Re: Meta data changes for 4.1.2
Am 08/29/2015 12:11 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 26/08/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: The three patches for the "basic" part are probably easier to understand separately: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst?r1=1583558&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/odk/util/makefile.pmk?r1=1571604&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk?r1=1587478&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h I started the changes by porting these 3 patches. Note that in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126480 I will follow exactly the order of the commits in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125084 so that others can verify step-by-step or take over if needed (in reality this means changing the same files multiple times, so it is slower, but it is safer). The revision now in SVN already builds as OpenOffice 4.1.2, even though the metadata update is not yet complete. thanks for giving the new release a name. ;-) I'm always again astonished how many lines need to be touched to turn up the version number. I don't know if there is a logic in attributing the new build number. Me too. However, we should keep an eye on it that the trunk builds don't have or get the same build ID. Marcus I still don't know, but 9780 seemed a reasonable choice and I used 9780. Note that you will need to clean up your build environment when you build (I will send a dedicated mail once metadata update is completed). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
In any case this is too much traffic on the private mailing list. I would understand Dennis' mail as a wake-up call how much it is currently and that there is an urgent need to turn down the number of mails. Marcus Am 08/28/2015 11:58 PM, schrieb Phillip Rhodes: So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the "private" list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. [end of report] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
I've heard that it is a whole lot and much more that the PMC policies warrant. I dug into this to find out exactly what "a whole lot" is and whether it is a way to demonstrate, without breaching confidentiality, when activity more aligned with the policy is reached over time. Thanks for your question and welcome back, Phil. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the "private" list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > From an AOO PMC Member, > > I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on > the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and > noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this > level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content > and even the topics must be held in confidence. > > This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current > state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community > when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply > should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course > of the year may provide an useful indicator. > > OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC > > This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through > July, 2015, by role of the sender. > > 2015 | Private List Messages >thru July | PMC ASF Other All > > Totals 1145 182 31 1358 > Senders22 23 2368 > Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 >(average) > Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 > > Of all the messages sent, > > 84% are by members of the PMC, > 16% are by other ASF participants, and > 17% are by others. > > The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of > the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private > list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache > OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the > PMC via private@. > > For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so > far this year, > > 49% of the messages are from the three > PMC members who were the most vocal > in the studied period. > 75% of the messages are from the seven > most vocal. > 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the > 22 PMC members that posted. > > I confess to being one of those top three posters. > > > NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION > > A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied > > 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, > about 0.8 new topics per day. >The variance of 17 from the first tally > is negligible and will not be corrected. > The raw data is available for auditing > by the PMC. > > 8.0 is the average number of messages on a > single subject > > 5% is the portion of the overall messages > used in the longest thread, one with > 73 messages > > 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest > discussion threads. The shortest thread > in that group has 18 messages. > > 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest > discussions. The shortest threads in > that group have 8 messages. > > 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest > discussions (i.e., half of the > threads). The shortest threads in > that group have 4 messages each. > > The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads > having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. > > This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and > any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. > > [end of report] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Meta data changes for 4.1.2
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 26/08/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> The three patches for the "basic" part are probably easier to understand >> separately: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst?r1=1583558&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h >> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/odk/util/makefile.pmk?r1=1571604&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h >> >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk?r1=1587478&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h >> > > I started the changes by porting these 3 patches. Note that in > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126480 > I will follow exactly the order of the commits in > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125084 > so that others can verify step-by-step or take over if needed (in reality > this means changing the same files multiple times, so it is slower, but it > is safer). > > The revision now in SVN already builds as OpenOffice 4.1.2, even though > the metadata update is not yet complete. > Super! Now folks downloading the snapshot builds will have the new version number. At least I think so. I need to check the buildbot setups actually. :/ > > I don't know if there is a logic in attributing the new build number. >> > > I still don't know, but 9780 seemed a reasonable choice and I used 9780. > > Note that you will need to clean up your build environment when you build > (I will send a dedicated mail once metadata update is completed). > > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- - MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu
Re: Meta data changes for 4.1.2
On 26/08/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: The three patches for the "basic" part are probably easier to understand separately: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst?r1=1583558&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/odk/util/makefile.pmk?r1=1571604&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/main/solenv/inc/minor.mk?r1=1587478&r2=1602195&pathrev=1602195&diff_format=h I started the changes by porting these 3 patches. Note that in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126480 I will follow exactly the order of the commits in https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125084 so that others can verify step-by-step or take over if needed (in reality this means changing the same files multiple times, so it is slower, but it is safer). The revision now in SVN already builds as OpenOffice 4.1.2, even though the metadata update is not yet complete. I don't know if there is a logic in attributing the new build number. I still don't know, but 9780 seemed a reasonable choice and I used 9780. Note that you will need to clean up your build environment when you build (I will send a dedicated mail once metadata update is completed). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
So what, if anything, should we take away from this? My (completely superficial, naive and uninformed) feeling is that that is a LOT of traffic on the "private" list. But maybe not. Anyway, is the idea here that there should be less traffic on that list? More? The same? I have to admit, I've been pretty dormant for a long-time, so I'm a little out of touch with what's going on (gone on) here, but you have me intrigued with this. Phil This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > From an AOO PMC Member, > > I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on > the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and > noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this > level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content > and even the topics must be held in confidence. > > This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current > state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community > when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply > should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course > of the year may provide an useful indicator. > > OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC > > This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through > July, 2015, by role of the sender. > > 2015 | Private List Messages >thru July | PMC ASF Other All > > Totals 1145 182 31 1358 > Senders22 23 2368 > Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 >(average) > Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 > > Of all the messages sent, > > 84% are by members of the PMC, > 16% are by other ASF participants, and > 17% are by others. > > The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of > the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private > list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache > OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the > PMC via private@. > > For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so > far this year, > > 49% of the messages are from the three > PMC members who were the most vocal > in the studied period. > 75% of the messages are from the seven > most vocal. > 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the > 22 PMC members that posted. > > I confess to being one of those top three posters. > > > NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION > > A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied > > 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, > about 0.8 new topics per day. >The variance of 17 from the first tally > is negligible and will not be corrected. > The raw data is available for auditing > by the PMC. > > 8.0 is the average number of messages on a > single subject > > 5% is the portion of the overall messages > used in the longest thread, one with > 73 messages > > 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest > discussion threads. The shortest thread > in that group has 18 messages. > > 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest > discussions. The shortest threads in > that group have 8 messages. > > 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest > discussions (i.e., half of the > threads). The shortest threads in > that group have 4 messages each. > > The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads > having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. > > This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and > any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. > > [end of report] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
RE: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
With a correction already, Of all the messages sent, 84.3% are by members of the PMC, 13.4% are by other ASF participants, and 2.3% are by others. [The extra decimals are simply to achieve a confirmable total of 100%, precision not so much.] -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 12:09 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: [REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July >From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. [end of report] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[REPORT] PMC 2015-07 Private-List Activity through July
>From an AOO PMC Member, I have compiled a high-level traffic analysis of discussion activity on the OpenOffice PMC private@ oo.a.o list. These are *statistics* and noisy ones at that. I am looking for trends that are good-enough at this level of precision. It is in the nature of private@ that message content and even the topics must be held in confidence. This report of gross metrics is for the community's appraisal of current state and later progress. The movement of discussions to the community when the confidentiality requirements for PMC discussion do not apply should be seen in movements at this level. Further reports over the course of the year may provide an useful indicator. OVERALL PRIVATE MESSAGE TRAFFIC This is a breakdown of the traffic in the 212 days from January through July, 2015, by role of the sender. 2015 | Private List Messages thru July | PMC ASF Other All Totals 1145 182 31 1358 Senders22 23 2368 Per sender 52.0 7.91.3 20.0 (average) Per day 5.4 0.90.1 6.4 Of all the messages sent, 84% are by members of the PMC, 16% are by other ASF participants, and 17% are by others. The ASF participants include members of Apache Infrastructure, Officers of the ASF, and other ASF Members and staff who make posts to the private list. The "Other" senders are members of the public and non-PMC Apache OpenOffice contributors that raise questions or provide information to the PMC via private@. For the 1145 messages from the 22 PMC members who posted to the list so far this year, 49% of the messages are from the three PMC members who were the most vocal in the studied period. 75% of the messages are from the seven most vocal. 91% were from the most vocal 11 of the 22 PMC members that posted. I confess to being one of those top three posters. NUMBER OF SUBJECTS AND AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION A review of the same message archives, for January - July, 2015, tallied 168 subjects discussed across 1341 posts, about 0.8 new topics per day. The variance of 17 from the first tally is negligible and will not be corrected. The raw data is available for auditing by the PMC. 8.0 is the average number of messages on a single subject 5% is the portion of the overall messages used in the longest thread, one with 73 messages 50% of the messages are on the 20 longest discussion threads. The shortest thread in that group has 18 messages. 75% of the messages are on the 50 longest discussions. The shortest threads in that group have 8 messages. 90% of the messages are on the 84 longest discussions (i.e., half of the threads). The shortest threads in that group have 4 messages each. The remaining 10% consists of 84 threads having 3, 2, and 1 messages each. This does not speak to the quality or the necessity of these messages and any particular thread. The PMC has detailed supporting data. [end of report] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cppunit -> Google Test migration and old failing tests
On 08/27/2015 09:05 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > Hi > > I am in the process of migrating our unit tests from cppunit to Google > Test. However AOO doesn't build with cppunit and hasn't been routinely > built with cppunit for a while, which means our unit tests are in a > state of neglect, and unsurprisingly, there are many failures both > compiling and running our unit tests. > > Ideally we should investigate why and fix the tests. But the APIs > being tested are complex and unfamiliar to me (eg. SVG parsing), and > would take very long to investigate properly. > > I could commit changes that will just get the tests to compile, then > fail during testing and stop the build, thus forcing others to fix > them quickly :-), but I don't imagine that will go down well. So I am > taking this approach instead: > > // FIXME: > #define RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS 0 > > #if RUN_OLD_FAILING_TESTS > broken_test(); > #endif > > Also I am making unit tests run on every build. This way at least some > unit tests will be run, and any future regressions to tests can be > caught immediately, while the broken tests can be fixed gradually. > > Everyone happy? Well pretty much. :) I've been watching your commits. Thank you for taking on this challenging task. OK, just to be clear. It looks like you're converting the cppunit calls to Google Test api calls. But, what you're saying is the actual use of the Google test routines needs additional modification to work correctly, right? > > Regards > Damjan > -- MzK “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” --Lao Tzu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: cppunit -> Google Test migration and old failing tests
+1 Thank you for working on this. Having working unit tests is key for future development! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 2015-08-25 When Speaking as the Chair
2015-08-28 15:38 GMT+02:00 toki : > On 26/08/15 00:56, Tony Stevenson wrote: > > >> I don't want to have my communications to now be taken with > >> more authority than they would were I not the Chair. > > > > For anyone who knows how the ASF works they will know that this is not > > even possible. As you are no more senior, and therefore carry no more > > authority. > > The key phrase is "anybody who knows how the ASF works". > > Most people don't, which is part of the reason why the template for > incubation as an Apache Project included "an excessive fascination with > the Apache Way". > > What Dennis is doing, is making explicit _The Apache Way_, and hoping > that journalists, etc will read that post, before they make their > incorrect assumptions. > I couldn't have said that better myself. I wish to thank Dennis for having made clear a basic but yet very important thing from his first day. Roberto > > jonathon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: 2015-08-25 When Speaking as the Chair
On 26/08/15 00:56, Tony Stevenson wrote: >> I don't want to have my communications to now be taken with >> more authority than they would were I not the Chair. > > For anyone who knows how the ASF works they will know that this is not > even possible. As you are no more senior, and therefore carry no more > authority. The key phrase is "anybody who knows how the ASF works". Most people don't, which is part of the reason why the template for incubation as an Apache Project included "an excessive fascination with the Apache Way". What Dennis is doing, is making explicit _The Apache Way_, and hoping that journalists, etc will read that post, before they make their incorrect assumptions. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
