[Libreoffice-qa] HSQLDB to Firebird migration bugs and "regression" keyword

2018-04-13 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
Hi,

I don't think it is reasonable to tag all bugs in the HSQLDB to
Firebird migration as regressions. These are bugs in a new feature, so
by definition cannot be regressions.

In the context of a mandatory migration, there is some argument to say
that they are regressions, but in case you didn't hear/read it yet, it
was agreed during the ESC call yesterday that the migration would be
_proposed_ to the user, and not launched without the user's consent.

Best Regards,

Lionel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Base QA request

2015-11-11 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
Hi,

In the context of tdf#94069 and tdf#95723, the author of the fixes
(not a Base user, thanks for fixing this!) requests checking that his
fix (which just came in, will be in nightlies tomorrow) doesn't break
anything else.

Any takers?

Thanks in advance.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59:46AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 11:31 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > There is patch attached to tdf#94069, nominally a rather annoying 
> > Base UI bug (crash!), but which touches the VCL event loop (not 
> > specific to Base) in a way that I don't understand the consequences 
> > of
> 
> If I look at the behaviour in an older version of LibreOffice pre idle
> tweaking then on moving that widget it "jumps" around a lot and is
> shown rendering in the original location and then the new one and so
> on. So it didn't really work right in the first place as far as I can
> see.
> 
> Looking at the UnoControl PushButton etc which don't suffer from this
> problem I see that when setDesignMode is called for everything else
> they set the "real" widget to hidden (it gets drawn via a different
> mechanism than the real Paint in this case) so when its moved around it
> doesn't generate Invalidate events.
> 
> So, I think the right solution may be to make the GridControl behave
> like the other UnoControl widgets in that design mode turns off
> visibility. So I've done that as
>  a7816853bad55ada597092c16ba9a0a761e067d0 and it seems to work well.
> 
> I don't really "use" these things day to day, so testing appreciated
> for this and follow up 44daaebf835bb60fb7e442e928cd30191f15af52 to
> tweak how the grid control is laid out, to ensure I haven't busted
> anything horribly.
> 
> C.
> 
___
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] "please retest" bug comment

2015-09-04 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
Hi,

The automated "please retest" bug comment says:

  Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported
  version of LibreOffice (5.0.0.5 or later)

This suggests that LibreOffice Still is not supported anymore. What
about:

  Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported
  version of LibreOffice (preferably 5.0.0.5 or later)

or

  Test to see if the bug is still present in the latest supported
  branch of LibreOffice (preferably 5.0.0.5 or later)


-- 
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] Windows dev please evaluate my ProposedEasyHack

2015-01-27 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:00:19PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
 * Pending Action Items:
 + please file an Easy-Hack this week: just a bug with whiteboard: (All)
 EasyHack DifficultyBeginner SkillCpp TopicCleanup
 + thanks to:
 + Stephan, Michael, Lionel, Ashdod
 + http://bit.ly/1DTbesP

An easy way to do that would be to evaluate
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56904
which is Windows-specific, so I don't really have a clue how to do it
and what it entails, but I expect it is rather easy if one already
knows one's way around msi (Windows Installer) files and how we
generate them.

Is it easy enough for EasyHack? Can you outline to the lucky winner
that will pick it up how to do it?

Thanks in advance!

-- 
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] bibisect: how to update after tarball download

2014-07-23 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
Hi,

I downloaded bibisect-43all.tar.xz and unpacked it. Now, the wiki page
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Bibisect (and common sense)
suggest that I should be able to git pull to get new builds, but the
wiki page does not list any git:// (or ssh:// or whatever) URLs I
could use to fetch/pull from. Only tarball download.

Also, the xz compression takes ~rather long to uncompress (the unpack
is clearly CPU-bound in the xz decompression process) and wins only
0.016% (a bit less than 2MiB) over the uncompressed tar. I'd suggest
it is not worth the compression (or use a much faster algorithm than
xz)...

-- 
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/


[Libreoffice-qa] odb ODF standard conformance [was: minutes of ESC call ...]

2013-12-20 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:24:29PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * Crashtest update (Markus)
 + cf. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/crashtest/
   new crash testing result is available (cf. the date  git hash)
   All files tested, and the results are complete for the 1st time.
   and that all odb files are not valid according to the validator
 + need to look at the standard (Lionel)
 + presumably some silly error ...

Here are the main classes of low hanging fruit conformance errors I
see:

1) xlink:href without xlink:type

   Easy to fix if (as I assume) I can always put simple in these
   places. I have a patch sitting in my tree to do that.

2) manifest:manifest without version attribute: I have no clue what
   version I should put there. Any hint?

3) ODF mimetype 'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.base' is invalid

   Well,
   
http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/os/OpenDocument-v1.2-os-part1.html#__RefHeading__1420388_253892949
   lists this as the recommended mimetype but that the
   RFC4288-registration is in progress. Shouldn't we rather move
   forward on the registration... which has been stalled... why?

I need help on these:

1) fdo36288-2.odb/forms/Obj42/content.xml[2,17145]:  Error: attribute
   xlink:href has a bad value: .uno:FormController/saveRecord does
   not satisfy the anyURI type

   What is the right way to put a .uno URI?

2) ooo103006-1.odb/reports/Obj131/content.xml[2,6115]:  Error: element
   form:hidden is missing id attribute

   This one probably just needs an ID generated. Shall we just call
   something like BASE64ENCODE(RANDOM(give me 9 bytes))? Or is there a
   more structured system in LibreOffice?

These need some real investigation:

1) fdo40381-1.odb/content.xml[2,3672]:  Error: uncompleted content model. 
expecting: column

2) 
srv/crashtestdata/current/home/buildslave/source/bugdocs2/odb/fdo36288-2.odb/content.xml[2,3901]:
   Error: unexpected attribute db:type-name

3) ooo103006-1.odb/content.xml[2,42566]:  Error: element db:order-statement 
was found where no element may occur

4) ooo103006-1.odb/content.xml[2,42818]:  Error: unexpected attribute 
db:help-message

5) ooo103006-1.odb/forms/Obj21/content.xml[2,121903]:  Error: control149 is 
referenced by an IDREF, but not defined.

I doubt that these actually come from base-specific code, but who
knows:

1) forms/Obj11/styles.xml:  Error: unexpected attribute 
style:layout-grid-snap-to-characters

2) fdo36288-2.odb/content.xml[2,2887]:  Error: tag name
   db:font-charset is not allowed. Possible tag names are:
   character-set,table-settings

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2013-09-20 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:16:18PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

 + noticed a couple of people CC'ing developers on bugs (Joel)
 + been an issue in the past - what's the story now

Except for running into the bug myself, it is the _only_ way for me to
know about a bug.

-- 
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-website] Update from 3.6.7 as EOL

2013-08-05 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:33:45PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
 [cc'ing QA, as they might have some suggestions here...]
 On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster
 webmas...@krackedpress.com wrote:

 I do not know that 4.1.0 would be the best to start a user on,
 personallythat is.  Some would say 3.6.7 would be best for business users,
 but does it have theMSO XML format updates that 4.0.4 and maybe 4.1.0 have?

 Personally, I would tell peoplesomething like the following.
 3.6.7 - the most conservative version
 4.0.4 [4.0.5] - useful for most users
 4.1.0 - for users that are early adopters for a version line

 +1

 There has always been a sticking point for me to see the download page
 default to an early adopter version, as named by the release plan page.

 The more people on the early-adopter version, the faster we find bugs
 and regressions. I think that if we make the tradeoffs clear, we'll
 probably still have a large number of people grab the latest version
 and help us find any remaining issues, but anyone who is more cautious
 can stick with something from the previous Release series.

See also https://bugs.freedesktop.org/67556 about user confusions
about our versions in the context of the automatic available update
notification. Our vision really needs to be taught; in the context
of the update notification, I suggest we add a setting:

 - conservative
 - most users
 - early adopter

and the setting screen should contain a brief explanation of the
trade-offs.

Right now, we heuristically say (for our update policy) that people
using 3.6 are conservative (and propose them only 3.6.7), but
really that's a (bad) heuristic; it should be a setting.

 Sure we would like to have people upgrade to 4.0.4 or 4.0.5, but I
 do not think we should have anyone think we will not support
 aprevious product line less than a month or two after its last
 version comes out.

 IIRC, that's the timeline that ESC came up with. As I understand the
 logic, the last few builds in a Release series are really just
 maintenance releases containing bugfixes, etc... (*...) So instead
 of thinking about it as dropping support a month after the last
 build, think about it as dropping support 5 months after the 5th
 build (X.x.4) in a series.

Precisely. The last build is *by* *definition* the time when you drop
the possibility for bugfixes. Releasing a bugfix needs a new build, so
if you say we may make a bugfix to 3.6.7, it means we may make a
3.6.8 or in other words 3.6.7 may not be the last 3.6 build.

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2013-05-24 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:

 On Thursday, 2013-05-16 16:25:40 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

  + double check Lionel's list-box / API change (Eike)

 Done. The two properties added to
 com.sun.star.form.component.DataBaseListBox are marked optional which
 doesn't harm existing clients.

I did that on advice of ... Michael Stahl? ... on IRC to shut up the
incompatible API change error the build was giving me.

My understanding was that this was for the benefit of putative
existing *providers* of this service, that since the properties are
optional, we did not change the requirements under their feet and they
still conform to the service specification.

I don't understand how the properties being not optional would harm
*clients* (users of the service): clients written against the old
specification would simply not use the new properties, would they?

I toyed with the idea of adding a
com.sun.star.form.component.DataBaseListBox2 that makes them
non-optional so that users can be assured to have those properties,
but in the end I did not bother, and now we are past the 4.1 new
feature freeze.

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2013-04-22 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:54:19PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * Scripting interface for form elements broken (?) (Lionel)

   + I've just sent a message to the dev ML with subject
 Value of a ListBox, FMC paradigm for Form elements (controls)

   + C++ module / forms / frm::
   + not only used by 'base'

 In short:
  1) our scripting (UNO) interface to form elements (controls)
  sucks. It exposes the models, but the models don't have a
  getCurrentController() and the control(ler) exposes useful APIs
  that are thus NOT REACHABLE.
   + getView returns the same object as the controller
 AI:   + get a second view on what's up (Stephan)

As explained in the other thread, there is a somewhat roundabout way
to get the view/controller when one has the model, so it is not as bad
as I said, and is workable.

  2) ListBox has the wrong notion of current value. Change it to
  the right one incompatibly? Add a new current *bound* value
  notion to stay compatible, but make the interesting thing
  accessible in some way?
   + has two lists of key/values pairs.
   + with a one-to-one mapping between the two,
   + values that are displayed; and another that is written.
   + getCurrentValue - shouldn't return string displayed,
 but the value
   + on a date-field; don't get Mon/1st/Jan - but an abstract date.
   + not so clear as all that (Norbert/Eike)
   + value written to field, not exposed at all (Lionel)
   + API is a special exception for this box
   + been there for a while.
   + keeping back-compat there is important (Eike)
   + introduce a new method - getActualCurrentValue
   + or incompatibly extend the existing interface
   + can we put it in a property instead ?

As I wrote on the other thread, getCurrentValue is part of the
interface meant to be used by validators.
http://api.libreoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/form/validation/XValidatableFormComponent.html

That is, a procedure that, given a value for the control says one of:

 - yes, accept that value (and eventually write it to the database)
 - no, reject that value with this error message
   (and force the user to change it or cancel his/her changes)

To me, it is craziness that the validator is supposed to operate on a
different value than what will be written out, so I changed it over
Norbert  Eike's objections. If having read this email the ESC still
disagrees with me, we'll see what we can do (in terms of
implementation, to revert only that change without breaking the other
improvements I did).

I *also* added new properties SelectedValue and SelectedValues to
access the values of the selected entries.

I updated the External Value Binding mechanism for ListBox
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Forms/External_Value_Suppliers
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Forms/Value_Bindings

It is a mechanism that is supposed to generalise the concept of
linking controls to database data; they are linked to an arbitrary
data supplier / sink through an UNO interface. I could do this in a
mostly backwards compatible way, because it was already the case that
what the external value binding gets depends on the type it
supports... The values are served as another type (namely Any) than
indices or display strings.

Note that it was already the case that when an external value binding
installs itself as validator, the value passed to the validator was
tweaked to match what was served to the external value binding. In
support of my position the validator should get the same value as
what is written out.

-- 
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] Bug 59481 - FILEOPEN: Linux rpm: Native MySQL-connector aoo-my-sdbc-1.1.0 didn't work any more with LO 4.0

2013-01-21 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:17:20AM -0500, Terrence Enger wrote:
 On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 08:04 -0800, Joel Madero wrote:

 Can someone triage this one? Thanks in advance!

 And there has been quit a bit of subsequent discussion.

 I wonder just what Lionel was proposing [1] after the announcement
 [2] of changed licence for the mariadb / mysql client library.

I was commenting that for LibreOffice, this is not sufficient. We, as
a project, have decided not to ship (binaries compiled from) GPL
code in our main product, that is LibreOffice (we do ship GPL code
that does not end up in LibreOffice, e.g. in
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/make-3.82-gbuild
).

The MySQL native (SDBC) connector is made as follows::

 MySQL SDBC connector itself (SISSL / Apache / LGPL licence,
  depending on version)
using
 MySQL Connector/C++ (GPL)
using
 MySQL Connector/C (AKA libmysql or client Library) (GPL)


Swapping out the MariaDB client library for the MySQL client library
brings the picture to:

 MySQL SDBC connector itself
using
 MySQL Connector/C++ (GPL)
using
 libmariadb (LGPL)

So still not OK for integration into LibreOffice proper, because still
a GPL component.

For us to be able to ship the MySQL SDBC connector (with our current
self-imposed policy), one of these things has to be done:

1) Write an Apache/BSD/LGPL/... licensed clone of MySQL
   Connector/C++

OR

2) Change the MySQL SDBC connector to not need MySQL Connector/C++,
   but use libmysql/libmariadb directly (these are API-compatible; we
   would ship with libmariadb, but if a downstream user would want to
   swap it with libmysql, technically there should be no problem)

But that's only *our* policy. Any third party can make a different
choice, and e.g. Debian has made another choice and *does* ship GPL
code, including the MySQL Connector/C++ and the MySQL SDBC connector
for use with LibreOffice. It is my understanding any such third party
would be allowed to upload the MySQL SDBC connector for use with
LibreOffice to extensions.libreoffice.org; I don't see on that website
a policy that forbids that. If any such third party would do that, at
least for Microsoft Windows and MacOS X, I believe it would make some
of our users happier.

 How would this compare in effort and benefit to the job of making
 the mysql extension work with LibreOffice 4.0?

The MySQL extension just needs to be compiled/linked against
LibreOffice 4.0; then it should work. No development work needed. Only
building (for GNU/Linux and MacOS (if necessary): on an OS install as
old as what the extension wants to be compatible with).

So, here's how it compares in effort and benefit, it being the
stuff described in the ESC minutes that you linked to.

 - MUCH more work

 - MUCH more benefit, since it would allow the MySQL SDBC connector to
   be bundled with LibreOffice. I will *gladly* review a patch that
   does that!

 Just by the way, does this change of licence return mysql to
 consideration for LO's built-in database [4]?

No, because this is only the client library, not the database engine
itself. For our embedded database, we want to ship a database
engine. The database engine is still GPL. Be it MySQL or MariaDB.

-- 
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] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.6.5 RC2 available

2013-01-18 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:43:17PM +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
 I write:

 The Document Foundation is happy to announce the second release
 candidate of LibreOffice 3.6.5.

 In case you wonder if you missed RC1 - that version was tagged, but
 no binaries built and released because of a regression found very
 early on. :)

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.6#3.6.5_release
was not adapted. I understand that this is our last RC in 3.6.5, and
thus any non-blocker bugfix will not get in 3.6.5?

-- 
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/


[Libreoffice-qa] MS Word import: bug-to-bug or correct

2012-12-18 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
Hi,

What is our policy about MS Word import? Should it give the same
result as in MS Word, or where MS Word is buggy it should give a
correct result?

I ask this in context of the attached bug.

-- 
Lionel
---BeginMessage---
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49306

ydutri...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You reported the bug.

---End Message---
___
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] MS Word import: bug-to-bug or correct

2012-12-18 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 05:23:10PM +0100, John Smith wrote:

 Just for clarification: Are we talking about an ill-formed or
 corrupted document here, and the way such documents should be handled
 ?

Yeah, well, the person that closed the bug claims the document was
corrupted; I'm not sure I agree, but I don't have the MS Word format
skills to understand what is going on: some graphical object is in the
file, is invisible in MS Word, but visible in LibreOffice.

 On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:

 What is our policy about MS Word import? Should it give the same
 result as in MS Word, or where MS Word is buggy it should give a
 correct result?
___
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2012-11-27 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:07:40PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * CUPS - switching back to PDF output by default ? (Caolan)
   + need ability to toggle it, have a universal default ? etc.
   + needs some input to have a PDF / PS toggle for generation
 AI:   + look into adding a UI setting / config foo for toggling it (Caolan)

I seems we already have such UI. When printing from Writer (branch
libreoffice-3-6) when I click on Properties for a printer, tab
Device, I have a choice Printer Language type where I can choose

PDF
PostScript (Level from driver)
PostScript Level 1
PostScript Level 2
PostScript Level 2

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2012-11-08 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:39:22PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * 4.0 pending tasks
   + should we drop Rhino, Beanshell  javascript in 4.0 ? (Michael)
   + could be turned into an extension
   + was in the past was turned off (Stephan)
 AA:   + disable Rhino / Beanshell unless in experimental mode 
 (Michael)
   + for future deprecation / removal.

*Why*? Is there some problem with these scripting languages, are they
hard to maintain, ...?

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2012-10-17 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:14:18PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * Meeting organisation / minuting
   + weekly calls ok ?
   + better than async mail.

I'm a much more written word person than an oral person. In a
meeting where people *speak* (and not write), I often have
difficulties keeping track of what is being discussed. The fact I did
not catch that we were discussing that subject and arrived at a
conclusion of better than async mail is just an example to the case
in point :-|

So some kind of *written* medium, be it synchronous or not, would be
preferable for me. I've been assuming I'm a small minority in that
regards, so never brought it up. I've actually been regularly reading
the minutes myself to see if I've missed anything :)

This would *also* bring the problems around written stuff is logged
and never disappears, so I guess we'll want to keep *some* kind of
oral/speech channel around even if everybody is like me :-(

-- 
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] Closing bugs in bugzilla: fixed in master or fixed everywhere?

2012-09-10 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:24:41PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:30:30PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

 So if you go to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37361 (LO
 3.5 MAB), you have to click through on *each* resolved bug to read the
 bug log and try to see if there is a fixed in 3.5.x comment (or
 possibly look in whiteboard for a target:3.5, so that you can
 evaluate whether it is still relevant, or if action is needed?
 This makes it IMHO too easy for a bug to slip under the radar and be
 forgotten.

 Why not just query for target 3.5.x in whiteboard?

Yeah, a query would work, you make me realise that.

However, just going to the webpage and seeing how much in the Depends
on area is crossed out and how much is not is more immediate,
IMHO. (Yes, it make give too much, because that bug is fixed in that
branch and waiting for action on another branch, but I prefer to err
on the side of overevaluation instead of underevaluation).


So, different people have given arguments in both directions.

IMHO, the advantages of doing it (one way or the other) consistently
outweigh the advantages of either direction; thus I'd like us to be
consistent as a community on this question. So how do we go from here
to establish a community standard?

-- 
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] minutes of ESC call ...

2012-09-10 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:42:11PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * QA update (Rainer)
   + HardHacks:
   ID  OS  Component - Summary
   

   32948   Linux   Libreoffice/Database(?) - Address Book Data Source
Wizard fails with message No SDBC driver was found
   + bug-log mixes several different issues, very unclear.
   + please open separate, new, clean issues  re-report.
   + one is split to bug#54450 Evo/Addressbook doesn't work
   + David to kindly look into it.

David fixed the issue, which was specific to evolution address book,
but none of gnome-vfs, nor gconf, nor gio are enabled.

 AI:   + enable evolution connector in distro-config for Linux 
 (Lionel)

AI done (on master only, for 3.7)

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=b410acd1369609107eb3d99db767d7e779c393ce

-- 
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] Closing bugs in bugzilla: fixed in master or fixed everywhere?

2012-09-05 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:44:58PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:39:04AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
 On 09/05/2012 10:46 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

 I thought we close the bug when the fix is committed in all branches
 where it should be, and that's what I was doing in the bugs I was
 fixing.

 That's my understanding too, setting a bug to RESOLVED/FIXED only
 once all the relevant commits have reached the intended branches.

 That is quite tricky as intended branches is not clearly defined,

How is it not clearly defined?

 - Either we want the fix in 3.6.x or we don't.

 - When in the RC phase of 3.6.2, either we want the fix in
   3.6.2.next-rc or not.

 - Either we want the fix in 3.5.x or we don't.

 - When in the RC phase of 3.5.7, either we want the fix in
   3.5.7.next-rc or not.

Once these decisions are taken, the intended branches are fixed:

 - Yes - libreoffice-3-6

 - Yes - libreoffice-3-6-2

 - Yes - libreoffice-3-5

 - Yes - libreoffice-3-5-7

We can change our opinion on these questions, and then the intended
branches set changes.

 and in addition it runs counter to what mozilla defines the RESOLVED state:

  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html

Bugzilla has absolutely no clue about multiple development branches,
and this is one of its main flaws.

Even considering this, in the link you give RESOLVED is: A
resolution has been taken, (...), which to me does not say whether it
is a resolution has been taken in some branch or a resolution has
been taken in all intended branches.

 In our case, as we dont really verify yet, I would suggest the following:

 RESOLVED: assumed to be fixed for some branch, not tested, not yet released

So if you go to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37361 (LO
3.5 MAB), you have to click through on *each* resolved bug to read the
bug log and try to see if there is a fixed in 3.5.x comment (or
possibly look in whiteboard for a target:3.5, so that you can
evaluate whether it is still relevant, or if action is needed?
This makes it IMHO too easy for a bug to slip under the radar and be
forgotten.

With my / Stephan's way you'd have to click on each *open* bug to get
certainty whether action is needed for 3.5; but each of these bugs has
action needed for some branch.

I feel less bad about making people reviewing MAB list go to bugs that
need some action, but elsewhere, rather than having to look at all
already handled bugs.

In the ESC call agenda, we have MAB statistics that say e.g.

 * 3.5 most annoying bugs ...
 + 81 open (of 269) older 73/258 73/257 76/256 75/253 77/253 73/250  72/249
30% 26%28%30% 30%30%29%   29%
 + 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=37361hide_resolved=1

   With your suggestion, this would mean 81 not fixed anywhere, and
   this might be... between 81 and 269 fixed in 3.5.

   With my / Stephan's way, this means 81 not fixed everywhere it
   should, and this might be between 0 and 81 fixed in 3.5.

I prefer to err on the side of caution, that is overreporting the
number of relevant bugs rather than underreproting them.


 CLOSED: there is a version with the fix released

OK with me (and a nice service to our users). Same bikeshedding on
all intended branches have a version with the fix or at least one
branch has a version with the fix.

We could consider automoving on RC release rather than final release?

-- 
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] Bugzilla Down?

2012-09-04 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:31:37AM +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

 After it has been running a little bumpy all morning it seems
 Bugzilla is down now?

Got the same, seems back up now.

-- 
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] Base - database - registration

2012-08-23 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56:39PM +0200, Jochen wrote:

 On the German discuss-ML we are currently discussing following questions:
 If a database-file (odb-file) is opened must this database be
 registered in LibreOffice?

No.

 We have observed that some people can´t use a odb-file without
 registration in LO (LO 3.5.5 and LO 3.6.1; OS: Windows).

That would be a bug; please file it, with exact symptoms, reproduction
instructions, etc. Add me as CC to the bug (don't assign it to me). If
it happens only on Windows, I probably won't be able to do much, but
maybe someone else can have a go at it.

 Further questions are:
 What opportunities are there, anyway?

 How is the target direction, i.e. what is the normal procedure?

To open an ODB? Menu File / Open, select the file, click OK or
Open.

-- 
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/


[Libreoffice-qa] gerrit [was: minutes of ESC call ...]

2012-07-12 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:55:50PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:

 * gerrit update (David / Bjoern)
   + can we have the patch in the 'new change' mail (Lionel)
   + would be nice !
   + two ways to do mailing - better to move to using stream object
 and generate our own mails (Bjoern)
   + change templates on server-side; would affect all
 subscribing to a watched project.

This was said in the context of can we have the patch in the 'new
change' mail. Frankly, if I subscribe to a watched project, I'd like
to get the patch in my personal email, too; not only in the dev ML
mail.

So personally, we can change the templates server-side, wouldn't
bother me, quite the contrary.

   + lots of supposed / bogus patch inter-dependency
   + multiple commits when pushed are marked dependent,
 even if they are not etc.

I kinda understand where that's coming from, but frankly I find that
too strict / restrictive from gerrit's part; if the patches commute
purely on basis of do not touch the same lines (one applies cleanly
without the other), then just make them independent. Yes, might miss
semantic dependencies like added a function in a .hxx in one
commit and use that function in another commit. But in case of
doubt, err on the side of *not* annoying the user.

   + please use the './logerrit nextchange' tool to ensure
 separate patches stay separate.

This resets --hard my local branch. Bleh. My local branch should be
treated as a queue of patches I want to have in this branch, and
that are not there yet. Don't force me to meddle with my local queue,
just handle it reasonably:

 1) Easy way to push just _one_ commit (from the middle of the queue,
obviously, else where's the fun) to gerrit.

 2) Also an easy way to push my whole queue. (That's what gerrit does
now when I push my top ref.)

 3) When I repush my queue, recognise that I didn't change anything
(except rebasing with changes that came in since then, thus new
commit timestamp) and don't create a new patch set, and don't
respam the reviewers.

If I changed one or several of the commits, *then*, OK, do the
new patch set, mail reviewers thing.

-- 
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] Very VERY slow Base

2012-06-14 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:52:20AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
 On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 13:00 +0200, David wrote:

 I have a Base database that is about 22mb in size with
 approximately 40,000 entries and climbing. I recently upgraded from
 LibO 3.4.3 to LibO3.5.4 and suddenly my database is really, and I
 mean really slow.

I understand this is embedded HSQL. It would be interesting to see if
the performance problem is:

1) With any database system
2) With all Java (JDBC) systems
3) Only with embedded HSQL

-- 
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/


[Libreoffice-qa] Gerrit auto-merge

2012-06-02 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
 On 01/06/12 15:01, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:

 * Quality of round-robin patch review (Markus)
+ often generalists review specific patches for master
+ gerrit should be able to help (Norbert)
+ queueing and checking them
+ one-day timeout from gerrit: if no protest,
  auto-merge to master.

 For the record: I did not suggest, nor do I support that last point.

 iirc that auto-merge was only for commits from authors who have commit
 rights anyway, not for patch submissions from new and inexperienced
 people which is what the topic was about.

Ah, that's very different. So essentially people that now have
immediate gratification^W commit rights would go back to one day
delay?

I'm not a very auditory-oriented person (and I came late to the
party), so I might have misunderstood, but when I said one day is
short to review a patch, I specifically remember MMeeks saying
something to the effect: one day waiting period is a lot for eager
new contributors. I think I thought this was about requests to apply
a commit *already* in master to stable branch.

-- 
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] [ANN] Referencing bugs in commits

2012-02-17 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:16:33PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:

 whenever you are committing / pushing to git, and you
 reference the bugs.freedesktop.org bug in the commit message, it will
 automatically appear as a comment in the bug :-)

It seems not to happen this morning. In general, after how much time
after commit should we get worried and report it?

 - 8 -
 fdo#45748: Don't use empty pages for computing the page break position
 - 8 -

 It will result in the following comment in bugzilla:

 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45748#c7

It says:

 $AUTHOR commited a patch related to this issue to $BRANCH

That's misleading. See e.g.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45748#c9
and
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=66cf06ebdd4eeb95e801de114af06b49119fc7feg=libreoffice-3-5
Committed by Tor, but authored by Cédric. The message in the bug says
Cédric committed.

I would suggest one of:

 A patch by $AUTHOR related to this issue was committed to $BRANCH

(should it be has been committed maybe?)

or

 $COMMITTER committed a patch by $AUTHOR related to this issue to $BRANCH

or
 $AUTHOR's patch related to this issue was/has been committed to $BRANCH

-- 
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] [ANN] Referencing bugs in commits

2012-02-16 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:49:04PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
 Ivan Timofeev píše v Út 14. 02. 2012 v 20:33 +0400:

 Is it possible somehow include the information about a target version?

 Oh - great idea :-)  Added that to the script; it does some best-effort
 guess, (...)

 Please test that it works :-)

It seems to set target:3.6 for commits to master. As per
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details, this should be
3.6.0.

-- 
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 ...)

2011-12-09 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
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 ...)

2011-12-09 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
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] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

2011-12-03 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:06:18PM +0100, Andras Timar wrote:
 2011/12/3 Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com:

 Another situation: I download a master build from a tinderbox. How do
 I know the build included? How do I know if the source it was
 generated from is newer or older than the one I already have? Easy.
 Just install, open the About box and check if 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd
 is greater or smaller than 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd (just an example)

 You can check what's included and what's not, when you visit
 for example 
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?qt=rangeq=4f11d0a
 Those magic numbers in About box are git commit IDs.

Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not
comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring
to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author)
timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch?

Something like:

Build assembled from:
 repo  commit   date   branch
 core: 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master
 help: adcf6d5 2011-11-05 14:01:21 master
 ...

Or instead of pretty-printing the date, just put it as seconds
since the epoch:

 core: 4f11d0a 1321480648 master
 help: adcf6d5 1320501681 master
 ...

Here's code to get that information:

echo $(git log -1 --format=%h) $(date --utc +'%Y-%m-%d %k:%M:%S' -d @$(git log 
-1 --format=%ct)) $(basename $(git symbolic-ref HEAD))

echo $(git log -1 --format='%h %ct') $(basename $(git symbolic-ref HEAD))

-- 
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] Naming builds. Please???

2011-12-03 Thread Lionel Elie Mamane
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 11:40:01PM +, Pedro Lino wrote:

 Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not
 comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring
 to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author)
 timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch?

 Something like:

 Build assembled from:
  repo  commit   date               branch
  core: 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master
  help: adcf6d5 2011-11-05 14:01:21 master
  ...

 Or instead of pretty-printing the date, just put it as seconds
 since the epoch:

  core: 4f11d0a 1321480648 master
  help: adcf6d5 1320501681 master

 That would solve the problem when looking into the log file but not
 when looking at the About box.

No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our
current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string.

-- 
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/