Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> Most odd - can you file a bug with more specific details & we can
> continue the discussion there ? can you try from an empty user profile
> etc. ? :-)
>
I'm confused. I did try an empty profile and reported all the details on the
email you are quoting...
Did yo
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 07:59 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> > 1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
> > It crashes on the Splash screen while trying to load the Solver for
> > Nonlinear Programming and the Media
Hi Pedro,
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 07:59 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> 1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
> It crashes on the Splash screen while trying to load the Solver for
> Nonlinear Programming and the Mediawiki Publisher extensions. Removing these
> two allows
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ?
> that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix.
>
More gory details:
1) If you install LOdev and no Java is installed, LO 3.5.0 won't even start.
It crashes on the Splash scree
>> Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed.
>
> Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ?
> that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix.
Yep. I would say so :)
>> Conclusion
>> LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7;
>
>
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 19:53 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
> Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
> Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4.
> Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed.
Gosh; when you say 'c
Hi all
> Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
> upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3:
Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15f
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:01:05AM +, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> "> at best redundant with the git-sha...
>>
>> Redundant is good!
>
> And "at best redundant" is _not_ good. Esp. if it can be misunderstood by
> nontechnical users.
and that
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:01:05AM +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> "> at best redundant with the git-sha...
>
> Redundant is good!
And "at best redundant" is _not_ good. Esp. if it can be misunderstood by
nontechnical users.
Best,
Bjoern
___
LibreOffice ma
> We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as
> *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human
> convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier.
That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert
"> it is less reliable and a
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*)
> Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight.
>
> The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the
> discussion right here.
>
+1
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:04:36AM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue
>> that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to
>> put in tar
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue
> that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to
> put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a
> branch) a prop
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>>> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
>> :) Thank you, then :)
>> Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
>> Central repository
> sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and
> bear in mind timezone :-))
Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :)
> for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since
> otherwise you would not have found the file to start with.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
>
> :) Thank you, then :)
> Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
> Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
> pulled after time X..
> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
pulled after time X... I think?
>> And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info s
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Hi Norbert
>
>> the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
>> keep track of it.
>
> I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
> provide a log file for each build
> E.g.
> http://dev-builds
Hi Norbert
> the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
> keep track of it.
I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
provide a log file for each build
E.g.
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/lib
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino wrote:
>> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
>> their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
>> outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
>> feature branches and merges...
> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
> their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
> outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
> feature branches and merges...
Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was "the time a change
> I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central
> repository by a developer
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
Hi Michael
>> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
>> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't
>> include that fix?
>
> Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1
> will be coming next week or so I think).
Hi Tor, all
Thank you for all the replies
> Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
> control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
> understand it.
Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily
builds from the central repos
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:05 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
> > upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
...
> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it
> I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when
> (date/time) this was added?
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Sure, in our case there are "central" repositor
> Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the
> upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be
> enabled on the "Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java" tab page, and that
> "File - Wizards - Letter..." (which uses Java) looks reasonable.
>
> Wou
27 matches
Mail list logo
