Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
On 28.12.20 23:54, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus: Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal. just to see if I understood it correctly: - From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to try the RC build - They write a mail to dev@ - We write back a link where to download - They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is fine Right? That is the IDea, yes. OK, for the moment I've added the following: "We would be happy to give you more details when you want to help us with testing. Just write a mail to the developers mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org." Please tell me if something has to be adjusted. Looks great to me. -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus: Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why. The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the RCs. Only then more people can help to test. Marcus We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal. just to see if I understood it correctly: - From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to try the RC build - They write a mail to dev@ - We write back a link where to download - They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is fine Right? OK, for the moment I've added the following: "We would be happy to give you more details when you want to help us with testing. Just write a mail to the developers mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org." Please tell me if something has to be adjusted. Marcus My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene. Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why. The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the RCs. Only then more people can help to test. Marcus We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal. just to see if I understood it correctly: - From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to try the RC build - They write a mail to dev@ - We write back a link where to download - They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is fine Right? Marcus My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene. Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why. The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the RCs. Only then more people can help to test. Marcus We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal. My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene. Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why. The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the RCs. Only then more people can help to test. Marcus My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene. Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
> -Original Message- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:18 PM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: > [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) > > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually > post a blog > article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article > moot with the actual release? Yes, absolutely! If this is contradicted I will immediately start to add to the release notes. > Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release > announcement...? No! Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
All good points, which was exactly what I was looking, and hoping, for. Thx. Glad to see that people are actually thinking hard about these things not only from a community development aspect, but also from a, for lack of a better word, strategic viewpoint. > On Dec 28, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > > On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog >> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article >> moot with the actual release? > > Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. > > First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time > that we tell them what we did and why. > > The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is > still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so > if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. > > On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people > will show up to look at the Release Candidate. > > My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. > On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. > > So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we > usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more > behind the scene. > >> >> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? >> >>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> Hi - >>> >>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language. >>> >>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM >>>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: >>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) >>>>> >>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be >>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. >>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for >>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your efforts. >>>>> >>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited. >>>> see: >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> 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 >> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> <mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org> >> > -- > This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html > <http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org>
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM Peter Kovacs wrote: > > On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog > > article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article > > moot with the actual release? > > Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more > often. > > First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first > time that we tell them what we did and why. > > The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it > is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more > frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. > > On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore > people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. > > My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog > post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. > > So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we > usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works > more behind the scene. > One more "pro" reason is SEO. By creating a blog post about the issue - preferably quoting the error message the user sees as that's what they are likely to type into the search box - search engines are more likely to direct users to the project's explanation than to other locations. S.
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why. The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome. On third: In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate. My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people. So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene. Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - 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 -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? > On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > Hi - > > I made extensive edits for consistency and language. > > Patricia, please take a look if you wish. > > Regards, > Dave > >> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >> >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: >>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) >>> >>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be >>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. >>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for >>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. >>> >>> Thanks for your efforts. >>> >>> +1 once the text is properly edited. >> >> see: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 >> >> >> >> >> - >> 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: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Hi - I made extensive edits for consistency and language. Patricia, please take a look if you wish. Regards, Dave > On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] >> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: >> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) >> >> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be >> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. >> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for >> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. >> >> Thanks for your efforts. >> >> +1 once the text is properly edited. > > see: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 > > > > > - > 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: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Thanks Jörg! Good move. I moved the parent to 4.1.9 Release notes and added the link to the section pre release blog post On 27.12.20 18:20, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: > [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) > > Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be > edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. > We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for > 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. > > Thanks for your efforts. > > +1 once the text is properly edited. see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit. Thanks for your efforts. +1 once the text is properly edited. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 27, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > Hello, > > I consider my proposal, by way of "lazy consensus" to have formally failed > because "Bidouille" has objected. > > Now I wanted to put my proposal new for decision, but Peter's proposal (and > also already finished draft text) I like better. > > > Therefore I would like to propose: > -- > > 1. we still make corrections (if necessary) to Peter's text [1] and then > publish it as a blog post in https://blogs.apache.org > > 2. we link 1. in > https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing-apache-openoffice-4-14 and in > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.8+Release+Notes > > 3. release as far as possible in the current year, in any case as soon as > possible > > > > Please mark your opinion with +1/0/-1. > > > > > greetings, > Jörg > > > > [1] > > "Dear OpenOffice Users > > > Thank you for taking interest into OpenOffice and your ongoing support > over the years. As of late as you have heared through various channels, > an Issue has popped up on Big Sur. > > The issue affects on opening modern Microsoft Office Document formats > (files that end on docx, xlsx, etc.), which causes openoffice to crash > on Mac OSX Big Sur. Affected, as far as we know, are all OpenOffice > versions. > > There is no workaround within OpenOffice at this point, and we will > address this issue in a new patch 4.1.9, which will be released to all > platforms, despite > > the main reason is the Issue on Mac. We will see to it that we include > some other minor development to the patch, so everyone has something > from this unfortunate incident. But we know that this is a pressing > issue to our users, > > So expect the patch soon. > > > In Order to identify the issue we had first a closer look at our build > in order to exclude any Issues with a wrong release. Next we updated the > build to a newer SDK Issue to exclude > > an Issue in our support structures. After this we figured that our non > production ready but upcoming Version 4.2.0 is not affected by this > Issue. In an effort over Christmas a comparison took place between the > 4.2.0 and 4.1.8 Versions to loacate potential Issues. > > It seems we have found the code change that is solving the crash on Mac. > However we are testing the Solution at this point. If you want to join > the test riage of this fix, drop a mail in English to > dev@openoffice.apache.org. The more environments we can test the better > we can react on Issues. > > The Project thanks Jim Jagelski for his endless effort during Christmas > time, and the French Forum users [...] who did support the development > by their dedicated testing efforts. > > > All the best and stay healthy" > > > > > > > > > - > 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
