Tommy wrote
Retiered some time ago [can't find thread]. Very sad
Ok, I was afraid that he left the project...
anyway he did a very good job here and everybody will welcome him if he
comes back.
He did:
V Stuart Foote wrote
So having a bit of a chore when grabbing a stack trace in Windows.
Application to use seems to be the Sysinternals (Microsoft TechNet)
Russinovich Cogswell developed Process Monitor utility. It will
completely capture to log ALL system activity on a Windows OS.
The
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
+ Tollef's great work (thanks to TDF funding) on bugzilla:
+
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/page.cgi?id=weekly-bug-summary.html
+ shows the QA heros: top bug closers, stats of opened / shut
etc.
Hi!
Great to see useful pages already
Florian Effenberger wrote
Hello,
we have received a voucher for the Amazon Cloud, and after playing with
it for a while, I think it could be a good extension for our current
infrastructure.
[...]
Anyone has already experience with using the Amazon Cloud for compiling?
Hi!
Mozilla moved
jmadero wrote
One of the main issues is that FDO doesn't allow you to go from RESOLVED
- WORKSFORME back to UNCONFIRMED.
Hi!
Not true. RESOLVED WORKSFORMEUNCONFIRMED transition is possible with
current fdo status workflow. Just checked that moment ago myself. See this
bug activity:
jmadero wrote
If you mark a bug as WFM, you are unable to go directly back to
UNCONFIRMED - which for me
is strange, I understand if it's marked as FIXED but WFM shouldn't block
you from doing UNCONFIRMED again.
Hi!
Are you sure about that? See this bug activity table:
Hi!
Please explain little more the following:
jmadero wrote
-Status clarification (New vs. Reopened)
**Agreed: *Reopened should only be used if the bug is assigned
- often Reopened status is used by the Reporters when bug is marked as
INVALID, DUPLICATE or WFM, how this new policy will work
julien2412 wrote
Also, I uploaded detailed reports, I meant all files concerned by cppcheck
reports + index page with links on source files htmlized
You'll find it there:
http://serval2412.free.fr/cppcheck_reports.tar.bz2
Just uncompress and browse
Hi!
Could this be placed at
Stefan Knorr (Astron)-2 wrote
here's a link to an HTML mockup:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/87946285/libreoffice/feedback/feedback-page.html
Hi!
Did you think about setting up LibreOffice Feedback page using Mozilla
software? It's code is available at github:
rename the URL for feedback to something more positive
Change-Id: Iea248eeb3c3eacf9b0f123daa52516f5c1f0259c
- ::rtl::OUString sURL(http://hub.libreoffice.org/file-a-bug/?version=; +
utl::ConfigManager::getAboutBoxProductVersion() +
+ ::rtl::OUString
John Smith wrote
Hi,
Here's a clang static source code analysis of the latest git sources :
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/clang_reports/master~2012-11-04_17.27.13/
Hi!
Is it comparable with the previous one? Hope you will update lcov one too.
Any chances to have those two updated on a
Sophie Gautier wrote
I would propose to use QA Contact field for this purpose, at least when
in
the processing (translation, gathering more details) phase.
If it could be the qa@fr list, then it's ok.
Hi!
This have to be Bugzilla registered account. If there is one for qa@fr, then
it could
Sophie Gautier wrote
I've discussed the process with our FR team and they are ok to handle it.
Hi!
Great to hear that! All we need now is a list of people, by language, who
can be cc'ed to work on the bug
when it has non English summary and seems to be a valid report at first
sight.
Sophie
Hi!
Recently I stumbled upon two open source projects (sources are available on
github) to get more volunteers by their interests:
- in bugs department - see http://www.joshmatthews.net/bugsahoy/
- in the development area - see http://whatcanidoformozilla.org/
Those are very simple sites, where
Thorsten Behrens wrote
Hi there,
seen this today -
http://nagappanal.blogspot.de/2012/10/ann-automated-testing-on-mac-atomac-101.html
Did anyone have experience (positive negative) with that tool?
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Hi.
See
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 10:33 -0700, bfo wrote:
This could be done on per project basis. Unfortunately with
Oh ! if we know that this is easy to turn on on a per product basis
(ie. a simple bugzilla setting just for our product); then that is
trivial to get turned
jmadero wrote
My suspicion is that the other freedesktop projects would hate
that,
and that this is something that we'd need to share with them; making it
rather difficult to fix.
Hi.
This could be done on per project basis. Unfortunately with
Michael Meeks wrote
Generally we try
jmadero wrote
I think that
recognizing who is QA and who isn't will become an issue.
Hi.
It would be possible to create QA Bugzilla group with special icon and then
add QA people as members. Icon would be displayed along Bugzilla nick then.
See 3.15.1:3
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
it should be fixed in the next build iteration.
Hi.
Checked with:
LO 3.7.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 6737f12
Windows XP Professional SP3
Could not reproduce. All good.
Best regards.
--
View this message in context:
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
Did anyone make such report for LibreOffice codebase?
no, unfortunately we don't know how the unit test coverage ranks exactly
on a scale from far too low to infinitesimal :-/
Hi.
Thanks to work of John Smith such report is available at
John Smith wrote
Anyway, the generated html report as it currently is can be found here :
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/lcov_reports/
Hi.
Great work! I hope both reports will be generated regularly and help improve
quality of LO codebase.
Best regards.
--
View this message in
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
I have a slide test-case here:
http://users.freedesktop.org/~michael/test-docs/Balmer.ppt
It has a number of images, and bullets (and marketing nonsense) in it.
It loads and renders fine in 3.6.0 - but in master the majority of the
text and images are
John Smith wrote
Not a new report (yet), but the clang analyzer reports have found a
permanent home at this location :
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/clang_reports/
Hi!
This is great news. Hope this will allow to improve LO codebase in any way.
Anyone could comment the results of this
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
Thanks ! :-) turns out it was a line we lost during some comment
translation, luckily thanks to Tomaž - it was trivial to find the three
day old commit that caused the issue isolate it really fast :-)
That's the joy of debugging regressions vs. master I
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to
use
Bugzilla more.
:-) Sure - but a developer's daily interaction involves using many bug
trackers - from LibreOffice, to SUSE, RedHat, Deb-bugs, Apache Issues,
etc. having a single page
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
+ want a hard-hacks query - with five hits
We can give that a try, but thinking about it that is really easy abused
when
just triggering on a whiteboard keyword (as in: people adding it to their
pet
peeve bugs). If that happens, handing over a query
Hi.
tl;dr, but IMHO ideal localized MozTrap system could be designed this way:
Tests should be written using some kind of special text editor with
autocomplete, in generic language (or based on English) using UI strings and
then those strings substituted to the language of choice (not only
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
Of course the filters are tested; there were -zero- unit tests for the
RTF filter before we started, it is now perhaps -the- most unit tested
filter that there is - every bug fix Miklos makes has a nice unit test:
better - since the code is shared, that is unit
Noel Grandin wrote
- zero tolerance policy for regression issues during development
- zero tolerance policy for crash issues during development
People who advocate zero tolerance for such things are welcome to
provide the time and financial resources necessary to achieve this.
Hi.
Or
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
On the other hand giving all developers the idea that
testing / bug fixing can be endlessly deferred since we'll never release
- is a really poor plan too; one aspect of that is that it's not fair on
the people that work diligently to test and fix things so we can
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
The reason I graph regressions each week is to try to add focus there;
if you can think of another more encouraging way - that'd be
appreciated.
Hi.
Unfortunately those graphs are discouraging in many ways. Especially if one
thinks about upgrading LO...
Michael
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
So - I like the idea of highlighting a small set of the most critical
bugs each-week - say five; and having them linked in the ESC minutes
with a small write-up. Of course that would need to be generated by QA.
The bit that is unworkable in the above is the
Jochen wrote
We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers.
Hi.
Strategy is simple - the time has come to manage bugs better. I could be
mistaken, it is still difficult to me to gather informations from all LO
resources, but I think that today some QA people are
Jochen wrote
IMHO has bfo some right. But:
1) bankruptcy of this system is a little bit exaggerated.
Hi!
Not at all. After reviewing 400 bugs (and counting) I could double 3.5MAB
numbers in an instant.
The main problem is that MAB is a battlefield for users without QA control
and devs IMHO
Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
For some of these bugs simply the Bug description still is not
satisfying so that I can understand developers that they pick bugs where
they can start fixing with out much additional preliminary research.
Hi!
Sometimes I am not even sure that devs use Bugzilla
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
I dont think discussing this on a mailing list will help us find the
silver
bullet to the problems you describe. However, you are most invited to just
us
on the next QA Call on August, 23rd 2012 1400UTC, discussing these topics
on
the phone is usually a lot more
Timur_LOL wrote
It is clear that at the beginning bugs list should contain only bugs
which are *new* in LibreOffice 3.6, but at some time, while some fixes
from MAB 3.5 are integrated in the code, there is a decision on what
to do with the remaining unfixed bugs from a branch (3.5).
Hi.
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
* QA update (Rainer)
+ new bug report page - with search for duplicates thanks to Tollef
Hi.
Nice that Potential Duplicates has been enabled, the same for usernames
autocomplete. Whining could be enabled also. Maybe bugs.freedesktop.org
administrators are going
Florian Reisinger wrote
Somehow it seems to me that Bugzilla is down (With some circumstances
only...) http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/862641-81201261840PM
Hi.
Seems it is updated to 4.0.7 now and blazing fast atm...
Best regards.
--
View this message in context:
John Smith wrote
I have been playing around with the llvm/clang static source code
analyzer (http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html) for a while now, and
thought it might be fun and beneficial to run the analyzer on the
libreoffice ('master') source code. For those interested the results
julien2412 wrote
There's a tracker about coverage, see
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38840
For the moment, no one seemed to be on it (perhaps I'm wrong).
Hi.
What a discovery! I have found some scripts already in the codebase
julien2412 wrote
There's a tracker about coverage, see
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38840
For the moment, no one seemed to be on it (perhaps I'm wrong).
Hi.
What a discovery! I have found some scripts already in the codebase
Hi.
Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 Preview Evaluation is available for
download as MSI installer at
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/evalcenter/hh973391.aspx?wt.mc_id=TEC_114_1_5
(link at the bottom of the page). Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008
R2 or Windows Server 2012
.
__
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Interoperability-of-LibreOffice-and-Microsoft-Office-2013-tp3996056.html
This email was sent by bfo (via Nabble)
To receive all replies by email, subscribe
Hi.
Today I stumbled upon Thunderbird code coverage report
(http://people.mozilla.org/~jcranmer2/c-ccov/).
Did anyone make such report for LibreOffice codebase?
Best regards.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901.html
Sent
David Ostrovsky wrote
just for the record: we turned on gerrit's bug-db-integration machinery
Hi.
I accidentally hovered mouse pointer over fdo#x in some commit today and
was surprised that it is linked. Cool that it is enabled. Is it possible to
underline it at all times and/or change
:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901.html
This email was sent by bfo (via Nabble)
To receive all replies by email, subscribe to this discussion:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=subscribe_by_codenode=3994901code
Hi.
In regards to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51352#c3
I think that imported bugs which are in RESOLVED FIXED state should get some
kind of notification by a triagger.
LO devs, with the current backlog, should not waste time for bugs, which
are already fixed in the other codebase.
Hi.
There are bug reports on bugs.freedesktop.org imported from AOO which are in
RESOLVED FIXED state there. Patches are commited to AOO codebase for some of
them. LO devs should reinvent the wheel to fix a fixed issues (just like
this thread is all about)? This can impact improving LO quality.
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
Linux version is LDTP, Windows version is Cobra and Mac version is PyATOM
(Work in progress).
can all of these execute the same tests?
surely writing tests 3 times is not the way to go.
With LDTP and WinLDTP, the script API part will be the same. The only
places
Hi.
I stumbled upon Cobra – WinLDTP, Windows version of Linux Desktop Testing
Project open sourced by VMWare
recently. Using this tool, the GUI functionality of an application can be
tested in Windows XP SP3, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8 development release.
Libre/OpenOffice is mentioned. Did
Petr Mladek wrote
I'd change the workflow a little bit by putting the obvious things at the
top:
- feature requests aka wishlist
I do not have any strong opinion for this. I think that it is is good to
be able to discuss features, so enhancement bugs in bugzilla might be
usable.
- add
Jan Holesovsky wrote
Hi,
On 2012-06-16 at 02:22 -0700, bfo wrote:
Not at all - it is even possible to generate a zipped installation, that
would be just unpacked, and checked into git; ie. nothing really hard to
do. But nobody has done that yet - are you interested?
If yes: The best
Joel Madero-2 wrote
Version 2, changed orientation and tried to take comments into
account. Let me know what you all think.
Hi.
This is a very nice workflow, but I have some questions:
- how you define Bug prevent users from making professional quality work?
Interoperability issues are a
The bibisect is only possible for Bugs which are reproducible under Linux,
if Linux has already been excluded (maybe bug history or comments will
contain required information) bibisecting will not be possible. But of
course, you can use bibisect to find out whether the bug is reproducible
Petr Mladek wrote
Create the wiki pages about getting the windows
backtrace.
Hi.
Draft is available at
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/How_to_get_a_backtrace_with_WinDbg.
LO Windows developers are asked to comment:
- what debug output do they actually need
- which additional WinDbg
Petr Mladek wrote
If you prepare the pages and template and
if it is easy to add new week, Michael might do it himself in the
future.
Firefox team is using CreateBox Wiki Extension for minutes - check their
wiki page at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform#Meetings
Yes, any help is
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
Crash counter (search for libreoffice-core):
https://errors.ubuntu.com/
Open LibreOffice crasher bugs by most affected users:
Open LibreOffice crasher bugs by bug heat:
This s very cool. Question - why I have mostly page not find errors when I
click in the Bugs
julien2412 wrote
Hello,
Quite recently, an interesting bt has been published by bfoman about
this bug (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62055) , here
are the top lines :
Hi.
I just wanted to add, that if there is more I can do to debug it - I will do
it (like some WinDbg
julien2412 wrote
Quite recently, an interesting bt has been published by bfoman about
this bug (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62055) , here
are the top lines :
Also check updated bt at
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62322
--
View this message in
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:35 -0700, bfo wrote:
I read that you have unused reporting tool in the codebase and plans
to bring it back to life. Without it do you know the top crashers?
Not really; we rely on human bug filing and QA to bring these to our
attention
bfo wrote
As I wrote earlier I have pdb symbols and source links in the WinDbg
outputs,
but I am concerned about missing FAULTING_SOURCE_LINE and
FAULTING_SOURCE_CODE sections.
I managed to receive outputs with FAULTING_SOURCE_CODE section just as in
Jesus screencast
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
but I am not sure if my WinDbg output is any good.
It is probably less informative without the .pdb files. Anyway, I guess
that your are on the right way.
As I wrote earlier I have pdb symbols and source links in the WinDbg
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
We are already using Litmus and are going to migrate to Moztrap. Though,
we are not familiar with the real processes that used in the Mozilla
project.
Do you have any experience with the Mozilla processes? Are you able to
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
Please consider. Always you can ask the friendly guys at Mozilla how
to set this all up...
Thanks for tip.
What a discovery! Seems like complete how to:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:13 +0200, Jesús Corrius wrote:
In any case, the right way to do it would be to automatically generate
all PDBs for each released version, for example in: solver\wntmsci.pro\pdb.
Then we put those generated PDBs online at symbols.libreoffice.org.
I think first we should
66 matches
Mail list logo
