[Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On 12/08/2011 05:19 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: + back-port Java 7 to 3.4 if no show-stopping regressions in B0 (Stephan) AA: + enable Java 7 in 3.4.5 check RC1 feedback (Stephan) 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. Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. Thanks, Stephan ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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. Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when (date/time) this was added? 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? Is there a list of functions that depend on Java? Or a Java test for LO? ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 repositories to which all developers push their changes, and from which they pull changes by others. But that is just our convention. And still, time stamps don't necessarily make much sense. All repositories in principle are equal, and there is no hierarchy in a strict sense (except by convention). Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our central repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build machine's repository? I am not a git expert at all, but the above is my understanding... that time stamps in git are informational only and can and should not be used to say if something happened before something else, for instance. (Indeed, when you push commits from your local clone, which might be several days old, they just get appended after newer commits already in the remote repo.) Anyway, you can check the git logs at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/ . It's easy for the master branch where all the code is in a single repository, core. For the 3-4 branch, we use several repositories. The Java 1.7 recognising code we are talking about in this thread in is in the ure repository, http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/ure/?h=libreoffice-3-4 There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't include that fix? That change has been in master for a long time. --tml ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 repository. Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our central repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build machine's repository? I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central repository by a developer (in this case the Java 1.7 change) which can (I hope!) be compared to the pull time of the dailies in the tinderboxes. If this doesn't work this way, please let me know! :) There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I hope). So until a 3.4.5 build is released this is the nearest approach to test back ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 feature branches and merges... Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I hope). In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done on master, and those deemed good and important are cherry-picked to a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository structure for master and 3-4 (single core vs. a bunch), it isn't a cherry-pick.) --tml ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 was pushed to the central repository by a developer which is comparable to the pull time from the central repository. In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done on master, and those deemed good and important are cherry-picked to a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository structure for master and 3-4 (single core vs. a bunch), it isn't a cherry-pick.) Excellent. Then all good changes are in the master already :) Thank you for the clarification ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [bjoern.michael...@canonical.com: [Libreoffice] What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?]
http://people.canonical.com/~bjoern/bibisect-3.5.lzma contains: - 53 complete office installs between the creation of the core repo and the -3-5 branchoff (thats 5000 commits) - at 450MB each, that would be ~22GB total - however, it is only 749MB total download size, thats 15MB per installation And one does not need to install them in parallel as one can switch through all of them with a quick git checkout source-hash-XX -- one switch costs 1 second). This sounds like a very useful tool. What do you mean complete office install? Switch between releases with a git command? Does this work under Windows??? -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [bjoern.michael...@canonical.com: [Libreoffice] What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?]
Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:43:11PM +, Pedro Lino wrote: What do you mean complete office install? A dev-install with these configure-flags: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/bibisect/build.sh#n34 So no mozilla/binfilter/help/dictionaries, but most bugs are unrelated to that, thus can be triaged without it. Switch between releases with a git command? Does this work under Windows??? In theory yes, but not with the build I uploaded as that one is for Linux 64-Bit. Of course, it should be possible to do the same for other platforms. In practice, Windows is a bit stupid with regard to installations (among a few other things), so it might be a bit harder there. Linux is also the fastest platform to build, so it it the prime candidate to get things started. As most bugs hit all platforms in the same way, those can already be triaged with this. Best, Bjoern ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com 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... Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was pushed to the central repository by a developer which is comparable to the pull time from the central repository. the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not keep track of it. So the only way to be 'certain' is to use sha1 and git log to compare where the sha1 of the build you test is compared to the dha1 of the alledge fix. It is possible to do a web service to automate that (that is giving 2 sha1s and it tell you if the second one (the fix) is an 'ancestor' of the first one (your build) essentially: if $(git merge-base build-sha fix-sha) = fix-sha Norbert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com 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 think? sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and bear in mind timezone :-)) It would be great if that information was added BOTH to the About box and to the tar/msi file name! Please do consider it :) for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since otherwise you would not have found the file to start with. for pre-release, we don't want to have too fancy filename, that would make thing much more dicey when we 'release'... Norbert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi all Looking at the Release Plan chart http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png and wiki http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3. This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which only use the most stable build) the next version will (sometimes forcefully :) ) be 3.4.5. I think this carries (from a QA point of vue) a much heavier responsibility and care than the change from 3.4.4 to 3.5.0 (which is experimental) The planned release date for 3.4.5 is on January 11, 2012 and apparently there won't be any Beta releases, it will jump directly to RC1. I urge everybody to make sure that EVERY regression detected from 3.3.x to 3.4.x is fixed/added to the 3.4 branch E.g. A bug fix such as this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42958 needs to be cherry picked to the 3.4 branch I volunteer to do any checking (within my limited knowledge) on the Windows x86 platform but someone with more experience needs to do an exhaustive search on the Bug tracker (Rainer?) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing
2011/12/9 Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com: I uninstalled it sometime later and found all these leftovers http://db.tt/GbdTzk0y You use your Windows with an administrator account. It is not recommended, however I know that many people do this. Therefore LibreOffice can write into its own Program Files folder. It is hard to remove files that were not installed by MSI. Not impossible, but probably I won't spend time on that, because AFAIK Windows 7 does not let this happen. I'm more interested in those leftovers, if any, when you start LibreOffice with a non priviliged user account. Thanks, Andras ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing
Petr Mladek wrote: could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them. [snip] I suggest to use the last daily builds from the following tinderboxes: For your convenience, I've copied the latest builds over to http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases (win32 and mac) Tinderbox admins: please, if your box has finished uploading a platform not yet there, please copy that over or poke me. Thanks, -- Thorsten pgpfneWjBppqb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com 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 think? sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and bear in mind timezone :-)) Oh come on, timezones is a solved problem: use UTC times. As I was arguing on the other thread, commit time (as opposed to author time) serves the purposes discussed rather well, no need to go looking for push or pull time: because we usually keep a linear history, it gives us a notion of before and after. And even in the cases we do a merge, the nodes in the graph that matter also have a linear history: The nodes that matter are those that ever were the HEAD of the branch. Even in case of a merge at M: A --- B C M --- D --- E \ / T---F --- G --- H The nodes T F G H were never the HEAD of the branch (e.g. master or libreoffice-3-5), so never built by the (same) tinderbox, and M has a commit time bigger than A, B, C and smaller than D, E. Remember that the commit time is updated when one rebases or uses git am; author time is not. 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 proper global version number, à la SVN revision. -- Lionel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 proper global version number, à la SVN revision. 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. However, one consession that I think would be acceptable would be to make the commit-id in the about box a direct link to our cgit e.g.: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=1d1f049859e080b403c743f7e0604bd72475a824 After all, this is about development builds so we do not have to worry if these links become invalid some day in the far future if we change our infrastructure. Best, Bjoern (*) These timestamps are set locally on developer machines, which can their local time totally fubared. Using timestamps for this is nonsense. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a branch) a proper global version number, à la SVN revision. Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*) Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight. (*) These timestamps are set locally on developer machines, which can their local time totally fubared. Using timestamps for this is nonsense. I'll grant you that a fubared local time is much more likely than a buggy SHA-1 implementation or whatever else I can imagine. OTOH, time the tinderbox started this build has IMHO *worse* problems, and that's what is being used now, so at least we are making it better. Solution is not perfect, so we have to stay with even worse solution is not a valid line of thought for me. More generally, I don't think that full strictness on that is worth the added effort for *every* tester to open a cgit web page and hunt for an arbitrary string in a long list *each* time he/she wished the answer to the simple question of does this build I'm running / testing come from earlier / later / same code than this/that fix or this/that other build. Timestamps solve that problem in... 95%? 99%? of cases... Good enough IMHO. 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. -- Lionel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing
Pedro Lino píše v Pá 09. 12. 2011 v 19:07 +: Hi all could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them. It would be great if you replay this mail and describe your feeling. Please mention the git commit IDs from the about dialog from the tested build. We might want to use the tested commit for the beta1 build. I have successfully installed build 2011-12-09_12.44.50_LibO_3.5.0beta0_Win_x86 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3. I am glad to confirm that Bug 42979 - Wrong application icon on the MSVC Master is indeed fixed :) However, even though the installer correctly uninstalled my existing LibO-dev 3.5 build, it created a group named LOdev 3.5 and installed into a folder with the same name under %ProgramFiles%. This is not a bug but the name change is a bit odd... It is so-called dev build. We are going to do beta builds this way. It allows to install these builds in parallel with the final build. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com 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 ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;) This is not a SHA vs Timestamp discussion. It is a simple Please Add both Peace! -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing
Petr Mladek píše v So 10. 12. 2011 v 00:54 +0100: Cor Nouws píše v Pá 09. 12. 2011 v 22:44 +0100: Linux (still not uploaded): will have to wait for those though ;-) Fridrich uploaded 32-bit build at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Linux_x86_Release_Configuration/libreoffice-3-5/ It is done on the release build machine = it should install everywhere like the normal release builds. It is an incremental build. We do not want to wait another day for the regular build provided by the tinderbox framework. The 64-bit build is still building. The 64-bit build for few localizations is being uploaded at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Linux_x86_64_Release_Configuration/libreoffice-3-5/ It is built the same way like the 32-bit build, see above. We started the regular tinderbox again. Please, do not get confused that the two Linux builds has the version beta0 in the name a no time, ... They were uploaded manually. The builds produced by tinderbox will have the right names for dailies again. We are sorry for the inconvenience. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
