David Fraser schrieb:
Hi Christian
Thanks for your offer! I think a wiki version of the Template would be a
substantial aid to many people, and from the rest of the response on the
mailing list I'm not alone in thinking that.
Could you let us know if you start working on this - I presume
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not exclusively. Also developers will benefit from a spec if they have
to refactor/change/extend the code later on. Believe me, I can't count
the occasions any more where I would have been glad to have a
specification for a
James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Caolan McNamara wrote:
[...]
Also, we really should also add...
.section.note.GNU-stack,,@progbits
That should probably be:
#ifdef __ELF__
.section .note.GNU-stack,,%progbits
#endif
as explained on the url I put in my
Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not exclusively. Also developers will benefit from a spec if they have
to refactor/change/extend the code later on. Believe me, I can't count
the occasions any more where I would
Hi Thorsten,
However, far more important than a string review, IMHO, would be to drop
German as a developer provided second source localization. Let's get rid
of that.
Aww, of course. I thought we already did that. :-/
+1 here. That's an obsolete requirement for an international project
such
Hi Michael,
I think there's some kind of agreement (or general direction, at least)
in this thread that
- *some* documentation of a feature is needed for various audiences
- the form of the documentation should not matter
- there needs to be a lightwight possibility to provide this
Hi together,
as I have the feeling that many discussions in our most beloved thread
started to go around in circles I want to break out and focus the
discussion by providing a personal summary of it. Please read this
summary as a whole before you comment on single items, I really tried to
cover
Hi,
Unfortunately I overlooked Olivers request to follow up in
dev@installation.openoffice.org and so I unintentionally opened this
side discussion. Sorry for that. Please let's continue in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Oliver Braun wrote:
with the move to the new numbering schema
Hi,
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
Thankfully the code works :-) But the very concept of rampant
duplication of state all over the place is at root broken IMHO. Having
unnecessary screenshots, duplicating bi-lingual strings etc. adds
[AFAICS] nothing at all to an existing impl,
Robert Vojta wrote:
On 10/31/06, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a password container that can collect passwords at runtime and
keeps them. Currently we don't store passwords persistently (only in
memory), though the implementation would be there. It uses a
configuration
On 11/1/06, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To force the password container to store passwords one line of code must
be changed in uui/source/iahndl.cxx. In this case we should perhaps make
it configurable wether passwords are stored or not in the future.
Thanks for this hint ...
In
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 13:01 +0100, Uwe Fischer wrote:
Hi,
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
Thankfully the code works :-) But the very concept of rampant
duplication of state all over the place is at root broken IMHO. Having
unnecessary screenshots, duplicating bi-lingual
on 2006-11-01 klockan 07:50 -0500 skrev G. Roderick Singleton:
I think that you should read system as session. [...] This would mean
that system is the wrong word but its use is likely harmless as *NIX
users will not likely care and windows users are already familiar with
the nomenclature.
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:42 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
I disagree. Esp. when the UI is changed significantly the UI-mockups are
necessary. Both for finding flaws in the proposed design as well as for
documentation.
I'm well up for the UI team doing mock-ups and communicating
Hi Christian,
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:54 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
An unfair cite.
;-) lets look at the context contention:
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 23:57 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
You mix up some things here. Nobody said that we need a spec for
each and every tiny
Hi David, All,
It would be great if we could continue the wiki discussion on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this is the right place for stuff like that.
BTW. The spec template macro problems are now fixed.
Regards,
Christian
David Fraser schrieb:
Hi Christian
Thanks for your offer! I think a
Hi *,
in the wake of the spec discussion thread, people mentioned that
they'd like to write down hard-won understanding of the code how
things work somewhere. IMO the best place for nitty-gritty details and
(self)justification why things are as they are is the code itself -
most easy (and thus
Michael Meeks wrote:
But we didn't write down a spec. We conceived of the idea, then
implemented it, now we have it. The original conception of course was
prolly inaccurate, no-one gets things right 1st time, we most likely
have a solution that is now far better than that, similarly we
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
2) The target audience is not very clear. Thanks to this thread,
though, now I'm beginning to see who the specification documents are
intended for (mostly for QA, right?).
Not exclusively. Also developers will benefit from a spec if they have
to
many people wrote:
As mentioned by others: it is a good thing if writing (some sort of)
specification can be made easier.
OTOH, I've dóne it once, and it took me about three hours. Including
studying the template and the related documentation at the Wiki - both
very good IMHO. Next
On 11/1/06, Cor Nouws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
But we didn't write down a spec. We conceived of the idea, then
implemented it, now we have it. The original conception of course was
prolly inaccurate, no-one gets things right 1st time, we most likely
have a
Hi Kohei,
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
While I agree with the gist of your statement, I must say this is not
universally applicable to all forms of creative activities, of which
coding is one.
Often a conceived idea of a certain code design can be easily
formulated in terms of programming code, but
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
However: I've seen (and joined) a very lengthy and intense discussion
on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about all good things that using the Wiki would bring.
About more community involvement especially. The Wiki came, but very
little extra time, if any at all, has been
Hi Michael, *,
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 02:20:28PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:42 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
I disagree. Esp. when the UI is changed significantly the UI-mockups are
necessary. Both for finding flaws in the proposed design as well as for
Hi Cor,
On 11/1/06, Cor Nouws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kohei,
I think it is party right what you write. Because I've some more
experience is writing words than code, I don't have that 'problem' and
maybe under estimate it.
I have no doubt that expressing and formulating ideas into
Utomo wrote:
I am waiting and open for suggestions.
Is there somebody can help me to determine how is the performance
improvements measured ?
Utomo
I have a few comments:
Performance should be quantified and explained by the submitter. In
other words, the submitter should indicate how to
Hi Mathias,
On 10/31/06, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
2) The target audience is not very clear. Thanks to this thread,
though, now I'm beginning to see who the specification documents are
intended for (mostly for QA, right?).
Not exclusively. Also developers
Thanks for the suggestions.
My original idea was.
To make Ooo faster opening the Microsoft Office files. (but without adding
memory usage by OOo)
Especially for user with old computer, such as PIII with around 128 memory
(which now mostly suffer from the huge memory usage by Ooo, and they
-Original Message-
From: Utomo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:07 AM
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: RE: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
Thanks for the suggestions.
My original idea was.
To make Ooo faster opening the Microsoft Office
hi,everybody! I found a amazing problem, when I using replaceByIndex of
XIndexAccess in so_active.cxx, whatever parameter ,the IllegalArgumentException
always through, even if I use the return value of GetByIndex.
the replaceByIndex definition is :
void
replaceByIndex( [in] long
30 matches
Mail list logo
