 My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>>> "master-logo-40.svg"
 
>>> 
>>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
>>> to
>>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> incrementally
>>> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>>> 
>> 
>> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
>> some
>> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to
>> approve
>> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
>> it
>> is a request by publisher

Re: Weird para at Zotero site

[Wolf Halton]

Thanks, Simon.

Wolf Halton
--
http://wolfhalton.info
Apache developer:
wolfhal...@apache.org
On Aug 13, 2013 1:48 AM, "Simon Kornblith"  wrote:

> It looks like that page was updated with exactly what I'm asking for since
> the last time I looked at it. Thanks for the pointer, and sorry for the
> noise. I'll see if I can get things working in the near future.
>
> Simon
>
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:42 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
> > Simon Kornblith wrote:
> >> my basic question is: How can I build an extension that works after
> >> upgrading from AOO 3.4 to 4.0 without requiring intervention on the
> >> part of the user?
> >
> > If your problem is addons.xcu, the page Alexandro pointed you to
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0
> > has some remarks on how to do that.
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Andrea.
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy
>>> people
>>> in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how
>>> many
>>> people? Not many and most by one person.
>>>
>>> Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and
>>> possible
>>> variations?
>>>
>>
>> ​I created this page:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/File+handling+proposal+for+logos+and+graphics
>
> I edited the root files and made it into a table where the disposition of
> each file and folder can be developed and approved.

ok but I do believe this proposal was for images and logo, and adding
all the other directories put some overhead to what the proposal is
about. I did include the files to identify possible conventions.

>
> Please don't overwrite it. Allow others to contribute. I suggest a similar
> format for other directories.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> ​
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any
>>> new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>>>
 On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
>
>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
>>> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado
> 
 wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>>> >>
> wrote:
 I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
 there
 has
> been
 some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
 of
> clean up
 work to be done.

 For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
 AOOLogos
 folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
 identify
> it
 between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
 selected,
> the
 current name is unecessary long.

 Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>>>
>

>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log


>>>
>>> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>>> after
>>> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>>> integration
>>> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>>> actually
>>> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>>>
>>> The one we actually used is this one:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>>>
>>> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>>> changes.
>>> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>>> which
>>> I helped check in.
>>>
>>> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>> "master-logo-40.svg"
>>>
>>
>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
>> to
>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
 incrementally
>> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>>
>
> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
> some
> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to
> approve
> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
> it
> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> image they use) to request additional permissions.
>

 I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared
 to
 having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that,
>>> do
 you
 realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
 ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.

 I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works
 o

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Dave Fisher]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
>> Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy people
>> in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how many
>> people? Not many and most by one person.
>> 
>> Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and possible
>> variations?
>> 
> 
> ​I created this page:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/File+handling+proposal+for+logos+and+graphics

I edited the root files and made it into a table where the disposition of each 
file and folder can be developed and approved.

Please don't overwrite it. Allow others to contribute. I suggest a similar 
format for other directories.

Regards,
Dave

> ​
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any
>> new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
 
> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>>> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>> > 
 wrote:
>>> I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
>>> there
>>> has
 been
>>> some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
>>> of
 clean up
>>> work to be done.
>>> 
>>> For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>>> AOOLogos
>>> folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>>> identify
 it
>>> between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>>> selected,
 the
>>> current name is unecessary long.
>>> 
>>> Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> 
 
>>> 
> 
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>> after
>> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>> integration
>> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> actually
>> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> 
>> The one we actually used is this one:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 
>>> 
> 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> 
>> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>> changes.
>> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> which
>> I helped check in.
>> 
>> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> "master-logo-40.svg"
>> 
> 
> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
> to
> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>>> incrementally
> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> 
 
 Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
 some
 purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
 use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
 it
 is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
 older print book.  If their original request did not include the
 e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
 image they use) to request additional permissions.
 
>>> 
>>> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
>>> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that,
>> do
>>> you
>>> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
>>> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>>> 
>>> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
>>> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
> has,
>>> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
>>> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy
>> to
>>> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
>>> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>>> 
>> 
>> No, it shou

Help with forms....so impossible to get with with openoffice!!!!

[Dominic Joseph]

hi

 

I need help with openoffice base.  i created a form with a subform using the 
wizard.  i need more than one subform and dont know how to add additional 
subforms.  i tried researching on the web but nothing helps.  can you help me 
insert more subforms into a form.  thanks

 

kind regards,

 
  

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 123031] Update ES translation to latest pootle version

[bugzilla]

rgb  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 123031: Update ES translation to latest pootle version
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123031


--- Additional Comments from rgb 
On Pootle there are several fixes for ES translation.

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

Permissions on Pootle

[Regina Henschel]

Hi all,

you know I'm currently reworking the Pootle User Guide. I come across 
the topic "permission". I have permission to submit and upload with 
"merge" and "overwrite", because I can login at Pootle with my Apache 
username/password. But you can get a Pootle account without being a 
commiter. Are there any differences in permissions? I think not, but to 
be sure..


Kind regards
Regina

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

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy people
> in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how many
> people? Not many and most by one person.
>
> Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and possible
> variations?
>

​I created this page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/File+handling+proposal+for+logos+and+graphics
​



>
> I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any
> new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
> > On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> >> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
> >>
> >>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>  On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> > wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>   
> >> wrote:
> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
> > there
> > has
> >> been
> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
> > of
> >> clean up
> > work to be done.
> >
> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> > AOOLogos
> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> > identify
> >> it
> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> > selected,
> >> the
> > current name is unecessary long.
> >
> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >
> >
> 
>  Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>  after
>  the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>  integration
>  immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>  actually
>  used in AOO 4.0 !!
> 
>  The one we actually used is this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> 
>  This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>  changes.
>  Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>  which
>  I helped check in.
> 
>  My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> >>> "master-logo-40.svg"
> 
> >>>
> >>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
> >>> to
> >>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> > incrementally
> >>> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
> >> some
> >> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> >> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
> >> it
> >> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> >> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> >> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> >> image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >>
> >
> > I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> > having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that,
> do
> > you
> > realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> > ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
> >
> > I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> > ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
> >>> has,
> > or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> > description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy
> to
> > follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
> > community. So again K.I.S.S.
> >
> 
>  No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
> >>> simply
>  because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
> >>> belong
>  to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>> Actually I would like to see getting rid of the rasterize images
> >>> instead. Modern browsers already process SVG natively 

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy people
> in the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how many
> people? Not many and most by one person.
>
> Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and possible
> variations?
>
> I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any
> new state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.
>

​I agree from what started as a webdev discussion has diverged into a
larger problem with the proliferation of repositories. Not sure if the
proposal should include the marketing-art and branding project. The issue
however are related.​

I think this should be organized as:
- filename and file structure cleanup for webdev
- stablish a convention for webdev
- update the marketing-art gallery/wiki
- Organize branding


​From my experience, the wiki was increasily used as a place for
storing/organizing content while the most static was on the www site.
However it seems more people are more commit-happy and more interested into
going back to the svn to perform these operations.​



>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
> > On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> >> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
> >>
> >>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>  On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> > wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>   
> >> wrote:
> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
> > there
> > has
> >> been
> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
> > of
> >> clean up
> > work to be done.
> >
> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> > AOOLogos
> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> > identify
> >> it
> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> > selected,
> >> the
> > current name is unecessary long.
> >
> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >
> >
> 
>  Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>  after
>  the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>  integration
>  immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>  actually
>  used in AOO 4.0 !!
> 
>  The one we actually used is this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >
> >>>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> 
>  This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>  changes.
>  Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>  which
>  I helped check in.
> 
>  My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> >>> "master-logo-40.svg"
> 
> >>>
> >>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
> >>> to
> >>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> > incrementally
> >>> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
> >> some
> >> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> >> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
> >> it
> >> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> >> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> >> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> >> image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >>
> >
> > I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> > having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that,
> do
> > you
> > realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> > ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
> >
> > I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> > ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
> >>> has,
> > or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> > description of any kind. I think website sh

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Dave Fisher]

Speaking of a confusing email exchange. This is difficult for busy people in 
the last 24 hours how many messages have been posted? A lot. By how many 
people? Not many and most by one person.

Did anyone create a CWiki page to outline an actual proposal and possible 
variations?

I would like to know what the delta is from what we are doing now to any new 
state in order to see if I agree or have another choice.

Regards,
Dave

On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

> On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
>> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
>> 
>>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>>> wrote:
 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
 >>> 
>> wrote:
> I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
> there
> has
>> been
> some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
> of
>> clean up
> work to be done.
> 
> For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> AOOLogos
> folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> identify
>> it
> between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> selected,
>> the
> current name is unecessary long.
> 
> Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
 
>> 
> 
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> 
> 
 
 Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
 after
 the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
 integration
 immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
 actually
 used in AOO 4.0 !!
 
 The one we actually used is this one:
 
 
 
 
>> 
> 
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
 
 This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
 changes.
 Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
 which
 I helped check in.
 
 My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>>> "master-logo-40.svg"
 
>>> 
>>> Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
>>> to
>>> ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> incrementally
>>> replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>>> 
>> 
>> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
>> some
>> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
>> it
>> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> 
> 
> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
> you
> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
> 
> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
>>> has,
> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
> community. So again K.I.S.S.
> 
 
 No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
>>> simply
 because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
>>> belong
 to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
>>> one.
>>> 
>>> Actually I would like to see getting rid of the rasterize images
>>> instead. Modern browsers already process SVG natively without issues.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well, that's not completely true: even if not "modern" any more there are
>> literally millions of people still using internet explorer 8 or even older
>> versions, and SVG support was *partially* implemented only from IE9. IE8
>> needs a plug-in for SVG rendering.
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Compatibility
> 
> That's why I recomend and refere

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 08/13/2013 06:13 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>  On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:26 AM, janI  wrote:
>>
>>  On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
 wrote:

> Hi,
>
> first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
> that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)
>
>
 It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
 related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
 etc.

  +1
>>>
>>
> I'm fine with another round.
>
>
>  In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
> tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
> based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
>
> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
>
> I would like to propose the following:
>
> Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
> relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
> will go in the next release.
>
>
> For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
> 4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
> first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.
>
> I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
> minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
> serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
> in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
> every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
> obvious directly.
>
>
 I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
 we'd require translation updates on all languages.


>>> I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
>>> absolutely unavoidable.
>>>
>>>
>>>

> Any opinions or comment son this plan.
>
>
 Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
 ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
 notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?


>>> Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available
>>> in
>>> 4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1
>>>
>>>
>> For 3.4.1, which was basically an update release with addtional languages,
>> the release notes were sort of like an addendum to 3.4.0 --
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes
>>
>> I think Release Notes for 4.0.1 should be similar but, yes, we need a new
>> page for them.
>>
>
> +1
>
> In general refer to the 4.0.0 release notes and add just the new things.
> The 3.4.1 release notes are a good example.
>
> Marcus


I took the liberty of setting up a couple of skeleton pages for 4.0.1 just
now. Basically cloned some of the outline for 3.4.1


>
>
>
>
>  I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 -Rob

  Juergen
>

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


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Apache OpenOffice (beta) Templates website about to go live

[Roberto Galoppini]

2013/8/12 Alexandro Colorado 

> Althought is a bit unrelated, I have an issue with the Extension logo that
> was used there. It seems at some point there was a change of logo which
> looks too close to Microsoft Office 97
> logo<
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/Microsoft_Office_97_Professional_Box_Art_2.jpg/220px-Microsoft_Office_97_Professional_Box_Art_2.jpg
> >(and
> other versions).



The puzzle icon comes from OpenOffice start center, we just homogenized the
look&feel with the actual OpenOffice style.

Roberto



> I found this as a mockery. Also we already had a logo
> which looked like a molecular model.
> http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/OOoEx_Banner_60x234_02.png
>
> I have make an extension header with the original molecular model, feel
> free to comment.
> http://imagebin.org/267307
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Guy Waterval  >wrote:
>
> > Hi Roberto,
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/12 Roberto Galoppini 
> >
> > > We have been running apache openoffice templates beta site for a while
> > > now, we plan to go live sometimes by the end of this week, please let
> > > me know if you believe there are pending issues or problems with the
> > > beta site. http://aoo-templbeta.sourceforge.net/
> >
> >
> > I have used it during certainly 3 entire days and for me it was OK.
> > Many thanks for the nice work you have done on it.
> >
> > A+
> > --
> > gw
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://www.openoffice.org
>

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:
> 2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 
>
>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
>> >> > >> > there
>> >> > >> > has
>> >> > been
>> >> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
>> >> > >> > of
>> >> > clean up
>> >> > >> > work to be done.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> >> AOOLogos
>> >> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> >> identify
>> >> > it
>> >> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>> >> > >> > selected,
>> >> > the
>> >> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>> >> > >> after
>> >> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>> >> > >> integration
>> >> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> >> > >> actually
>> >> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>> >> > >> changes.
>> >> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> >> > >> which
>> >> > >> I helped check in.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>> "master-logo-40.svg"
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> >> incrementally
>> >> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
>> >> > some
>> >> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> >> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
>> >> > it
>> >> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> >> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> >> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> >> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
>> >> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
>> >> you
>> >> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
>> >> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>> >>
>> >> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
>> >> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
>> has,
>> >> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
>> >> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
>> >> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
>> >> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
>> simply
>> > because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
>> belong
>> > to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
>> one.
>>
>> Actually I would like to see getting rid of the rasterize images
>> instead. Modern browsers already process SVG natively without issues.
>>
>
>
> Well, that's not completely true: even if not "modern" any more there are
> literally millions of people still using internet explorer 8 or even older
> versions, and SVG support was *partially* implemented only from IE9. IE8
> needs a plug-in for SVG rendering.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Compatibility

That's why I recomend and reference javascript libraries that take
care of legacy browsers additionally there are fallback techniques
(http://dbushell.com/2012/04/03/svg-use-it-already/). Then again, you
can just test this easily using browsershots or something similar and
evaluate.

>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>
>
>> Also there are js libraries that ensure browser compatibility like the
>> svgweb.js library:
>> http://code.google.com/p/svgweb/
>>

Re: unexpected behavior from configure -- new env script not generated

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:16 PM, janI  wrote:

> On 13 August 2013 21:03, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
> > Yesterday, I did a dmake clean to start over with my build, and then
> > proceded with autoconf and configure. I had chagned my ant version a
> while
> > back and this was reflected in my configure call. Much to my surprise,
> the
> > old ant version seemed to be "stuck' in configure's brain, and it took
> me a
> > while to track this down and just delete my existing shell environment
> > script. Then the configure worked as expected. This was the ONLY change
> in
> > my configure params
> >
> > Any guesses as to the cause of this?
> > * Is this a problem with *my* system autoconf or configure ?
> > * is this how things normally work and we should document this in the
> build
> >
> I have had similar problems a couple of times.
>
> I used to have "source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh" in .bashrc, meaning
> environment was set when I ran configure.
>
> After having a couple of strange problem (in my case with epm), I took
> "source..." out of .bashrc, so securing that I run configure without the
> AOO environment, since then I have not had problems.
>
> Due to my genLang tests, I do configure a couple of times pr week (to test
> my build changes).
>
> hope it helps.
> rgds
> jan I.
>
> instructions ?
>

 got around it by just deleting my *.sh file and then running configure
again. If I knew more about autoconf, I could just put some code in that to
delete it.  Configure is supposed to create the environment -- part of the
AC_OUTPUT I think, so this is why I asked about this.  In my case, my *.sh
is not getting overwritten but seemingly reused. 



>
> > I'm looking at configure.in etc but since I'm not an autoconf guru,
> well,
> > what to do.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -
> > MzK
> >
> > Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
> >  -- Jon Bon Jovi
> >
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
>> has
>> >> been
>> >> >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
>> >> clean up
>> >> >> > work to be done.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> >> >> > AOOLogos
>> >> >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> >> >> > identify
>> >> it
>> >> >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>> selected,
>> >> the
>> >> >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
>> >> >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
>> >> >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> >> >> actually
>> >> >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
>> >> >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> >> >> which
>> >> >> I helped check in.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>> >> >> "master-logo-40.svg"
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
>> >> > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> >> > incrementally
>> >> > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
>> >> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> >> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
>> >> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> >> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> >> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> >> image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> >>
>> >> So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
>> >> under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
>> >> pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
>> >> the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
>> >> logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>> >>
>> >> Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
>> >>
>> >> 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
>> >> /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
>> >> version history.
>> >>
>> >> 2) New logo then is checked in as a new revision of logo-master.svg.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I like this idea or something akin to it. We should definitely preserve
>> > svgs for old logos in my opinion.  The new "branding" repository can be
>>
>> Why are you multiplicating image repositories, where Art already has
>> one with the whole image structure clasified and versioned?
>>
>
> I'm putting the sources into the  "branding source" area, We had already
> discussed this. Soon we will probably discuss deleting them *from* the
> marketing/art area. The biggest problem right now is actually FINDING all
> these.

Like I mentioned before, branding is not a place to store images, is
the analog of building a warehouse in your lawyer office. Branding was
builted for documenting the specs of the logo. Certainly no need for
long filenames, nor useless conventions like 'selected' referencing a
marketing contest.

>
> For now, there will be some duplications.
>

No need for that if we follow the convention already in place.

> Apache OpenOffice does not have the same structure as the old

Why not? There is already a body of work builted that has been proved
with a filename convention and is easy to identify the artwork, logo
and other type of work.

> OpenOffice.org with defined project areas, project area leaders, project
> area committers etc.  So setting up the separate branding area was
> discussed and these files are now being put there.

I am not sure branding is a right place to put and hold the artwork,
this just create unnecesary "triplication" with 'web', 'marketing/art'
and NOW 'branding'.

>
>>
>> > used for this, a

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/8/13 Alexandro Colorado 

> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >> wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
> >> > >> > has
> >> > been
> >> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> >> > clean up
> >> > >> > work to be done.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> >> AOOLogos
> >> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> >> identify
> >> > it
> >> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> >> > >> > selected,
> >> > the
> >> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> >> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> >> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
> >> > >> actually
> >> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> >> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
> >> > >> which
> >> > >> I helped check in.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> "master-logo-40.svg"
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> >> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> >> incrementally
> >> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> >> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> >> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> >> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> >> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> >> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> >> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> >> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
> >> you
> >> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> >> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
> >>
> >> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> >> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
> has,
> >> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> >> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
> >> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
> >> community. So again K.I.S.S.
> >>
> >
> > No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
> simply
> > because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
> belong
> > to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
> one.
>
> Actually I would like to see getting rid of the rasterize images
> instead. Modern browsers already process SVG natively without issues.
>


Well, that's not completely true: even if not "modern" any more there are
literally millions of people still using internet explorer 8 or even older
versions, and SVG support was *partially* implemented only from IE9. IE8
needs a plug-in for SVG rendering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Compatibility

Regards
Ricardo





> Also there are js libraries that ensure browser compatibility like the
> svgweb.js library:
> http://code.google.com/p/svgweb/
>
>
> >
> >
> >> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
> >> workspaces.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> >> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> >> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> >> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> >> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
> >> >
> >>
> >> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold
> the
> >> in

Re: AOO SDK

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bob & Helen  wrote:

> Is the subject add-on available for Apache OpenOffice 4?
>
> I can't find [and install] it.


Hi -- You should be able to get it from:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#source

If you have problems, please contact us again.





-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy,
>> >> > >> > there
>> >> > >> > has
>> >> > been
>> >> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot
>> >> > >> > of
>> >> > clean up
>> >> > >> > work to be done.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> >> AOOLogos
>> >> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> >> identify
>> >> > it
>> >> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>> >> > >> > selected,
>> >> > the
>> >> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally,
>> >> > >> after
>> >> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product
>> >> > >> integration
>> >> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> >> > >> actually
>> >> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical
>> >> > >> changes.
>> >> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> >> > >> which
>> >> > >> I helped check in.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
>> "master-logo-40.svg"
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> >> incrementally
>> >> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some
>> >> > some
>> >> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> >> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often
>> >> > it
>> >> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> >> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> >> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> >> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
>> >> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
>> >> you
>> >> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
>> >> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>> >>
>> >> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
>> >> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
>> has,
>> >> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
>> >> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
>> >> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
>> >> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
>> simply
>> > because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
>> belong
>> > to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
>> one.
>>
>> Then there is also no need for multiple versions of the logo either,
>> like is currently loaded including the current long filename.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
>> >> workspaces.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN
>> >> > revisions
>> >> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
>> >> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
>> >> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
>> >> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold
>> the
>> >> index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and
>> >> oracle-index.html,
>> >> so I dont see why SVG should be any different.
>> >
>> >
>> >  I don't agree this assessment. The svg files con

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

> On 8/12/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
> has
> >> been
> >> >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> >> clean up
> >> >> > work to be done.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> >> >> > AOOLogos
> >> >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> >> >> > identify
> >> it
> >> >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> selected,
> >> the
> >> >> > current name is unecessary long.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> >> >>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> >> >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> >> >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we actually
> >> >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> >> >>
> >> >> The one we actually used is this one:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> >> >>
> >> >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> >> >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0, which
> >> >> I helped check in.
> >> >>
> >> >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> >> > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> >> > incrementally
> >> > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> >> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> >> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> >> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> >> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> >> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> >> image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >>
> >> So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> >> under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> >> pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> >> the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> >> logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
> >>
> >> Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
> >>
> >> 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
> >> /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
> >> version history.
> >>
> >> 2) New logo then is checked in as a new revision of logo-master.svg.
> >>
> >
> > I like this idea or something akin to it. We should definitely preserve
> > svgs for old logos in my opinion.  The new "branding" repository can be
>
> Why are you multiplicating image repositories, where Art already has
> one with the whole image structure clasified and versioned?
>

I'm putting the sources into the  "branding source" area, We had already
discussed this. Soon we will probably discuss deleting them *from* the
marketing/art area. The biggest problem right now is actually FINDING all
these.

For now, there will be some duplications.

Apache OpenOffice does not have the same structure as the old
OpenOffice.org with defined project areas, project area leaders, project
area committers etc.  So setting up the separate branding area was
discussed and these files are now being put there.


>
> > used for this, and given some additional structure.  I'm also finding
> some
> > svg masters for items that are not really logos, like "Get It Here", that
> > probably need to be moved to "branding" even though they are not really
> > logos.
> >
> > And, because there are quite a few sites using old logo versions, I don't
> > really think we should track them all down and require them to upgrade.
> >
> > Again, I am only referring to svg for these. Renderings, png files, as
> far
> > as I'm concerned, can be  renamed and kept anywhere. The new logo used on
> > the website now, for example, is not  a drop in replacement for the old
> > one, because the size is slightly larger due to design considerations.
>  So,
> > it's conceivable, depending on use, the even within the Apache OpenOffice
> > site, etc., different renderings might be used. But maybe this is in
> > opposition t

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

> On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> >> wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado  >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
> >> > >> > has
> >> > been
> >> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> >> > clean up
> >> > >> > work to be done.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> >> AOOLogos
> >> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> >> identify
> >> > it
> >> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
> >> > >> > selected,
> >> > the
> >> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> >> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> >> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
> >> > >> actually
> >> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> >> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
> >> > >> which
> >> > >> I helped check in.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to
> "master-logo-40.svg"
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> >> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> >> incrementally
> >> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> >> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> >> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> >> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> >> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> >> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> >> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> >> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
> >> you
> >> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> >> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
> >>
> >> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> >> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It
> has,
> >> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> >> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
> >> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
> >> community. So again K.I.S.S.
> >>
> >
> > No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it
> simply
> > because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there
> belong
> > to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed
> one.
>
> Then there is also no need for multiple versions of the logo either,
> like is currently loaded including the current long filename.
>
> >
> >
> >> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
> >> workspaces.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> >> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> >> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> >> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> >> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
> >> >
> >>
> >> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold
> the
> >> index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and
> >> oracle-index.html,
> >> so I dont see why SVG should be any different.
> >
> >
> >  I don't agree this assessment. The svg files contain branding, or
> > trademark sources. These are entities which should not be  changed --
> > resulting in a trademark violation. If there is something wrong with the
> > SVG files for whatever reason, this needs to undergo a justification
> > discussion.
>
> If

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/12/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there has
>> been
>> >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
>> clean up
>> >> > work to be done.
>> >> >
>> >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> >> > AOOLogos
>> >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> >> > identify
>> it
>> >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is selected,
>> the
>> >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> >> >
>> >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
>> >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
>> >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we actually
>> >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> >>
>> >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> >>
>> >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
>> >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0, which
>> >> I helped check in.
>> >>
>> >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
>> >>
>> >
>> > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
>> > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> > incrementally
>> > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> >
>>
>> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
>> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
>> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> image they use) to request additional permissions.
>>
>> So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
>> under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
>> pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
>> the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
>> logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>>
>> Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
>>
>> 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
>> /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
>> version history.
>>
>> 2) New logo then is checked in as a new revision of logo-master.svg.
>>
>
> I like this idea or something akin to it. We should definitely preserve
> svgs for old logos in my opinion.  The new "branding" repository can be

Why are you multiplicating image repositories, where Art already has
one with the whole image structure clasified and versioned?

> used for this, and given some additional structure.  I'm also finding some
> svg masters for items that are not really logos, like "Get It Here", that
> probably need to be moved to "branding" even though they are not really
> logos.
>
> And, because there are quite a few sites using old logo versions, I don't
> really think we should track them all down and require them to upgrade.
>
> Again, I am only referring to svg for these. Renderings, png files, as far
> as I'm concerned, can be  renamed and kept anywhere. The new logo used on
> the website now, for example, is not  a drop in replacement for the old
> one, because the size is slightly larger due to design considerations.  So,
> it's conceivable, depending on use, the even within the Apache OpenOffice
> site, etc., different renderings might be used. But maybe this is in
> opposition to what marketing folks mean by a "logo" with a specific size,
> etc., I don't know.
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> or something clean like that.  However, I have not had any luck
>> >> getting this logo to load into Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator.  I get
>> >> errors.  And I have not had any luck getting Kevin to send a version
>> >> that will load.
>> >>
>> >> So we're stuck right now with a logo that does load into Inkscape, but
>> >> is slightly different than the one we used in AOO 4.0.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> > At the same time we have old logos which had been untouch. I think
>> >> > the
>> >> > webdevs have small understanding of a svn is builted so that the
>> >> > files
>> >> are
>> >> > updated without having different versions laying arround. Over this
>> >> > exam

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> > wrote:
>> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
>> > >> > has
>> > been
>> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
>> > clean up
>> > >> > work to be done.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> AOOLogos
>> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> identify
>> > it
>> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>> > >> > selected,
>> > the
>> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
>> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
>> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> > >> actually
>> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> > >>
>> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> > >>
>> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
>> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> > >> which
>> > >> I helped check in.
>> > >>
>> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
>> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> incrementally
>> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
>> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
>> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> >
>>
>> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
>> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
>> you
>> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
>> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>>
>> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
>> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It has,
>> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
>> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
>> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
>> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>>
>
> No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it simply
> because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there belong
> to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed one.

Actually I would like to see getting rid of the rasterize images
instead. Modern browsers already process SVG natively without issues.
Also there are js libraries that ensure browser compatibility like the
svgweb.js library:
http://code.google.com/p/svgweb/


>
>
>> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
>> workspaces.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
>> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
>> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
>> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
>> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>> >
>>
>> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold the
>> index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and
>> oracle-index.html,
>> so I dont see why SVG should be any different.
>
>
>  I don't agree this assessment. The svg files contain branding, or
> trademark sources. These are entities which should not be  changed --
> resulting in a trademark violation. If there is something wrong with the
> SVG files for whatever reason, this needs to undergo a justification
> discussion.
>
> The only porpouse of having
>> a source file, is for users to be able to modify it on the first place.
>> Either by integrating to a bigger SVG design, or resizing it for print
>> work.
>>
>
> T

AOO SDK

[Bob & Helen]

Is the subject add-on available for Apache OpenOffice 4?

I can't find [and install] it.

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 8/13/13, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>> > wrote:
>> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there
>> > >> > has
>> > been
>> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
>> > clean up
>> > >> > work to be done.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
>> AOOLogos
>> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
>> identify
>> > it
>> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is
>> > >> > selected,
>> > the
>> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
>> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
>> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we
>> > >> actually
>> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
>> > >>
>> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
>> > >>
>> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
>> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0,
>> > >> which
>> > >> I helped check in.
>> > >>
>> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
>> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
>> incrementally
>> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
>> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
>> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
>> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
>> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
>> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
>> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
>> >
>>
>> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
>> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do
>> you
>> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
>> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>>
>> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
>> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It has,
>> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
>> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
>> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
>> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>>
>
> No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it simply
> because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there belong
> to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed one.

Then there is also no need for multiple versions of the logo either,
like is currently loaded including the current long filename.

>
>
>> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
>> workspaces.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
>> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
>> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
>> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
>> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>> >
>>
>> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold the
>> index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and
>> oracle-index.html,
>> so I dont see why SVG should be any different.
>
>
>  I don't agree this assessment. The svg files contain branding, or
> trademark sources. These are entities which should not be  changed --
> resulting in a trademark violation. If there is something wrong with the
> SVG files for whatever reason, this needs to undergo a justification
> discussion.

If we go by that scenario, every footer, about page also contain
trademark information, that shouldnt be modified.


>
> The only porpouse of having
>> a source file, is for users to be able to modify it on the first place.
>> Either by integrating to a bigger SVG design, or resizing it for print
>> work.
>>
>
> This part I

Re: unexpected behavior from configure -- new env script not generated

[janI]

On 13 August 2013 21:03, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> Yesterday, I did a dmake clean to start over with my build, and then
> proceded with autoconf and configure. I had chagned my ant version a while
> back and this was reflected in my configure call. Much to my surprise, the
> old ant version seemed to be "stuck' in configure's brain, and it took me a
> while to track this down and just delete my existing shell environment
> script. Then the configure worked as expected. This was the ONLY change in
> my configure params
>
> Any guesses as to the cause of this?
> * Is this a problem with *my* system autoconf or configure ?
> * is this how things normally work and we should document this in the build
>
I have had similar problems a couple of times.

I used to have "source LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh" in .bashrc, meaning
environment was set when I ran configure.

After having a couple of strange problem (in my case with epm), I took
"source..." out of .bashrc, so securing that I run configure without the
AOO environment, since then I have not had problems.

Due to my genLang tests, I do configure a couple of times pr week (to test
my build changes).

hope it helps.
rgds
jan I.

instructions ?
>
> I'm looking at configure.in etc but since I'm not an autoconf guru, well,
> what to do.
>
> --
>
> -
> MzK
>
> Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
>  -- Jon Bon Jovi
>

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> > wrote:
> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there has
> > been
> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> > clean up
> > >> > work to be done.
> > >> >
> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> AOOLogos
> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> identify
> > it
> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is selected,
> > the
> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
> > >> >
> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> > >>
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we actually
> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> > >>
> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> > >>
> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0, which
> > >> I helped check in.
> > >>
> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
> > >>
> > >
> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> incrementally
> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> > >
> >
> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >
>
> I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
> having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do you
> realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
> ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.
>
> I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
> ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It has,
> or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
> description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
> follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
> community. So again K.I.S.S.
>

No, it shouldn't. The ooo-site/images areas got the logo added to it simply
because to make it easier to locate it. The other images files there belong
to the home page.  The svg sub-directory here is really the mis-placed one.


> If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
> workspaces.
>
>
>
> >
> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
> >
>
> svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold the
> index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and oracle-index.html,
> so I dont see why SVG should be any different.


 I don't agree this assessment. The svg files contain branding, or
trademark sources. These are entities which should not be  changed --
resulting in a trademark violation. If there is something wrong with the
SVG files for whatever reason, this needs to undergo a justification
discussion.

The only porpouse of having
> a source file, is for users to be able to modify it on the first place.
> Either by integrating to a bigger SVG design, or resizing it for print
> work.
>

This part I do agree with. The svg files can be used to produce various
sizes of the "trademarked" entities. Changing the source of that entity is
a different matter in my opinion.





>
>
> >
> > Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
> >
> > 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
> > /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
> > version history.
> >
>
> This is not functional and just start acumulating

unexpected behavior from configure -- new env script not generated

[Kay Schenk]

Yesterday, I did a dmake clean to start over with my build, and then
proceded with autoconf and configure. I had chagned my ant version a while
back and this was reflected in my configure call. Much to my surprise, the
old ant version seemed to be "stuck' in configure's brain, and it took me a
while to track this down and just delete my existing shell environment
script. Then the configure worked as expected. This was the ONLY change in
my configure params

Any guesses as to the cause of this?
* Is this a problem with *my* system autoconf or configure ?
* is this how things normally work and we should document this in the build
instructions ?

I'm looking at configure.in etc but since I'm not an autoconf guru, well,
what to do.

-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 08/13/2013 06:13 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:26 AM, janI  wrote:


On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:

Hi,

first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)



It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
etc.


+1


I'm fine with another round.


In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.

I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?

I would like to propose the following:

Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
will go in the next release.


For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.

I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
obvious directly.



I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
we'd require translation updates on all languages.



I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
absolutely unavoidable.






Any opinions or comment son this plan.



Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?



Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available in
4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1



For 3.4.1, which was basically an update release with addtional languages,
the release notes were sort of like an addendum to 3.4.0 --


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes

I think Release Notes for 4.0.1 should be similar but, yes, we need a new
page for them.


+1

In general refer to the 4.0.0 release notes and add just the new things. 
The 3.4.1 release notes are a good example.


Marcus




I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.

rgds
jan I.




-Rob


Juergen


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

Re: [WWW]ES download site broken

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 08/13/2013 12:52 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Ricardo Berlasso wrote:

I need some urgent help here. I just opened the ES download site and
noticed that there is no download button!
http://www.openoffice.org/es/descargar/

Same for me in
http://www.openoffice.org/it/download/


Both fixed. In short: pages need to include /download/release_matrix.js
now.

If someone else has problems, to fix your download page just follow the
IT and ES fixes:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/it/download/index.html?r1=1506830&r2=1513286&diff_format=h


http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/es/descargar/index.html?r1=1508685&r2=1513287&diff_format=h


It seems my latest changes to show the file size in the green box has 
caused this inconsistency when updating the main download webpage.


I'm very sorry that this caused trouble on your side. I promise to do 
more testing in the future.


If there is anything left just tell me and I'll fix it.

Marcus


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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Keith N. McKenna]

Kay Schenk wrote:

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:26 AM, janI  wrote:


On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

Hi,

first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)



It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
etc.


+1




In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.

I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?

I would like to propose the following:

Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
will go in the next release.


For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.

I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
obvious directly.



I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
we'd require translation updates on all languages.



I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
absolutely unavoidable.






Any opinions or comment son this plan.



Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?



Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available in
4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1



For 3.4.1, which was basically an update release with addtional languages,
the release notes were sort of like an addendum to 3.4.0 --


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes

I think Release Notes for 4.0.1 should be similar but, yes, we need a new
page for them.


I agree, the release notes for 4.0.1 should have there own page 
documenting the changes for that release only with a link to the full 
4.0.0 notes.


Regards
Keith


I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.

rgds
jan I.




-Rob


Juergen

-
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

Possible broken link: from other.html

[Brad Smith]

Re: Additional languages for buildbots

[Andrew Rist]

On 8/13/2013 1:18 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote:

On 13.08.2013 08:42, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

I see that yesterday's buildbot run completed successfully
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
(even though, since we are still building the SNAPSHOT tag, running that
buildbot is only testing that the buildbot works). This is the only one
where we support localization at the moment.

Before we forget, can we add to it at least
zh-TW (unsure aoput the right syntax) km pl kid ?
The first 3 languages are 100% complete in Pootle, "kid" is the KeyID
and it's useful to translators.


I now added "km" and "zh-TW", "pl" was already there. Enabling the 
keyid build doesn't make sense until [1] is fixed. The current kid 
localization is quite out of date.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123014

Excellent - I was going to do this, but Herbert beat me to it.





This is only a step in making the new languages available for testing
(the other two being: regenerating the SDF files and moving the SNAPSHOT
tag or equivalent on the buildbot side), but it is independent of the
other actions needed.

And what is preventing us from having at least one Linux buildbot
equivalent to win7snap? I thought disk space was the issue, but from
Andrew's remarks I understood this is no longer problematic under
Windows or Linux.


Last week we ran out of space on the Windows buildbot. When Andrew 
cleaned things out they started working again. With the additional 
languages we are stressing it a bit more now though.
Actually, the situation is not too bad - the disk space issue is under 
control now and we have space for languages as they become available.


The snapshot tag is currently only moved sporadically so spending time 
in setting up new snapshot buildbots for e.g. Linux is an arguable 
investment.

We are waiting on the CentOS bot to set up the Linux 32 snapshot build.
I'm also about to look at the ubuntu bots - now that they're back on , 
it would be good to have them running through correctly.

For most cases the already existing nightly builds are better.
This is something we need to resolve (by making the bot builds better, 
of course) I think the CentOS bot will help us move in that direction.


Herbert

-
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: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/8/13 Fernando Cassia 

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
> > But if
> > we change it it annoys potentially other users. The question is what
> > would be the correct and most often wanted default.
>
> What is the purpose of showing margins, and by extension, seeing text
> smaller, (less zoom level)?. Is there any data the user can put on
> Margins? change the margin colors? put pictures in margins?. In short:
> what use is there for margins taking a sizeable portion of the screen
> size?
>


I do not see those margin you talk about and for a good reason: I never use
maximized windows. I hate maximized windows. Other people love maximized
windows, of course, but many of us just hate them: how do you count how
many people is on each camp?

Default values are an important discussion point and I started a couple of
threads about defaults in the past, but defaults are also an incredible
difficult question where almost all possible answers are at the same time
wrong and right for someone.

I propose to start (again) a discussion about default values, but not now:
let's concentrate on 4.0.1.

Regards
Ricardo



>
> I'm not saying we should NOT show margings, after all, in "Optimal
> width", a portion of the margins is seen, but not 50-100 pixels of
> them, on every side.
>
> I'm not even saying the view with margins is wrong, maybe someone
> wants to look at the "bigger picture". But for TYPING text, "optimal
> width" is the best. So, again, why isn't that option the default?.
>
> Maybe the UX guys can comment?. And yes, I'd love to see a survey. And
> even better, some telemetry (like Firefox' ) about how many users,
> when typing or browsing text documents, end up viewing the document in
> "optimize width" mode).
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer, btw. Appreciate it.
> Best regards,
>
> FC
> --
> During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a
> revolutionary act
> - George Orwell
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:43:47 -0400
Fernando Cassia  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jürgen Schmidt  
> wrote:
> > But if
> > we change it it annoys potentially other users. The question is what
> > would be the correct and most often wanted default.
> 
> What is the purpose of showing margins, and by extension, seeing text
> smaller, (less zoom level)?. Is there any data the user can put on
> Margins? change the margin colors? put pictures in margins?. In short:
> what use is there for margins taking a sizeable portion of the screen
> size?
> 
> I'm not saying we should NOT show margings, after all, in "Optimal
> width", a portion of the margins is seen, but not 50-100 pixels of
> them, on every side.
> 
> I'm not even saying the view with margins is wrong, maybe someone
> wants to look at the "bigger picture". But for TYPING text, "optimal
> width" is the best. So, again, why isn't that option the default?.
> 
> Maybe the UX guys can comment?. And yes, I'd love to see a survey. And
> even better, some telemetry (like Firefox' ) about how many users,
> when typing or browsing text documents, end up viewing the document in
> "optimize width" mode).
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to answer, btw. Appreciate it.
> Best regards,
> 
> FC
> -- 
> During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary 
> act
> - George Orwell

Comments can live on the desktop beyond the right margin setting. Also, the 
margins help one see what the finished page will look like.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Fernando Cassia]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> But if
> we change it it annoys potentially other users. The question is what
> would be the correct and most often wanted default.

What is the purpose of showing margins, and by extension, seeing text
smaller, (less zoom level)?. Is there any data the user can put on
Margins? change the margin colors? put pictures in margins?. In short:
what use is there for margins taking a sizeable portion of the screen
size?

I'm not saying we should NOT show margings, after all, in "Optimal
width", a portion of the margins is seen, but not 50-100 pixels of
them, on every side.

I'm not even saying the view with margins is wrong, maybe someone
wants to look at the "bigger picture". But for TYPING text, "optimal
width" is the best. So, again, why isn't that option the default?.

Maybe the UX guys can comment?. And yes, I'd love to see a survey. And
even better, some telemetry (like Firefox' ) about how many users,
when typing or browsing text documents, end up viewing the document in
"optimize width" mode).

Thanks for taking the time to answer, btw. Appreciate it.
Best regards,

FC
-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 8/13/13 6:01 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>> In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
>> tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
>> based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
>>
>> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
>> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
> 
> Is there a chance to get a fix so that AOO 4.0.1 starts properly
> maximized ALL THE TIME?
> 
> On Windows at least (Win7 64bit) it didn't. Of course after maximizing
> it, it started maximized after the fact (probably reading the "last
> window size" from some saved preference, but the fact that it doesn't
> automagically maximize its window annoys me. Is there a bug report for
> this? Anyone else seen this? Any rationale for the app not starting
> maximized?.
> 
> On a related note, the first thing I do (since the StarOffice 3.1
> days) when I open a new document is set zoom level to "Optimal" (or
> "optimize width", I'm not sure right now how it's called).
> 
> Why isn't this the default is beyond me. Otherwise, with the standard
> zoom level lots of horizontal screen real state is wasted. Thoughts?
> Comments? Expletives? ;)

Probably not, it's mainly your personal preference which is fine. But if
we change it it annoys potentially other users. The question is what
would be the correct and most often wanted default.

These are questions that we can't answer easy. We can run a survey and
will potentially get a 60:40, 70:30 or 50:50 answer that won't help us.

But you can try to figure out the related config item and can create a
mini extension that you deploy in your office to use a different
default. Don't ask me which config item is relevant here, I don't know
without looking into the code.

Juergen

> 
> FC
> 
> -
> 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: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 8/13/13 5:55 PM, Yuri Dario wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
>> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
> 
> 
>> Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
>> relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
>> will go in the next release.
> 
> sorry, but maybe I'm not understanding something; why do AOO400 (which
> is a branch) fixes going into next release (AOO401) require another 
> branch?
> 
> I committed to AOO400 because I supposed that newer (minor) releases 
> were going into this branch, not into a different one.
> 
> And I don't undestand at all why branching again for 401, while we can
> just use tagging to monitor minor bugfixes releases from AOO400 
> branch.
> 

we simply preserve the release branch. A branch is cheap in svn and we
can easier differentiate where the fixes should go.

> I understand that a 4.1 release will incorporate new code while we can
> still produce 4.0.2 on the older branch, so branching for 4.1 makes 
> more sense.

well we can of course discuss this further but because the fact that
branches are cheap we can also use this scheme.

> 
> with this branching tecnique, a bugfix must be sideported to every 
> active branch, e.g. trunk, AOO401, AOO410 (maybe more in the future).

why? We don't have a 4.1 branch and fixes only have to be merged in a
branch if they are accepted showstopper. Now with the new branch nobody
should work on the AOO400 branch. The branch is dead for further
development.

Work towards 4.1 should happen on trunk. Major features should be done
on a separate branch anyway.

> 
> If I missed some guideline doc on the wiki please excuse me.
> 

No you don't miss any guideline and again we can discuss it. But it
change nothing. Either AOO400 or AOO401 in both cases you should
integrate only code that are related to an existing issue which is
proposed and accepted as showstopper.

Juergen

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:26 AM, janI  wrote:

> On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
> > > that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)
> > >
> >
> > It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
> > related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
> > etc.
> >
> +1
>
> >
> > > In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
> > > tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
> > > based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
> > >
> > > I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> > > please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
> > >
> > > I would like to propose the following:
> > >
> > > Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
> > > relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
> > > will go in the next release.
> > >
> > >
> > > For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
> > > 4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
> > > first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.
> > >
> > > I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
> > > minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
> > > serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
> > > in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
> > > every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
> > > obvious directly.
> > >
> >
> > I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
> > we'd require translation updates on all languages.
> >
>
> I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
> absolutely unavoidable.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Any opinions or comment son this plan.
> > >
> >
> > Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
> > ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
> > notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?
> >
>
> Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available in
> 4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1
>

For 3.4.1, which was basically an update release with addtional languages,
the release notes were sort of like an addendum to 3.4.0 --


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes

I think Release Notes for 4.0.1 should be similar but, yes, we need a new
page for them.


> I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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
> >
> >
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Fernando Cassia]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
> tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
> based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
>
> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?

Is there a chance to get a fix so that AOO 4.0.1 starts properly
maximized ALL THE TIME?

On Windows at least (Win7 64bit) it didn't. Of course after maximizing
it, it started maximized after the fact (probably reading the "last
window size" from some saved preference, but the fact that it doesn't
automagically maximize its window annoys me. Is there a bug report for
this? Anyone else seen this? Any rationale for the app not starting
maximized?.

On a related note, the first thing I do (since the StarOffice 3.1
days) when I open a new document is set zoom level to "Optimal" (or
"optimize width", I'm not sure right now how it's called).

Why isn't this the default is beyond me. Otherwise, with the standard
zoom level lots of horizontal screen real state is wasted. Thoughts?
Comments? Expletives? ;)

FC

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Yuri Dario]

Hi,


> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?


> Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
> relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
> will go in the next release.

sorry, but maybe I'm not understanding something; why do AOO400 (which
is a branch) fixes going into next release (AOO401) require another 
branch?

I committed to AOO400 because I supposed that newer (minor) releases 
were going into this branch, not into a different one.

And I don't undestand at all why branching again for 401, while we can
just use tagging to monitor minor bugfixes releases from AOO400 
branch.

I understand that a 4.1 release will incorporate new code while we can
still produce 4.0.2 on the older branch, so branching for 4.1 makes 
more sense.

with this branching tecnique, a bugfix must be sideported to every 
active branch, e.g. trunk, AOO401, AOO410 (maybe more in the future).

If I missed some guideline doc on the wiki please excuse me.

thanks,



-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/



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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122909] Translation update for Portuguese (pt) post-4.0

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Pedro Albuquerque 's
request for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122909: Translation update for Portuguese (pt) post-4.0
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122909


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request for translation update

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122600] [SVG] problems in SvgSvgNode

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Armin Le Grand 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122600: [SVG] problems in SvgSvgNode
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122600


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request 

change type to defect because it solves primary a crash

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122600] [SVG] problems in SvgSvgNode

[bugzilla]

Armin Le Grand  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122600: [SVG] problems in SvgSvgNode
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122600


--- Additional Comments from Armin Le Grand 
ALG: Checked, only #122575# is not yet solved and needs to betaken out in my
opinion. All other stuff works well, compared with firefox as reference.

Well done, Regina!
Esp. using seekReferenceWidth/seekReferenceHeight is pretty much exactly what I
would have done, too ;-}

Also checked with all my collected svg bugdocs over time, all work well, no
regression visible.
Since this fixes a crash and a regression in AOO400 i request the showstopper
flag.

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122822] Correct viewing of XY-, Column- and Line-Charts limited to 10000 records + 1 Heading row

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122822: Correct viewing of XY-, Column- and Line-Charts limited to 1
records + 1 Heading row
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122822

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122827] calc slow saving in xls

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122827: calc slow saving in xls
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122827

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 8/13/13 3:26 PM, janI wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
>>> that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)
>>>
>>
>> It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
>> related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
>> etc.
>>
> +1
> 
>>
>>> In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
>>> tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
>>> based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
>>>
>>> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
>>> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
>>>
>>> I would like to propose the following:
>>>
>>> Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
>>> relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
>>> will go in the next release.
>>>
>>>
>>> For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
>>> 4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
>>> first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.
>>>
>>> I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
>>> minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
>>> serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
>>> in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
>>> every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
>>> obvious directly.
>>>
>>
>> I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
>> we'd require translation updates on all languages.
>>
> 
> I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
> absolutely unavoidable.

indeed UI changes are not allowed for a micro update, only bugfixes. New
features should be implemented on trunk for AOO 4.1

I is so natural for me that I forgot to mention this explicitly

Juergen

> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Any opinions or comment son this plan.
>>>
>>
>> Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
>> ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
>> notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?
>>
> 
> Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available in
> 4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1
> 
> I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.

no, the name contains the new version

Juergen


> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122829] python ctypes library fails to import

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122829: python ctypes library fails to import
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122829

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122909] Translation update for Portuguese (pt) post-4.0

[bugzilla]

Pedro Albuquerque  has asked  for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122909: Translation update for Portuguese (pt) post-4.0
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122909

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

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[janI]

On 13 August 2013 15:14, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
> > that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)
> >
>
> It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
> related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
> etc.
>
+1

>
> > In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
> > tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
> > based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
> >
> > I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> > please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
> >
> > I would like to propose the following:
> >
> > Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
> > relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
> > will go in the next release.
> >
> >
> > For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
> > 4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
> > first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.
> >
> > I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
> > minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
> > serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
> > in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
> > every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
> > obvious directly.
> >
>
> I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
> we'd require translation updates on all languages.
>

I would formulate it stronger: we cannot allow new strings, unless it is
absolutely unavoidable.


>
> >
> > Any opinions or comment son this plan.
> >
>
> Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
> ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
> notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?
>

Lets share release notes, amend so that is clear what is only available in
4.0.1, and start from a fresh with 4.1

I also assume that 4.0.1 will simply overwrite 4.0 exe on mirrors etc.

rgds
jan I.


>
> -Rob
>
> > Juergen
> >
> > -
> > 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: [RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
> that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)
>

It is probably best if you continue, since 4.0.1 is very closely
related to 4.0.0, and you already have the build environment set up,
etc.

> In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
> tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
> based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.
>
> I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
> please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?
>
> I would like to propose the following:
>
> Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
> relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
> will go in the next release.
>
>
> For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
> 4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
> first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.
>
> I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
> minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
> serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
> in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
> every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
> obvious directly.
>

I assume we also want to avoid introducing new UI strings?   Otherwise
we'd require translation updates on all languages.

>
> Any opinions or comment son this plan.
>

Should we create new Release Notes?  Or augment the existing 4.0.0
ones?   It might be simpler if 4.0.x releases share the same release
notes, but we start with fresh ones for 4.1?

-Rob

> Juergen
>
> -
> 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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122902] footnote deletion causes crash

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 's request
for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122902: footnote deletion causes crash
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122902


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122913] Integrate Traditional Chinese in AOO 4.0.1

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted j...@apache.org's request for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122913: Integrate Traditional Chinese in AOO 4.0.1
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122913


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122991] Provide some details about fatal exceptions in the desktop app

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted h...@apache.org 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122991: Provide some details about fatal exceptions in the desktop app
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122991


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

It will help us to analyze problems with incompatible API changes

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122997] Calculation error in the IMABS() function

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Regina Henschel 's request
for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122997: Calculation error in the IMABS() function
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122997


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122885] AOO 4.x crash with extension "Readability Report" 2.0.x or older

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted h...@apache.org 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122885: AOO 4.x crash with extension "Readability Report" 2.0.x or older
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122885


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122948] Copy/pasting some Complex Text Layout strings crashes OpenOffice

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Andrea Pescetti 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122948: Copy/pasting some Complex Text Layout strings crashes OpenOffice
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122948


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122149] repaint error when scrolling (under particular circumstances)

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted Armin Le Grand 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122149: repaint error when scrolling (under particular circumstances)
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122149


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122836] Corruption of rotated images on MacOSX

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted h...@apache.org 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122836: Corruption of rotated images on MacOSX
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122836


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker granted: [Bug 122841] AOO Calc 4.0 crashes when opening a Lotus 1-2-3 file

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has granted h...@apache.org 's request for
4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122841: AOO Calc 4.0 crashes when opening a Lotus 1-2-3 file
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122841


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
approve showstopper request

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122913] Inteegrate Traditional Chinese into Chunks

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122913: Inteegrate Traditional Chinese into Chunks
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122913

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122149] repaint error when scrolling (under particular circumstances)

[bugzilla]

Armin Le Grand  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122149: repaint error when scrolling (under particular circumstances)
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122149


--- Additional Comments from Armin Le Grand 
ALG: asking for release blocker

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

[RELEASE]: preparation for AOO 4.0.1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

first if all I volunteer to act as the release manager for AOO 4.0.1 if
that is wanted but I am also open to let somebody else to the job ;-)

In preparation for an AOO 4.0.1 release I have first created a AOO400
tag based on revision 1503704. I have also created a new branch AOO401
based on branch AOO400 based on the head revision of the branch.

I noticed that Yuri checked in some code on the branch already. Can we
please follow some guideline how we handle such release branches?

I would like to propose the following:

Changes on a release branch should be discussed before and should be in
relation to a proposed and approved fix (if you want showstopper) that
will go in the next release.


For now that means the branch AOO400 is dead and changes towards AOO
4.0.1 have to be made on the new branch AOO401 and should be discussed
first. Or propose the related issue as showstopper first.

I believe we agreed more or less to keep the changes for AOO 4.0.1
minimal to reduce the test effort. We should concentrate on the most
serious issues only and on new languages or improved translations. Keep
in mind that AOO 4.1 is coming as well. Stability is a key feature and
every single bug fix can introduce a regression as well. Often not
obvious directly.


Any opinions or comment son this plan.

Juergen

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

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> > wrote:
> > >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there has
> > been
> > >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> > clean up
> > >> > work to be done.
> > >> >
> > >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the
> AOOLogos
> > >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to
> identify
> > it
> > >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is selected,
> > the
> > >> > current name is unecessary long.
> > >> >
> > >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> > >>
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> > >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> > >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we actually
> > >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> > >>
> > >> The one we actually used is this one:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> > >>
> > >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> > >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0, which
> > >> I helped check in.
> > >>
> > >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
> > >>
> > >
> > > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> > > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just
> incrementally
> > > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> > >
> >
> > Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> > purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> > use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> > is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> > older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> > e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> > image they use) to request additional permissions.
> >
> > So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> > under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> > pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> > the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> > logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
> >
> > Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
> >
> > 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
> > /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
> > version history.
> >
> > 2) New logo then is checked in as a new revision of logo-master.svg.
> >
>
> I like this idea or something akin to it. We should definitely preserve
> svgs for old logos in my opinion.  The new "branding" repository can be
> used for this, and given some additional structure.  I'm also finding some
> svg masters for items that are not really logos, like "Get It Here", that
> probably need to be moved to "branding" even though they are not really
> logos.
>

​That is because branding original intention was to document/create the
guidelines, it was 100% documentation project. ART (inside marketing) is
the one that hold the logos, banners, artwork, design elements,
microbanners, and 3d work, etc.

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/

As well as other type of design like Business card templates​, OOoCon
Impress templates, and such. Branding basically was just a branch on the
wiki. Eventually this was moved to the wiki.

We soon realize that managing the repository on the wiki would be a faster
and easier way since the wiki is much easier to make commits and updates to
it. Example, the splashscreen contest:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Art/Gallery



>
> And, because there are quite a few sites using old logo versions, I don't
> really think we should track them all down and require them to upgrade.
>

​Some groups clone the 'master' logo and this makes it a bit harder to
track, there are still some abandoned NL projects with the design from OOo
3.0 (2008/9)​



>
> Again, I am only referring to svg for these. Renderings, png files, as far
> as I'm concerned, can be  renamed and kept anywhere. The new logo used on
> the website now, for example, is not  a drop in replacement for the old
> one, because the size is slightly larger due to design considerations.  So,
>

​AFAIK the new logo is exactly the same approach of the old logo (Apache on
top of OpenOffice and an Orb to the left). Can you

Re: Unnecesary filestructure on images

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> >> > I think the image structure on the website is a bit messy, there has
> been
> >> > some cleanup done by kschenk but I think there is still a lot of
> clean up
> >> > work to be done.
> >> >
> >> > For example, the new logo, was simply draged and drop to the AOOLogos
> >> > folder with a huge name. I understand the name was needed to identify
> it
> >> > between the rest of the competitive logos. But now that is selected,
> the
> >> > current name is unecessary long.
> >> >
> >> > Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png<
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_optim_300w.png?view=log
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Right.  That work is incomplete.  I checked it in originally, after
> >> the logo vote, so we could start working on the product integration
> >> immediately.  But note that the above logo is not the one we actually
> >> used in AOO 4.0 !!
> >>
> >> The one we actually used is this one:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branding/Apache_OpenOffice_Logo_ChrisR_selected_2013-06_Inkscape_kg.svg
> >>
> >> This was Chris R's contest logo with some minor technical changes.
> >> Kevin G. used this and generated the PNG/JPG files for AOO 4.0, which
> >> I helped check in.
> >>
> >> My intent was to take that SVG and rename it to "master-logo-40.svg"
> >>
> >
> > Again I think we do need a convention for a "logo.svg" as opposed to
> > ending with a logo-30.svg logo-40.svg logo-50.svg. An just incrementally
> > replace with the future logos as we update the SVG.
> >
>
> Here's the complication:   The old logos are still relevant some some
> purposes.  For example, the PMC receives ongoing requests to approve
> use of the old OpenOffice.org logo.  Why would that happen?  Often it
> is a request by publishers who are making an e-book version of an
> older print book.  If their original request did not include the
> e-book rights then they come back to us (and owners of every other
> image they use) to request additional permissions.
>

​I think that 'complication' is the lesser of two evils., compared to
having to manage a ever growing ammount of images. And beside that, do you
realize the difference in objectives between ooo-site/images/
ooo-site/marketing/art/images/ and ooo-site/branding/images.

I dont see any reason why those issues should impact the web works of
ooo-site/images/. That folder is for website-design related work. It has,
or shouldnt hold any porpouse to archieve past work, nor to hold
description of any kind. I think website should be as lean and easy to
follow since we expect these conventions be followed by a rotating
community. So again K.I.S.S.

If those complications arises, send them to marketing or branding
workspaces.



>
> So it may be possible, going forward, to store logos as SVN revisions
> under the same name.  But we cannot retroactively do this with
> pre-Apache logos.  And even if we could, this is harder for users of
> the logo to access.  It is much easier to have something like
> logo-330.svg available via HTTP.
>

​svg are just like HTML files, they are markup languages, we dont hold the
index.html inmaculated and hold an apache-index.html and oracle-index.html,
so I dont see why SVG should be any different. The only porpouse of having
a source file, is for users to be able to modify it on the first place.
Either by integrating to a bigger SVG design, or resizing it for print
work.



>
> Of course you can have a hybrid approach:
>
> 1) When a new logo is introduced, svn copy the old one into a
> /old-logos directory with a new descriptive name.  This preserves the
> version history.
>

​This is not functional and just start acumulating part of the same garbage
that svn is supposed to clean up. Again, if this was code, this would be
totally unacceptable approach. If new logos are introduced then they should
replace the current logo, and the old will live in anals of the svn logs.



>
> 2) New logo then is checked in as a new revision of logo-master.svg.
>

​People are free to disagree with me, but I think this is a messy way to
work​, and for a webdev folder is completely useless, specially when there
is a whole different project specialized on archiving, developing, and
multiplying artwork inside marketing, and a whole different project devoted
to specifying the guideliness of the brand (aka logo).


> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
> >
> >
> >> or something clean like that.  However, I have not had any luck
> >> getting this logo to load into Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator.  I get
> >> errors.  And I have not had any luck getting Kevin to send a version
> >> that will load.
> >>
> >> So we're stuck

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122836] Corruption of rotated images on MacOSX

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122836: Corruption of rotated images on MacOSX
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122836

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

Re: Additional languages for buildbots

[Herbert Duerr]

On 13.08.2013 08:42, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

I see that yesterday's buildbot run completed successfully
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#winsnap
(even though, since we are still building the SNAPSHOT tag, running that
buildbot is only testing that the buildbot works). This is the only one
where we support localization at the moment.

Before we forget, can we add to it at least
zh-TW (unsure aoput the right syntax) km pl kid ?
The first 3 languages are 100% complete in Pootle, "kid" is the KeyID
and it's useful to translators.


I now added "km" and "zh-TW", "pl" was already there. Enabling the keyid 
build doesn't make sense until [1] is fixed. The current kid 
localization is quite out of date.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123014


This is only a step in making the new languages available for testing
(the other two being: regenerating the SDF files and moving the SNAPSHOT
tag or equivalent on the buildbot side), but it is independent of the
other actions needed.

And what is preventing us from having at least one Linux buildbot
equivalent to win7snap? I thought disk space was the issue, but from
Andrew's remarks I understood this is no longer problematic under
Windows or Linux.


Last week we ran out of space on the Windows buildbot. When Andrew 
cleaned things out they started working again. With the additional 
languages we are stressing it a bit more now though.


The snapshot tag is currently only moved sporadically so spending time 
in setting up new snapshot buildbots for e.g. Linux is an arguable 
investment. For most cases the already existing nightly builds are better.


Herbert

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

Re: [Pootle] about translating AOOE site

[janI]

On 12 August 2013 23:47, Ricardo Berlasso  wrote:

> 2013/8/12 janI 
>
> > On 12 August 2013 11:11, janI  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12 August 2013 11:01, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Am 12.08.13 10:56, schrieb janI:
> > >>
> > >>  On 12 August 2013 10:48, Roberto Galoppini <
> > roberto.galopp...@gmail.com>
> > >>> **wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  Could we create a pootle project on translate.apache.org to upload
> >  AOOE PO
> >  files and get them translated?
> > 
> >   I have the karma to do that, but sorry for my lack of knowledge,
> what
> > >>> is
> > >>> AOOE compared to AOO ?
> > >>>
> > >> Apache OpenOffice Extension Website?!
> > >
> > >
> > > that was too simple, why did I not see that.
> > >
> >
> > Project is created, so as soon as I get the files I will put them on the
> > vm. After the initial load anybody can download them, and users can
> upload
> > changes.
> >
>
>
> Great!
>
> Just a small comment: there is a typo on the project name: there is a
> missing i between the f and the c: it says "Apache OpenOffce Extensions".
>

corrected (not by me someone was faster).

I am still waiting for the initial batch of po files, you cannot load the
primary set yourself.

In general we need .pot (po template files for en-US), these act as
template files for all languages.

Furthermore an administrator (e.g. me) needs to activate new languages,
currently no languages are active.

rgds
jan I.

>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> > >
> > > thx.
> > > rgds
> > > jan I.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> If you make the po files available to me, I can do it relative fast.
> > >>>
> > >>> rgds
> > >>> jan I.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>  Roberto
> > 
> > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > --**--**-
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> > dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Need help in translating MWiki page

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 12/08/2013 Regina Henschel wrote:

I have started a draft outline on
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Talk:Pootle_User_Guide
If you agree, I will continue in that direction.


It is a really good resource. Maybe, if it gets too long, it will be 
better to divide it inyto several pages, but it is definitely helpful. I 
added some remarks directly in the page, if you need further information 
just ask.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122885] AOO 4.x crash with extension "Readability Report" 2.0.x or older

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122885: AOO 4.x crash with extension "Readability Report" 2.0.x or older
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122885

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

4.0.1_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122991] Provide some details about fatal exceptions in the desktop app

[bugzilla]

h...@apache.org  has asked  for 4.0.1_release_blocker:
Bug 122991: Provide some details about fatal exceptions in the desktop app
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122991

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