Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Mathias,
Hi Eike,
On Friday, 2007-11-09 20:09:26 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
Note that everywhere where there is a feature-info: in the Spec.
abstract column of the Release Notes the process used a dirty fallback
Why is that fallback dirty? I don't think that
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Bernd,
Hi Frank,
Just have a look at
http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.3.0.html to get an
impression, these are the actucal release notes for the 2.3.0 user Release.
And that´s the result of what we currently
Hi Bernd,
Well yes it´s a rather simple algorithm and well normally your
expectation would be right that in this case the text from the first
paragraph of the abstract would be used. But well here it´s special. The
spec document has been changed in a way that the abstract can not be
Hi Bernd,
On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 10:06:21 +0100, Bernd Eilers wrote:
Seconded. The dirty in the fall-back is that it doesn't preserve
formatting ;-) i.e. the text written should be surrounded by pre tags,
e.g. see i74918 in http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.3.0.html
Oh no Eike,
Hi Eike, Bernd, *,
Eike Rathke wrote (14-11-2007 12:07)
On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 10:06:21 +0100, Bernd Eilers wrote:
What I consider bad on using this fallback is the problem that the
feature-info is often to technical to be used for the release notes, eg.
it´s often mentioning stuff like
Hi,
I am new to this list. As you see from my signature, I am a
mathematician by education, but also a computer hacker with 25 years
experience. As an advocate of open source software, I have been using
OOo from day one, and have a lot of experience with it. Now that I have
started to be
Hi Zvi,
Zvi Har'El wrote (14-11-2007 12:40)
[...]
base, at http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=83346. I have
proceeded in pursuing this issue, and got the feeling I am talking to
myself! [...]
I'm not a OOo developer. I think there's some deadline around these
day's. So I
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Bernd,
Hi Frank,
Well yes it´s a rather simple algorithm and well normally your
expectation would be right that in this case the text from the first
paragraph of the abstract would be used. But well here it´s special. The
spec document
Cor Nouws wrote:
Hi Eike, Bernd, *,
Hi there!
Eike Rathke wrote (14-11-2007 12:07)
On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 10:06:21 +0100, Bernd Eilers wrote:
What I consider bad on using this fallback is the problem that the
feature-info is often to technical to be used for the release notes,
eg.
Hi Bernd,
Looking into the allfeatures mailing list (did I already say kudos to
you for working around collab.net's bug, so this list now works,
again?), of the last 10 feature mails, 8 contained a specification link,
where 5 referred to older-and-extended specs (including the broken one).
Means
sophie gautier wrote:
Hi all,
Hi there!
[...]
Also, it's not the job or competence of a developer to write end user
compatible, is it? Would be a pity if that took a lot of effort.
I completely agree with you. And we need to go to the complete
description (issue, specs) to fully
Hi Frank,
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Joe,
There should be some link on the feature announcement, either to an
issue id, or to a mailing address ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is not
useful to outsiders!) or mailing list where comments can be made that
will definitely be seen
Shalom Zvi,
welcome to the project!
I do not know exactly how you can help to improve the issue you pointed
out, but perhaps you might be interested in helping out with the Hebrew
localization?
Check this out: http://he.openoffice.org
Hope this helps,
Charles.
Zvi Har'El a écrit :
Hi,
I
Hi Bernd,
On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 18:02:29 +0100, Bernd Eilers wrote:
This can even be automated (sic!), since for the feature mail, you need
to specify a project, anyway, which means the mail goes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding some additional feedback to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] should be easily
Hi Eike,
This can even be automated (sic!), since for the feature mail, you need
to specify a project, anyway, which means the mail goes to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding some additional feedback to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] should be easily possible, /me thinks.
Just adding that mentally to a
Hi Frank,
On Wednesday, 2007-11-14 21:42:42 +0100, Frank Schönheit wrote:
As a side note: users@ lists are irregularly read by developers, and for
some projects like framework a [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't even exist and
wouldn't make much sense either. Better would be some
[EMAIL
Hi Eike,
This seems to be a misunderstanding, the @ooo I used above was meant to
be read as @openoffice.org, no project involved.
Okay, I in fact misunderstood it. So you also suggested one global
feedback list ...
Perhaps [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be the choice
then. It would contradict my
Bernd Eilers wrote:
There´s no path to the specification
without the feature mail and thus a fallback to use the specification if
no feature mail is there is not possible.
I think it is clear that we *always* should have a feature mail. The
spec should be the fallback for the missing
18 matches
Mail list logo
