Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as > *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human > convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier. That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert "> it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;)" This is not a SHA vs Timestamp discussion. It is a simple "Please Add both" Peace! -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi, > > > Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*) > Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight. > > The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the > discussion right here. > +1 ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
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 ...)
Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue > that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to > put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a > branch) a proper global version number, à la SVN revision. Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*) Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight. The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the discussion right here. However, one consession that I think would be acceptable would be to make the commit-id in the about box a direct link to our cgit e.g.: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=1d1f049859e080b403c743f7e0604bd72475a824 After all, this is about development builds so we do not have to worry if these links become invalid some day in the far future if we change our infrastructure. Best, Bjoern (*) These timestamps are set locally on developer machines, which can their local time totally fubared. Using timestamps for this is nonsense. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On 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] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and > bear in mind timezone :-)) Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :) > for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since > otherwise you would not have found the file to start with. Obviously. But once you have downloaded it there is no way to know where it came from. Therefore it is important that this is kept in the filename > for pre-release, we don't want to have too fancy filename, that would > make thing much more dicey when we 'release'... For Pre-release (not dev builds) a simple Beta1 is enough :) (Also in the About box as requested many times and suggested by Petr :) ) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 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 :-)) > > > It would be great if that information was added BOTH to the About box > and to the tar/msi file name! Please do consider it :) for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since otherwise you would not have found the file to start with. for pre-release, we don't want to have too fancy filename, that would make thing much more dicey when we 'release'... Norbert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time' :) Thank you, then :) Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into Central repository before time X are included in the source that is pulled after time X... I think? >> And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info should/could be included >> in the About box >> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3561117 > > it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;) > otoh I > am considering addin the tinderbox id to the about box, so one can > know which box built it (and therefore what config was used) It would be great if that information was added BOTH to the About box and to the tar/msi file name! Please do consider it :) >> Can you do that? :) > > The shell script that give you the anwser given the about box info and > the sha1 of the fix, yes... the web page that wrap it all nicely, no Does anyone on this list know how to add this script to the wiki? I think that would be the best place to have this... -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > Hi Norbert > >> the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not >> keep track of it. > > I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to > provide a log file for each build > E.g. > http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/libreoffice-3-5~2011-12-09_12.44.50_build_info.txt I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time' > > And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info should/could be included > in the About box > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3561117 it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... otoh I am considering addin the tinderbox id to the about box, so one can know which box built it (and therefore what config was used) > > Can you do that? :) The shell script that give you the anwser given the about box info and the sha1 of the fix, yes... the web page that wrap it all nicely, no Norbert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Norbert > the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not > keep track of it. I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to provide a log file for each build E.g. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/libreoffice-3-5~2011-12-09_12.44.50_build_info.txt And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info should/could be included in the About box http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3561117 However Bjoern seems to have a different idea... But I still don't know what it is :) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3567211 > It is possible to do a web service to automate that (that is giving 2 > sha1s and it tell you if the second one (the fix) is an 'ancestor' of > the first one (your build) > > essentially: if $(git merge-base ) = That would be nice ;) The important part here is to know if the fix is included or not. When or the exact time is not important at all! Can you do that? :) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino wrote: >> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to >> their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push >> outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are >> feature branches and merges... > > Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was "the time a change was pushed to > the central repository by a developer" which is comparable to the pull > time from the central repository. the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not keep track of it. So the only way to be 'certain' is to use sha1 and git log to compare where the sha1 of the build you test is compared to the dha1 of the alledge fix. It is possible to do a web service to automate that (that is giving 2 sha1s and it tell you if the second one (the fix) is an 'ancestor' of the first one (your build) essentially: if $(git merge-base ) = Norbert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to > their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push > outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are > feature branches and merges... Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was "the time a change was pushed to the central repository by a developer" which is comparable to the pull time from the central repository. > In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done > on master, and those deemed good and important are "cherry-picked" to > a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository > structure for master and 3-4 (single "core" vs. a bunch), it isn't a > cherry-pick.) Excellent. Then all good changes are in the master already :) Thank you for the clarification ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central > repository by a developer But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are feature branches and merges... > Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I > hope). In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done on master, and those deemed good and important are "cherry-picked" to a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository structure for master and 3-4 (single "core" vs. a bunch), it isn't a cherry-pick.) --tml ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Michael >> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the >> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't >> include that fix? > > Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1 > will be coming next week or so I think). Excellent. Thank you for the confirmation. > Not really; perhaps litmus has some Java related data ? things like the > hsqldb (default database backend) use Java, also the Wizards currently > still use Java (File->Wizard etc.) - there are also some Java samples we > ship I suspect in the macros menu. The nlpsolver is Java, the wiki > publisher, and base report-builder. This sure helps ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Tor, all Thank you for all the replies > Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version > control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I > understand it. Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily builds from the central repository. > Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed > to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our > "central" repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build > machine's repository? I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central repository by a developer (in this case the Java 1.7 change) which can (I hope!) be compared to the pull time of the dailies in the tinderboxes. If this doesn't work this way, please let me know! :) >> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? > > Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I hope). So until a 3.4.5 build is released this is the nearest approach to test "back" ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Pedro, On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:05 +, Pedro Lino wrote: > > Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both > > upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. ... > There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the > master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't > include that fix? Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1 will be coming next week or so I think). > Is there a list of functions that depend on Java? Or a Java test for LO? Not really; perhaps litmus has some Java related data ? things like the hsqldb (default database backend) use Java, also the Wizards currently still use Java (File->Wizard etc.) - there are also some Java samples we ship I suspect in the macros menu. The nlpsolver is Java, the wiki publisher, and base report-builder. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
> I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when > (date/time) this was added? Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I understand it. Sure, in our case there are "central" repositories to which all developers push their changes, and from which they pull changes by others. But that is just our convention. And still, time stamps don't necessarily make much sense. All repositories in principle are equal, and there is no hierarchy in a strict sense (except by convention). Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our "central" repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build machine's repository? I am not a git expert at all, but the above is my understanding... that time stamps in git are informational only and can and should not be used to say if something happened "before" something else, for instance. (Indeed, when you push commits from your local clone, which might be several days old, they just get appended after newer commits already in the remote repo.) Anyway, you can check the git logs at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/ . It's easy for the "master" branch where all the code is in a single repository, "core". For the 3-4 branch, we use several repositories. The Java 1.7 recognising code we are talking about in this thread in is in the "ure" repository, http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/ure/?h=libreoffice-3-4 > There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. > The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't > include that fix? That change has been in master for a long time. --tml ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
