On 1/17/12 12:30 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Pedro, *,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Pedropedl...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you guys manage to fix this for RC1. Currently only the Beta version
has this feature. Considering that only a small proportion of users are
brave enough to try
Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
sorry for coming late to the discussion... anyway, I don't think it
makes much sense to let users decide at what interval to check for
updates.
I agree, at least to the point that it's one more of those options
where the cost does outweigh the benefit. Let's keep
Hi Jonnathan, *,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
eagles051...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/17/12 12:30 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Pedropedl...@gmail.com wrote:
So the problem here is that the connections dont get closed?
Yes, this has been
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 10:59 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
I agree, at least to the point that it's one more of those options
where the cost does outweigh the benefit. Let's keep it in the xml
config, though.
Agreed - some sysadmins will no doubt want to tweak / enable / disable
this
Hi Thorsten, *,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Thorsten Behrens
t...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
sorry for coming late to the discussion... anyway, I don't think it
makes much sense to let users decide at what interval to check for
updates.
I agree, at
Hi Michael, all
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
I -imagine- we want clients to poll at intervals, instant notification of
updates is
not a useful feature to pay for millions of open sockets on the server
for.
I hope you guys manage to fix this for RC1. Currently only the Beta version
has this
On 17/01/2012 10:54, Pedro wrote:
Hi Michael, all
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
I -imagine- we want clients to poll at intervals, instant notification of
updates is
not a useful feature to pay for millions of open sockets on the server
for.
I hope you guys manage to fix this for RC1. Currently only
Jonathan Aquilina wrote
IMO polling at intervals is also overkill (both for the user and for the
servers). LO should have an option to Check at startup or Check manually
(which disables automatic checking)
I think the best solution set it to poll once a week, and we must ensure
though
On 17/01/2012 11:30, Pedro wrote:
Jonathan Aquilina wrote
IMO polling at intervals is also overkill (both for the user and for the
servers). LO should have an option to Check at startup or Check manually
(which disables automatic checking)
I think the best solution set it to poll once a week,
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
(css.beans.NamedValue is a little more lightweight than
PropertyValue in cases like this.)
Indeedly. Adapted, thx for noticing.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
pgpMvgsFHjoEf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
Hi Pedro, *,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you guys manage to fix this for RC1. Currently only the Beta version
has this feature. Considering that only a small proportion of users are
brave enough to try Betas and that Updates are only checked
Hi Christian, all
Christian Lohmaier-2 wrote
my beta3 defaults to having the weekly auto-check enabled.
My bad for not having noticed the fantastic Online Update configuration
under Tools, Options.
I was so happy that there was a Check for Updates option in the Help menu
that I didn't
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 03:47 -0800, Pedro wrote:
I was so happy that there was a Check for Updates option in the Help menu
that I didn't realize there was much more. This definitely needs a HUGE
propaganda in the 3.5 Release Notes!
Which reminds me - in common with a number of other
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
Which reminds me - in common with a number of other features, this is
not actually in the 3.5 features page; any chance you could add a
paragraph describing it here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.5
in some sensible section;
Hi,
sorry for coming late to the discussion... anyway, I don't think it
makes much sense to let users decide at what interval to check for
updates. That should be exclusively the decision of TDF, because TDF
provides the servers and has to handle the server load [1] and also
LibreOffice has a
Hi Stefan, *,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Stefan Knorr (Astron)
heinzless...@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
[1] Which as Christian wrote wouldn't be a problem in itself, but with
successful update checks, there is a download associated which usually
takes lots of time/bandwidth
And that
Hi Christian,
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 00:43 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
GET /check.php?pkgfmt=rpm HTTP/1.1
Keep-Alive:
Connection: TE, Keep-Alive
Nice catch :-)
Please consider this as stopper for upcomping versions.
Right; so one problem here is that Kendy who did the
Michael Meeks wrote:
The code lives in extensions/source/update/check/ quite why it is
failing to close the connection there is unclear to me. I -imagine- we
want clients to poll at intervals, instant notification of updates is
not a useful feature to pay for millions of open sockets on
On 01/17/2012 05:00 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=09954fc863c8ee900f157cab4458e1dcf51493d3
(css.beans.NamedValue is a little more lightweight than PropertyValue in
cases like this.)
Stephan
Hi *,
as there have been complaints lately that tinderbox server and also
opengrok are unresponsive despite the server not seeing any CPU load
or memory constraints, I thought that maybe the newly activated
check-for-updates is to blame here, and indeed it is:
Capturing the dialog with
20 matches
Mail list logo
