Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Donald Whytock
There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>
> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald  wrote:
>
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> The
> > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
> > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> they'll
> > start looking for different office software.
> >
> > Max
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> >
> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see
> any
> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> >>
> >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> "Should I
> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>
> >>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >>
> >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> how
> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
> >> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
> >>
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Max,
> >>>
> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> 
>  Hi there,
> 
>  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> they
> 
> >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> >>> it's
> >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> it.
> >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
> >>> and
> >>> is getting ahead of us.
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the alert.
> >>>
> >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> entry
> >>> to reflect the facts.
> >>>
> >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> >>> arduous.
> >>>
> >>> Louis
> >>>
>  Max
> 
> 
>  -
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
>  -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>


Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Max Merbald
I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants 
to damage OpenOffice?




Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:

There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:


Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald  wrote:


Hi Phil,

what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.

The

presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is in
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"

they'll

start looking for different office software.

Max



Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:


I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see

any

supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I

Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or

how

LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see this
kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
wrote:

Hi Max,

On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

they

have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about

it.

The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the

entry

to reflect the facts.

So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
arduous.

Louis


Max


-
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





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



Re: OpenOffice SQLite ODBC driver

2015-09-14 Thread Kay Schenk
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Denis Yanov  wrote:

> Hi, my name is Denis I just wanted to share some info with you which you
> might include in documentation.
>
> I found some info about  SQLite ODBC driver for OpenOffice in your wiki
> http://www.openoffice.org/dba/drivers/sqlite/index.html
>
> My team managed to develop a new SQLite ODBC driver which is perfectly
> working with Libre and OpenOffice. Here it is
> https://www.devart.com/odbc/sqlite/
> It is free for download.
>
> Could you please add a link or at least a sentence to the relevant wiki
> page
> about our SQLite ODBC driver? We improving it and releasing new versions
> every 1-2 months. I think it will be important to let OpenOffice users to
> know about this alternative SQLite ODBC driver.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Waiting for your reply...
>
>
>
 Hello again Denis --

Although your SQLite ODBC driver may be very good, we will not be adding a
link to your site because this is a commercial product. We do not endorse
specific commercial products, or add links from our websites to them and
leave it to our users to search these out and purchase as they feel the
need.

Thank you for your interest in Apache OpenOffice.


-- 
-
MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
  --Lao Tzu


OpenOffice SQLite ODBC driver

2015-09-14 Thread Denis Yanov

Hi, my name is Denis I just wanted to share some info with you which you
might include in documentation.

I found some info about  SQLite ODBC driver for OpenOffice in your wiki
http://www.openoffice.org/dba/drivers/sqlite/index.html

My team managed to develop a new SQLite ODBC driver which is perfectly
working with Libre and OpenOffice. Here it is
https://www.devart.com/odbc/sqlite/
It is free for download.

Could you please add a link or at least a sentence to the relevant wiki page
about our SQLite ODBC driver? We improving it and releasing new versions
every 1-2 months. I think it will be important to let OpenOffice users to
know about this alternative SQLite ODBC driver.

What do you say?

Waiting for your reply...






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



reload of registered template directories (by extension)

2015-09-14 Thread Mathias Röllig

Hello!

I created an extension with templates in it. The template path is 
registered via Paths.xcu.
In general it works. But the problem is, that the templates must be 
reloaded before.
For me this is a bug. AOO should update the template structure itself if 
an extension provides a template path.


As a workaround: how can I update the templates via API?
In other words: what is the API equivalent for
File → Templates → Organise…: (Commands) Update
?

Thanks
Mathias

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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread John D'Orazio
Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
"Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
the corrections to the infobox information).
I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
Apache license?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
> > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
> > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
> > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>
> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
> editing wars forever! :)
>
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
> >>
> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
> >>> to damage OpenOffice?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
> >>>
>  There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> one
>  this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> 
>  On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>  
>  wrote:
> 
>  Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >
> > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> 4.1.2
> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phil,
> >>
> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> >>
> > The
> >
> >> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> >> is in
> >> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> >>
> > they'll
> >
> >> start looking for different office software.
> >>
> >> Max
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> >>
> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> >>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't
> see
> >>>
> >> any
> >
> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> >>>
> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> >>>
> >> "Should I
> >
> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> >
> > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever, or
> >>>
> >> how
> >
> >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> >>> this
> >>> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, 

Re: Slow but steady, please

2015-09-14 Thread Kay Schenk


On 09/14/2015 03:18 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
> 
> This may sound controversial, and is indeed just IMHO, but I am afraid
> that the general Office-suite marketplace is stuck and people shouldn't
> expect much more from it.

I don't find this controversial at all. It sounds rather accurate to me.

> 
> Basically I find myself repeating the idea of the 90's where the version
> of the "brand-labelled-Office-suite-you-are-using" doesn't
> matter much as long as they all have basically the same functionality.
> 
> Every time I see some discussion about OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, the
> subject somehow ends up in the MS ribbon-bar and if someone is going to
> implement it or not. We won't do it, and I doubt that LibreOffice will.
> Neither project (on their own or even together) has the resources or
> interest in running such experiments so perhaps it's time to realize
> that the AOO sidebar is the highest UI point in the history of
> OpenOffice derivatives and that nothing new is going to come.
> 
> Beyond the UI, most changes that can be done have very little
> visibility: there are other minor changes that can be done but we
> will be focusing on stability and bug fixes. Apache OpenOffice will
> continue being the OpenOffice product that people came to love/hate and
> are used to.
> 
> If you look at the commercial alternatives, they already moved away from
> the UI wars and are now focused on the mobile/cloud markets. For AOO
> this has implications: one one hand we don't have the type of resources
> to offer cloud services and complete with existing alternatives. On the
> other hand, the Apache licensing is perfect for someone wanting to do
> exactly that.
> 
> My personal opinion is that AOO has a bright future if we play our
> cards right, but it will probably not be what some people expect.
> 
> Again all just IMHO,
> 
> Pedro.

Thanks for your perspectives. I'm optimistic that once we get 4.1.2 out,
we can refocus on new ideas. And, I imagine there are quite a number of
them out there.


-- 

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



Help needed from Windows builders on buildbot problems

2015-09-14 Thread Kay Schenk
I am not a Windows builder. I am looking at the overview logs from the
nightly Windows buildbot from here:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7

I know we have a problem with apr and possibly elsewhere but if you
click the links on builds #70 and #71 in the configure steps, right now
I am concerned about the error on build #71 concerning perl not found
when it never appeared before.

If you are building on Windows 7, are you having this same problem now?
If not, can you help troubleshoot the configure step for build #71?

Thanks.

-- 

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: Slow but steady, please

2015-09-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni

Hi Bruce;

I just looked a bit ...
Calligra does look nice and I see it has advanced quite nicely.

There's probably still the issue of multi-platform support but it
is certainly refreshing to see something different.

Thanks,

Pedro.

On 09/14/15 17:18, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Hello;

This may sound controversial, and is indeed just IMHO, but I am afraid
that the general Office-suite marketplace is stuck and people shouldn't
expect much more from it.


...

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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Rory O'Farrell
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:20:18 +0200
Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Well, he did it again...
> 
> That is what he wrote to me on google+:
> 
> "And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to 
> reveal their COI."

For those who don't know, "COI" means "Conflict of Interest".

COIs cut both ways; Mr G should be invited to quote chapter and verse (fact, 
not opinion) for his alteration.  

If there is dispute on the matter it should be referred higher on Wikipedia; 
he, as moderator on Wikipedia, should not arbitrate on any entry in which he is 
personally involved.  The legal maxim is "Nemo judex in sua causa" (No man 
should judge in his own case) and the UK legal precedent is that of Coke in Dr 
Bonham's case.

Rory O'Farrell

> 
> 
> Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:
> > Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
> > still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
> > discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
> > "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
> > derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
> > page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
> > in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
> > that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
> > I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
> > cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
> > reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
> > OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
> > deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
> > about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
> > the corrections to the infobox information).
> > I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
> > be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
> > Apache license?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
> >>> I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
> >>> three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
> >>> moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
> >>
> >> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
> >> editing wars forever! :)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> >> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de
>  wrote:
> >>>
>  https://twitter.com/davidgerard
> 
> 
>  Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
> 
> > I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
> > to damage OpenOffice?
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
> >
> >> There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> >> one
> >> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> >>> having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >>>
> >>> I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> >> 4.1.2
> >>> release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> >>> certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> >> around
> >>> planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Phil,
> 
>  what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> >> that
>  AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> >> citations.
> 
> >>> The
> >>>
>  presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>  is in
>  the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> 
> >>> they'll
> >>>
>  start looking for different office software.
> 
>  Max
> 
> 
> 
>  Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> 
>  I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> > strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't
> >> see
> >
>  any
> >>>
>  supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> >> 

Re: Slow but steady, please

2015-09-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni

Hello;

This may sound controversial, and is indeed just IMHO, but I am afraid
that the general Office-suite marketplace is stuck and people shouldn't
expect much more from it.

Basically I find myself repeating the idea of the 90's where the version 
of the "brand-labelled-Office-suite-you-are-using" doesn't

matter much as long as they all have basically the same functionality.

Every time I see some discussion about OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, the
subject somehow ends up in the MS ribbon-bar and if someone is going to
implement it or not. We won't do it, and I doubt that LibreOffice will.
Neither project (on their own or even together) has the resources or
interest in running such experiments so perhaps it's time to realize
that the AOO sidebar is the highest UI point in the history of
OpenOffice derivatives and that nothing new is going to come.

Beyond the UI, most changes that can be done have very little 
visibility: there are other minor changes that can be done but we

will be focusing on stability and bug fixes. Apache OpenOffice will
continue being the OpenOffice product that people came to love/hate and
are used to.

If you look at the commercial alternatives, they already moved away from
the UI wars and are now focused on the mobile/cloud markets. For AOO
this has implications: one one hand we don't have the type of resources 
to offer cloud services and complete with existing alternatives. On the

other hand, the Apache licensing is perfect for someone wanting to do
exactly that.

My personal opinion is that AOO has a bright future if we play our
cards right, but it will probably not be what some people expect.

Again all just IMHO,

Pedro.



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



Should we reset the SNAPSHOT tag?

2015-09-14 Thread Kay Schenk
Right now our SNAPSHOT tag, which is used by the buildbots
is set at r1614269. Should this be changed to r1698423 when Andrea
changed the version number to 4.1.2?
-- 

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: Slow but steady, please

2015-09-14 Thread Bruce Byfield
On Monday 14 September 2015 05:18:38 PM Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
> 
> This may sound controversial, and is indeed just IMHO, but I am afraid
> that the general Office-suite marketplace is stuck and people shouldn't
> expect much more from it.

Have you looked at Calligra Suite? It has some interesting ideas about what a 
modern office suite could be. Unfortunately, like so many projects, it suffers 
from a lack of developers.
-- 
Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time)
https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com


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



Re: reload of registered template directories (by extension)

2015-09-14 Thread Tsutomu Uchino
Hi,

Try the followings to update:
http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/frame/DocumentTemplates.html
http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/frame/XDocumentTemplates.html#update

Regards

2015-09-15 3:41 GMT+09:00 Mathias Röllig :

> I created an extension with templates in it. The template path is
>> registered via Paths.xcu.
>> In general it works. But the problem is, that the templates must be
>> reloaded before.
>> For me this is a bug. AOO should update the template structure itself if
>> an extension provides a template path.
>>
>
> Sorry, must correct myself. All is working. The problem was, that the
> quickstarter was active, but under Ubuntu (64) 14.04 there is no
> quickstarter visible. So AOO wasn't complete closed and the configuration
> was not updated.
>
>
>
> As a workaround: how can I update the templates via API?
>> In other words: what is the API equivalent for
>> File → Templates → Organise…: (Commands) Update
>> ?
>>
>
> But if anybody knows the answer of the question above, I'm interested in.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Mathias
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


Delete emails from the list users...@openoffice.apache.org?

2015-09-14 Thread Jörg Schmidt
Hello,

A user of the German mailing list (users...@openoffice.apache.org) asking for 
deletion of their emails [1]. Is this possible? If so, who can do practically?


Greetings,
Jörg


[1]
see:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-users-de/201509.mbox/%3C55F6E0A5.1050100%40arcor.de%3E


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




Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Matthias Seidel

Well, he did it again...

That is what he wrote to me on google+:

"And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to 
reveal their COI."



Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:

Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
"Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
the corrections to the infobox information).
I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
Apache license?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:




On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:

I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...


Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
editing wars forever! :)



On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <

matthias.sei...@hamburg.de

wrote:



https://twitter.com/davidgerard


Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:


I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
to damage OpenOffice?



Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:


There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be

one

this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

wrote:

Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,

having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the

4.1.2

release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting

around

planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
wrote:

Hi Phil,


what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says

that

AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the

citations.



The


presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
is in
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"


they'll


start looking for different office software.

Max



Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:

I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -

strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't

see



any



supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although

one

could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out

some

concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the

article.

Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face

opposition.


In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled


"Should I



Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".







http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office


I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's

spreading through the press, about AOO being

dead/dormant/whatever, or



how



LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see

this
kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <

lui...@gmail.com>

wrote:

Hi Max,


On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:


Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see

where



they



have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I

think

it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done

about



it.



The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its

version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread John D'Orazio
I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>
>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>> to damage OpenOffice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>>
>>> There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
>>> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
 having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

 I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
 release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
 certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
 planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(


 Phil


 This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
 wrote:

 Hi Phil,
>
> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
>
 The

> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> is in
> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>
 they'll

> start looking for different office software.
>
> Max
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>
> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see
>>
> any

> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
>>
>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>>
> "Should I

> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>>
>>
>>
 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office

 I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
>>
> how

> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
>> this
>> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
>>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
>>>
 Hi there,

 the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

>>> they

> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
>>> it's
>>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
>>>
>> it.

> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
>>> version 5.0
>>> and
>>> is getting ahead of us.
>>>
>>> thanks for the alert.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
>>>
>> entry

> to reflect the facts.
>>>
>>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
>>> arduous.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>> Max



 -

 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
>
>
>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-14 Thread Matthias Seidel

https://twitter.com/davidgerard

Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:

I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
to damage OpenOffice?



Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:

There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

wrote:


Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
wrote:


Hi Phil,

what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.

The

presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
is in
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"

they'll

start looking for different office software.

Max



Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:


I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see

any

supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.

In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I

Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office


I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or

how

LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
this
kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
wrote:

Hi Max,

On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:

Hi there,

the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where

they

have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
it's
definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about

it.

The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
version 5.0
and
is getting ahead of us.

thanks for the alert.

Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the

entry

to reflect the facts.

So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
arduous.

Louis


Max


-

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





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





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: reload of registered template directories (by extension)

2015-09-14 Thread Mathias Röllig

I created an extension with templates in it. The template path is
registered via Paths.xcu.
In general it works. But the problem is, that the templates must be
reloaded before.
For me this is a bug. AOO should update the template structure itself if
an extension provides a template path.


Sorry, must correct myself. All is working. The problem was, that the 
quickstarter was active, but under Ubuntu (64) 14.04 there is no 
quickstarter visible. So AOO wasn't complete closed and the 
configuration was not updated.





As a workaround: how can I update the templates via API?
In other words: what is the API equivalent for
File → Templates → Organise…: (Commands) Update
?


But if anybody knows the answer of the question above, I'm interested in.


Thanks
Mathias

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



Re: [CWiki] Account Whitelisting

2015-09-14 Thread Andrea Pescetti

On 13/09/2015 Andy Seymour wrote:

I'm looking for permissions to be able to edit the Wiki "List of
Volunteers" page


Welcome! Account whitelisted.

Andrea

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



4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 125592] 4.1.1 RC3 (os/2) can't open encrypted file, NSS modules are missing

2015-09-14 Thread bugzilla
Yuri Dario  has asked  for 4.1.2_release_blocker:
Issue 125592: 4.1.1 RC3 (os/2) can't open encrypted file, NSS modules are
missing
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125592

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



4.1.2_release_blocker requested: [Issue 118923] Build of OS/2 tree

2015-09-14 Thread bugzilla
Yuri Dario  has asked  for 4.1.2_release_blocker:
Issue 118923: Build of OS/2 tree
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118923

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