On 15/12/2014 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Il giorno 14/dic/2014, alle ore 17:20, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto:
On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/writerperfect/
at revision 1645375. ...
I think it would be good to have a stronger check for
On 13/12/2014 jan i wrote:
8.1 and above, it complains when you start the exe after installation.
To people who were waiting for developments in this discussion: a new
one (Digital signing release for windows) has been started, so please
follow it and I'll post my replies there too. See also
On 16/12/14 16:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build
machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with
the proper baseline.
And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide
On 17/12/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 16/12/14 16:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide builds from your
own machines) for 4.1.2? ...
this is something that is possible and I would like to move this to
later when we come closer to a release date.
On 14/12/14 10:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for
project resources, but maybe it is easier for a developer to share an
existing virtual machine (and
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/14 10:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for
project resources,
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build
machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with
the proper baseline.
And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide builds from your
own machines) for 4.1.2? This
On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for
project resources, but maybe it is easier for a developer to share an
existing virtual machine (and possibly get it running at Apache) than to
Subject: RE: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)
OK, here is why I was looking for this. Thanks for the links, Kay.
The RAT scan linked to in the [VOTE] message for 4.1.1 lists only seven files
for aoo401/main/writerperfect.
Looking in the apache-openoffice-4.1.1-r1517669-src.zip, I
On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Looking at
aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCollector.cxx, the first
one I chose to examine, I see three Copyright notices and an LGPL
license notice in the comments at the top of the file.
The same file, and the others, appear at
Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 14:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni
Subject: Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)
On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Looking at
aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCollector.cxx
Hello;
Il giorno 14/dic/2014, alle ore 17:20, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
ha scritto:
On 14/12/2014 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Looking at
aoo-4.1.1/writerperfect/source/filter/DocumentCollector.cxx, the first
one I chose to examine, I see three Copyright notices and an LGPL
after installation.
rgds
jan i
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com javascript:;]
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 15:56
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:;; Dennis Hamilton
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter
On 08/12/2014 jan i wrote:
So may I politely ask, what have changed, that we now believe this will all
go away, and we can have it all solved in a short time ?
Not much has changed indeed. I pushed to have buildbots running before
the release, but indeed if buildbots are problematic and the
Looking around for some other matters, I notice there is no 4.1.1 branch in the
SVN. Is this intentional?
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:45
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Budapest
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:45
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
On 08/12/2014 jan i wrote:
So may I politely ask, what have changed, that we now believe
-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 15:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Staging 4.1.2 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter.)
On 12/13/2014 01:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Looking around for some other matters, I notice there is no 4.1.1
, December 9, 2014 15:56
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't understand why full rebuilds are required. The only crucial file
On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough
control.
I do have a certificate and access key to the
On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough
control.
I
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where
we as
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie
javascript:; wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de javascript:; wrote:
Am 12/08/2014
and preserving the knowledge may be easier.
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 00:17
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism
-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 00:17
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why
we have
I'm all for starting with the least that could possibly work, even though I
have no expertise on this.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Budapest
...@apache.org javascript:;]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:;
Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
- signed 4.1.1 (next
, even
though I have no expertise on this.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org javascript:;]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:;
Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
Marcus wrote:
Am
, especially since we are starting
from zero using the signing process.
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 08:29
To: dev; Dennis Hamilton
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
On 9 December 2014 at 16:26, Dennis E
To: dev; Dennis Hamilton
Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
On 9 December 2014 at 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
Andrea,
[ ... ]
(Or even sign the existing installer
file, if it is in the proper format for inserting the information
On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote:
Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least I
cannot see any mentions on this ML.
Indeed, and thanks for raising it! The two main discussions we
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote:
Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at least
I
cannot see any
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote:
Maybe its
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 07/12/2014 jan i wrote:
On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i wrote:
Maybe its just me, but it seems all of the above is forgotten, at
least I
cannot see any mentions on this ML.
Indeed, and
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a
decision that we do not want to provide Linux-32 binaries, we need a 32-bit
Cent OS 5 buildbot.
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a
decision that we do
Am 12/08/2014 07:50 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcusmarcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
And, I didn't review
On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800
Kay
Hi Jan,
jan i schrieb:
[..]
Sorry for being very direct (its my danish style), but we need to get
things moving instead of just dreaming...so who will take care of which of
the above points ?
I have been silent, because I'm not able to do any of that points.
Kind regards
Regina
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
- signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December
- 4.1.2 in January
IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources,
when doing 2 releases
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:30 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014
Am 12/08/2014 08:30 PM, schrieb jan i:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:15, jan ij...@apache.org wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrellofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100
Marcusmarcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
On Mon,
Am 12/09/2014 12:07 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
- signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December
- 4.1.2 in January
IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be
Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
- signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries
...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
Marcus wrote:
Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
- signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
Hi
There was quite a number of AOO meetings in Budapest, with different
constellasions of people.
Of course no decisions were made, that needs to happen in here, but
expectations were set. Just to mention one, bring out a release
On Sunday, December 7, 2014, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:30 AM, jan i j...@apache.org javascript:;
wrote:
Hi
There was quite a number of AOO meetings in Budapest, with different
constellasions of people.
Of course no decisions were made, that
48 matches
Mail list logo
