[Libreoffice-qa] HSQLDB to Firebird migration bugs and "regression" keyword
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
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
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
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
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 ...]
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: 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: , -- 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 ...
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
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 > 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 ...
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 ...
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
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
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MS Word import: bug-to-bug or "correct"
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 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] MS Word import: bug-to-bug or "correct"
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 --- Begin Message --- 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] minutes of ESC call ...
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 ...
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 ...
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] minutes of ESC call ...
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?
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] Closing bugs in bugzilla: fixed in master or fixed everywhere?
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=37361&hide_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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Closing bugs in bugzilla: fixed in master or fixed everywhere?
I'd like to check if maybe I misunderstood our bugzilla handling standards. 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. But obviously, if our community standards are the other way round, I'll follow them. I asked because I have now lived several times now that several developers close a bug I'm CCed to as soon as they commit the fix to master. The disadvantage of the latter method is that these bugs appear crossed out in the "most annoying" (and other) lists. Its advantage, maybe, is that it goes away from said developer's list: their job is "finished" so it should get the hell out of their TODO list. I've come to see this last point as not completely obvious, and maybe even wrong: when I commit a fix to master, I regard it as also my job to get it backported to the other branches, so my job on this bug is _not_ finished, so it makes sense for it to linger in my TODO list until the fix is everywhere it should. -- 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?
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/
[Libreoffice-qa] bugzilla version for 3.6 daily
It seems we don't have a bugzilla version for bugs that don't appear in 3.6.1, but appear in daily builds of libreoffice-3-6 (to become 3.6.2)? -- 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Switch Windows to MinGW [was: Minutes of the ESC call 2012-08-30]
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 11:20:49PM +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > * Pending Action Items > + 4.0 issues (Everyone) > + everyone interested in cleanups - claim your work until next ESC! > + http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice4 > * review: Windows release binaries produced using MinGW Generally, as a developer, I'd love that, because more familiar tools, etc. With my "Base developer" hat on, I'd say we'd need to fix this MinGW MAB, or check it doesn't affect master: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43298 Best done by a Windows expert; I'll be available for help. This one also looks nasty: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43315 > * QA update (Rainer) > + HardHacks: > 32948 Linux Libreoffice/Database(?) - Address Book Data Source >Wizard fails with message "No SDBC driver was found" > + 32948 Lionel? Sent back to QA after more analysis. -- 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
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 ...]
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] Bug with dBase-data
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 02:17:01PM +0200, Bodo Rittershofer wrote:
> I am working with Windows 7/64. Every time I try to open dBase-data
> LibreOffice (latest version) LO stops working and doesnt react any more.
> Working with the same dBase Data in Open Office is no problem. Please fix
> that bug, I would like to return to LO.
I'm sorry you are experiencing difficulties with LibreOffice
Base. Could you please
- file this as a bug on https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/bug/
so that it can be properly tracked
- attach to the bug an example file with which you experience the
problem
- Indicate explicitly with which version you try ("latest" could be
any of 3.5.4, 3.5.5.rc3, 3.4.6, 3.6.0.beta3, ...)
- Which version of OpenOffice works for you (does not have this bug)
- If you used a previous version of LibreOffice where it worked OK,
which version that was.
- give click-for-click reproductions introductions (what to do to see
the bug)
- Put me in CC in the bug
With this information, I might be able to take a shot at solving this.
Best Regards,
--
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 ...
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 09:56:32AM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > * CXX0X-ABI incompatibility can of worms (Bjoern) > + gcc 4.7 - cxx0x extension is binary incompatible > + incompatible stdlib symbols that bust > + http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-06/msg00201.html > + luck that it worked until now: it was compatible. > AA: + should disable in our builds by default (Bjoern) The linked thread suggests that this is a bug / not intended to have gone in GCC 4.7, and that the "right thing" that will be done is bump the soname? -- 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
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] Referencing bugs in commits
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 04:16:33PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Markus has implemented a nice feature that should help keeping the bugs > up to date: 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 now sets weird targets for commits to libreoffice-3-6: target:3.6.3.6Beta1 in fdo#47473 3.6Beta1 in fdo#47325 (the last is without target, was manually corrected by human later) >From what I remember from the documentation of target: on the wiki, it should not have "beta", so that queries stay sane, only 3.6.0. OTOH, I very much agree that the info of in which beta/rc it is supposed to be fixed is *very* useful for checking that the bug is really fixed! -- 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
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 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
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=66cf06ebdd4eeb95e801de114af06b49119fc7fe&g=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
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 ...)
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] 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 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] Naming builds. Please???
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:06:18PM +0100, Andras Timar wrote: > 2011/12/3 Pedro Lino : >> 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=range&q=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/
