Re: Bootstrapping a build

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Mathias,

i agree to Stephan that we should focus first on the legal issues in the
code base but in general i think that i can help quite fast with gnu make
and the new build system because of my experience with gnu make...

Juergen

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> On 15.06.2011 12:46, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
>
>> On 06/15/2011 12:20 PM, Christian Lippka wrote:
>>
>>> Am 15.06.2011 12:10, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>>
 Moin,

 there are two things about building OOo that need to be clarified.

 Currently we use "configure" to set the build environment. The way we
 are doing it requires that a few GPLed files are part of our code
 repository:

 acinclude.m4
 aclocal.m4
 config.guess
 config.sub
 configure

 "configure" is generated from "configure.in" that AFAIK is owned by
 Oracle and also resides in OOo's code repository.

 How can we do that in a code repository hosted at apache.org?

 The next problem is the build system itself. We have started to move
 our code to a new build system using GNU Make, but there is still a
 lot of code that uses another make tool, dmake.

  Switching to GNU Make completely now may also be a good learning
>>> experience for all developers new to the code base.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, but don't underestimate the effort in doing the conversion
>> especially without having Ause, Michael or Björn around. Won't be
>> complete for many months to come.
>>
>
> While it surely would be easier with Ause and Björn on our side, Stephan
> and I can confirm that it's no rocket science. It took me a few days of
> reading and understanding existing code to write my first build system
> components for building zip and jar targets. I assume that others can do
> something like that in a comparable time frame.
>
> Stephan and I should know enough about the new build system to continue the
> work on it together with interested developers.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Christian Lippka  wrote:

> Hi all devs,
>
>
> Proposal
>
> I suggest to remove the binfilter module after the code has been provided
> under the AL.
> Therefore we have it inside the SVN and could re activate it later.
> Preferable as a separate
> extension.
>
> +1

i think we had it already on our plan for the future and i think it's now a
perfect time to do it.

And with the possibility to reactivate it if necessary we have all
options...

Juergen

Re: is the OOo SDK included in the code grant

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

it should be because it's part of the normal source tree and is only a
special packing.

Juergen

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Carl Marcum  wrote:

> Does anyone know if the OOo SDK is included in the code grant from Oracle?
>
> I haven't seen a reference to it specifically in the discussions.
>
> Thanks,
> Carl
>
>

Re: ODF Toolkit Incubation Pre-Proposal

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Rob,

i support your idea and i think that it make sense to move the ODFToolkit
project to Apache as well.

ODF is a key element in an open standard based world. Probably more
automatically processed  document workflows become available in the future
because of an open standard that everybody can read and write. Fat client
applications like OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Symphony are only one part of the
story. But when we think about the new generation of devices (smartphones,
tablets) it becomes obvious that a smaller library that can handle this
document format really make sense. Simple viewers are necessary to make the
format popular like PDF for easy exchange of documents. Other applications
that generate documents in a backend or again full featured or simplified
editors are altogether necessary to build a working eco-system around ODF.

I would prefer a new project to give them the visibility it needs. Ideally
the project will not only support a Java library but also other languages
(e.g. Python, the existing C#, etc.).

Juergen

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> I'm cc'ing the POI and OpenOffice projects, inviting them to join this
> discussion on the Incubator general list: gene...@incubator.apache.org
>
> When we were discussing the OpenOffice proposal a few weeks ago I
> mentioned that there was another set of technology called the ODF
> Toolkit, that we might want to bring to Apache as well.  I heard some
> enthusiasm for this at the time, but I didn't have the bandwidth to
> put together another proposal.  Now I do.  I'd like to pitch the idea,
> and see if there is still interest in having a formal incubation
> proposal submitted, and if so, identifying a Champion and Sponsor for
> the proposal.
>
> Note that this would not be a fork.  The ODF Toolkit Union Steering
> Committee met this morning and agreed to propose moving to Apache.
>
> As you probably know, ODF == Open Document Format, a open standard
> document format for office documents.  The ODF standard is created at
> OASIS and then sent to ISO/IEC JTC1 for transposition into an
> International Standard.  ODF 1.0 was first published in 2005.  ODF 1.1
> came out in 2007.  And ODF 1.2 is "Candidate OASIS Standard" awaiting
> final approval in OASIS, probably by end of September.  ODF 1.2 is
> what most applications are supporting today.   OpenOffice,
> LibreOffice, Symphony, KOffice/Calligra Suite use ODF as native
> formats.  Other applications, including Microsoft Office, Corel
> Wordperfect and Google Docs offer some degree of import/export
> support.  ODF 1.2 is the version also supported by the ODF Toolkit.
>
> The ODF Toolkit Union maintains the following toolkits, all of them
> under the Apache 2.0 license:
>
> 1) ODFDOM is Java-based typed DOM API, relatively low level, a 1-to-1
> mapping to the ODF schema.  In fact, much of the code is generated by
> processing the schema.
>
> http://odftoolkit.org/projects/odfdom/pages/Home
>
> 2) Simple Java API for ODF is a high level wrapper of ODFDOM.  So
> operations that might require several DOM-level operations, like
> deleting a column in a spreadsheet, are a single operation in the
> Simple API.  Search and replace, copying slides from one presentation
> to another, adding hyperlinks to a selection, etc., are top level
> operations.
>
> http://simple.odftoolkit.org/
>
> 3) The Conformance Tools projects is also in Java, and includes an
> online conformance checker of ODF documents, which can also be run in
> command line mode.
>
> http://odftoolkit.org/projects/conformancetools/pages/Home
>
> 4) XSLTRunner and XSLT Runner Task allows easy use of XSLT transforms
> with ODF documents.
>
> http://odftoolkit.org/projects/conformancetools/pages/ODFXSLTRunner
>
> 5) AODL is a C#/.NET library for ODF
>
> http://odftoolkit.org/projects/aodl/pages/Home
>
> I think there is natural synergy with Apache, especially with the Java
> components.  For example, I could see publishing pipelines involving
> the ODF Toolkit with PDFBox, Batik, FOP, and POI. Having these tools
> under a common license, in one place, has obvious benefits.
>
> Moving this project over would not be a large technical effort.
> Mercurial ==> SVN,  some simple website/wiki migration, 30 or so
> pages, a few mailing lists and bugzilla databases.  It is currently on
> the Kenai infrastructure, so similar to OpenOffice, just much, much
> smaller in scale.
>
> I'm open as to whether this would be best eventually as a TLP or as
> part of an existing project, like POI or even OpenOffice.  I'm leaning
> a little toward having this as a TLP, but I'm open to other ideas.
>
> Also, since this is already an open source project with all code under
> Apache 2.0, I assume no SGA is required?
>
> So please let me know if you agree that Apache would be a good
> location to further develop the ODF Toolkit libraries.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>

Re: IDL Generation and MediaWiki [Was Re: Website Content plus Look and Feel Improvements]

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi Clayton,
>
> I am separating into two sub-topics:
>
> (1) IDL Generation.
>
> Thanks for the link to what the Wiki uses to create a short hand for
> various IDL links. This points out a very important topic that needs to be
> co-ordinated. How do those the IDL Pages get generated. This needs to be
> co-ordinated with the build.
>

the IDL documentation is generated from the IDL sources during the normal
build process as part of the SDK build process. The generated docu is part
of the SDK and i have updated the online version with every new release. The
cross references from the wiki into the generated IDL reference and vice
versa are a very useful and effective way to find the matching
documentation.

The IDL tags in the wiki (Developers Guide section) should be collected from
time to time (with a wiki bot, process is not really finished yet when i
remember it) and a generated list with tags referenced on wiki pages is used
as source for the IDL reference generation during the build. This way we can
guarantee a working links. The IDL tags are explained on the page that
Clayton have already referenced.


>
> Who knows about the "UNOIDL - that is, the Unified Network Object Interface
> Description Language compiler, which produces the content of api.oo.o, and
> the input files."?
>
it's me ;-) and i think i have explained it above

Juergen


>
> (2) MediaWiki vs. Confluence vs. MoinMoin vs. Apache CMS
>
> There are several issues.
>
> (a) A MediaWiki at AOOo is the easiest solution for the project -
> short-term - most of the work is export/import.
>
> (b) A MediaWiki is not currently supported by Apache Infrastructure.
> MediaWiki Infra would need to be built.
>
> (c) There are a number of special extensions being used in MediaWIki with
> developers here who can support it.
>
> (d) For Confluence extensions / emulating the extensions that MW uses will
> be a learning curve.
>
> (e) Export requires co-operation with current OOo wiki admins. Confluence
> may require more.
>
> If a MediaWiki is what people want then we'll need to have several people
> who will be dedicated to helping Infrastructure support it. Please join the
> infrastructure-dev list and ask. Please share your contacts with the
> MediaWiki admins here so that others who may want to explore the convertor
> can make progress. If we have enough volunteers we can start on both and
> abandon one if one becomes clearly better.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 9:13 AM, C wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 21:16, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> >> On Jul 3, 2011, at 11:16 AM, C wrote:
> >>> - PDF and ODT export.  Confluence can do PDF, but cannot do ODT..
> >>> only MS Word DOC format (a significant issue in my view for an OOo
> >>> Wiki... a bit sad and embarassing that we'd only be able to export a
> >>> proprietary document format, and not the primary doc format that OOo
> >>> is known for).  Export to PDF and ODT is something a lot of people use
> >>> for the OOo Docs - especially the Basic and Developer's Guides.
> >>
> >> I understand the need for ODT export. Tell us about the MediaWiki
> extension that is being used, is it part of OOo or is it a third party
> extension?
> >
> > It's a MediaWiki extension, created by PediaPress -
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection
> >
> >
> >>> - IDL Tags - custom (but simple) MW extension that creates links to
> >>> the IDL library
> >>
> >> Do you mean these links:
> >>
> >>
> http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/awt/XTopWindowListener.html
> >>
> >> We will need to rewrite these anyway. Tell me how these are marked up in
> MediaWiki.
> >>
> >> Is the IDL reference generated from the source code? We'll need to get
> into that workflow too.
> >
> > The IDL Extension is all documented here - including the full source
> > of the extension itself, and how it's implemented/used within the Wiki
> > text:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Wiki_maintenance/IDLTagExtension
> >
> >
> >> No doubt this is a challenge in Confluence - it likes a flat hierarchy.
> >>
> >> If a MoinMoin Wiki is a better fit for conversion from MediaWiki we can
> certainly try it.
> >
> > I've never done a lot with MoinMoin, so can't really comment on that
> > one.  The book-like hierarchy in the existing MediaWiki is created by
> > a combination of sub-pages and the TOC navigation.  It is not really
> > the perfect implementation, but it works and keeps things at least
> > somewhat "book-like" makes it possible to generate PDF books, and
> > provides a book-like navigation or flow through a topic.  The other
> > choice, and something I experimented with, is huge monster long pages
> > with entire chapters in a single Wiki page.  This is a nightmare to
> > try and edit and maintain.
> >
> >
> > C.
> > --
> > Clayton Cornell   ccorn...@openoffice.org
> > OpenOffice.org Documentation Project co-lead
>
>

Re: Extensions and templates site down

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>>
>  Another option that comes to mind:
> 
>  3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to
>  that site.  It is done that way essentially now with OSL.  But I think
>  we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites
>  going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc.
> 
>  Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and
>  other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an
>  opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common
>  extension repository.
> 
> >>>
> >>> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document
> >>> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the
> >> TDF-Discuss
> >>> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions &
> >>> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect
> >> the
> >>> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it
> uses
> >>> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice.
> >>
> >> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site?
> >> Or a subset?  Or a different set?
> >>
> >
> > They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones at
> the
> > OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted.
>
> I'd like to have a central catalog of all extensions, commercial as
> well as open source.  Not necessarily hosting them, but having the
> basic metadata with links to whatever site hosts them. If we have
> something like this then we can escape the need for having a singe
> host site that gates user visibility of extensions based on eclectic
> things like license considerations.   You could even have multiple
> such catalogs. Maybe some which curate only GPL extensions for
> example.
>
> To do something like the above would require agreeing on a metadata
> description file for extension authors.
>

i think most of this is already available. We need to extend the code to
handle multiple repositories in the extension manager as known from for
example NetBeans. You can of course already define your own update URL for
your own extension and everything works out of the box to get the update
information via this URL. The current repository provides automatically an
update URL for extensions hosted in the repo. The whole mechanism is already
very flexible.

To add my personal opinion, i would still prefer a repo for all kind of
extensions. What we need is a working eco system around the office suite and
i think commercial extensions can be an important part  of such an eco
system. Specialized extensions for only a subset of (business) users for
example. It would allow ISV's to build their own business around the office
suite ...

Juergen


> I think this is complementary to TDF's interest in hosting open source
> extensions.
>
> > S.
>

Re: Online Help Planning

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Frank,

we should keep extensions and extension help in mind when we change the
format. Currently we are able to deploy help files within extension packages
and can integrate them dynamically in the existing help system.
It would be great to have an easy way to create or change help files (an
easy authoring workflow you have mentioned in the wiki) that can be used in
the office directly or can be deployed with extensions.

Juergen

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Frank Peters wrote:

> I have created a page on the user wiki for online help planning
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**Application+Help
>
> I also edited the main user documentation planning page
> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
> User+Documentation+Plan
> since I think it was missing some points.
>
> There is a lot of work to be done on the app help if
> we want to take this migration opportunity to also
> modernize it and fix some of the more nastier issues,
> which I think we should.
>
> Comments welcome
> Frank
>

Re: Building On Linux

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a build without (L)GPL components. I'm making good
> progress, but I'm unsure about the limitations we have.
>
> Let's consider an arbitrary library, e.g. neon.
>
> In my build I have disabled neon and so the build system neither builds
> the neon module nor the webdav UCP component in the ucb module. But I
> have neon on my system, so I could use it, and I wonder whether we could
> also use it in an "official" build from ooo.apache.org.
>
> configure has an option called "--with-system-neon" where the neon
> library and the neon headers are expected to be installed elsewhere.
> With that option this external neon is used to build the webdav UCP
> component in the ucb module. The resulting builds does not contain any
> part of neon, and it will run only on a system that has the same neon
> version installed.
>

a good question and if we could use a system version it would be very good
until we may find a better alternative. But i am not sure if all patches are
already contributed back or better are accepted. I know that Kai Sommerfeld
always tried to contribute things back but maybe there are still patches
open.

>
> Would that build be compatible to the Apache license restrictions?
>
> In that case I would not disable neon in case a "non copyleft" build is
> required, but automatically set the "--with-system-neon" option.
>
> The same is true for a lot of other libraries.
>

i guess it would definitely help us faster to get a first version faster.

Juergen


>
> Another point is EPM.
> The current build system does not create installation sets (packages)
> when EPM is disabled. Again there is an option to use EPM from the
> system. EPM is just used as a build tool and it is used as a build
> prerequisite like the compiler or the linker - so are we allowed to use
> that for a release build from ooo.apache.org?
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Re: A first try to remove some copyleft components from the build

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Andy Brown wrote:

> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > Am 07/18/2011 10:04 PM, schrieb David McKay:
> >>
> >> On 18/07/11 20:50, Andy Brown wrote:
> >>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>  On 18.07.2011 20:21, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> 
> >> 1) xpdf (GPL'd) is a run dependency, this is linux/unix
> >> specific. PDFBox may be a replacement.
> > This component is used for the pdf import extension, not for OOo
> > itself.
> >
> > The pdf import extension is not built by default, there is a
> configure
> > switch to enable it in the build. In that case xpdf would be
> > required. I
> > think that this already fulfils the legal requirements that building
> > lgpl code must be "opt-in". So as far as I can see, this is not a
> > "to do".
>  Giving it one more thought: it would be still a to do if we wanted to
>  have a pdf import extension released by Apache. So perhaps a to do
> with
>  minor priority.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Mathias
> >>> If we do include the pdf import extension I would like to see it
> >>> rewritten to do a better job of importing. I have seen to many post in
> >>> the forums about the way that it works. My suggestion would be to drop
> >>> it completely.
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >> A lot of the issues I see on the forum regarding the PDF extension are
> >> to do with expectation. People seem to think this extension is going to
> >> give them a full-blown PDF editor with the capabilities of the Adobe
> >> tools. When they discover it is for tiny corrections and typo fixes they
> >> feel let down. That's not to say there aren't any bugs in it, there may
> >> well be. But I don;t think the PDF extension was positioned or described
> >> sufficiently to provide users with the correct expectations.
> >
> > The intension was to show what is possible. On the extension website is
> > a note that the Beta status was left due to the positive notes we got
> > about the extension. But this is no promiss that its quality is like the
> > import filter for the documents formats for MS Word & Co.
> >
> > The solution is not to remove the extension but to improve it's work.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
>
> If it can be improved then it maybe worth the effort.  I still think an
> OCR engine would do the work.
>

i think if we can fix the legal issues with the dependencies we should keep
it and maybe somebody will work on it. It provides at least a minimal import
which is not enough for some people but is good enough for many others. It's
always the same that you hear more concerns than positive feedback.

And if somebody will develop something on OCR it's even better and we get a
further enhancement...

Juergen



>
> Andy
>

Re: A first try to remove some copyleft components from the build

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I tried to get rid of some copyleft dependencies. As I will leave for
> vacation on Wednesday, I now send my first patch to the list so that
> others already can have a look or even continue. I only did it on Linux
> so far, of course we will need adaptions for other platforms.
> I created the patch from the hg repository of OpenOffice.org, but the
> differences to our still not existing svn repository won't be huge, so
> it should bring us a little bit closer to a "clean" build.
>
> I also added some more todos to the wiki page.
>
> Meanwhile the license information at
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ApacheMigration
>
> about our external tarballs is nearly complete, so there might be some
> more modules that could be worked on before we will tackle the
> "internal" copyleft dependencies. As I see it, I already should have
> covered most dependencies on copyleft licensed external tarballs, with
> the exceptions of the modules for the svg import (Kai Ahrens announced
> to work on it) and linear solver (Niklas Nebel already created a first
> patch for it).
>
> Now some words about the patch.
>
> I wanted to have it lazy ;-), so I just added a single configure switch
> "--with-disable-copyleft" and did some quick and dirty changes to
> configure.in. If someone wants to make the name or the implementation
> nicer - please go for it. I never got when to use "yes/no" or
> "true/false" in our configure.in. :-)
>
> With the changes in the patch the following modules won't be built
> anymore when the switch is used:
>
> dictionaries
> epm
> gstreamer
> hunspell
> hyphen
> libwpd
> mozilla
> mythes
> neon
> nss
> saxon
>
> and some modules or module parts that depend on them. I didn't need to
> remove any sources, as all copyleft parts that I removed are external
> tar balls. The code using these parts is just "normal" OOo code that can
> stay in the repository, though should be left out in the standard build
> at Apache.
>
> The final installation set of the build on Linux currently ist just
> created as a tar.gz, native packages can't be created as epm is missing.
> (I already posted a question about epm to this list, hopefully someone
> will be able to answer it.) Thus the build currently finishes with an
> error message, nevertheless the tar.gz was created and the result
> basically runs fine.
>
> The patch contains some unfinished work in rhino that is still commented
> out. If someone knows how to add conditional compilation to a build.xml
> file (I don't): the module "scripting" has parts depending on rhino that
> need to be removed from the build.xml in case DISABLE_RHINO is set.
> Which parts these are can easily be "detected" (means: found by build
> breakages) by removing the comment signs from my changes in rhino before
> you start the build.
>
> If you want to try it yourself: get the source from
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340, apply the patch, call autoconf
> and then do the build as usual, following the build instructions in the
> ooo wiki. On my Ubuntu 11.04 the new configure switch was the only one I
> needed.
>

i will try it under MacOS but i will also take a short break over the
weekend

By the way well done Mathias it brings us forward

Juergen


>
> For those amongst us that are used to the OOo build system: I treated
> configure no longer as part of the build tree, so autoconf is required
> after applying the patch. Makes more sense that way, IMHO, and from what
> I already learned on this list, it is the preferred way at Apache.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 18 July 2011 16:22, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> > Just to be clear: The time in proposal was 10 days, from June 1 to June
> 10.  "Weeks" is a stretch.
>
> Really? Wow it felt much longer ;-) Thanks for the correction.
>
> > We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to
> be unswerving in its adherence to policies.
>
> Agreed. It's not that I think the objections are groundless, but a
> line needs to be drawn somewhere.
>
> > So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling bootstrap
> game is played and there is no point in arguing with the umpire about what
> the rules of play are?
>
> The "umpire" here is the PPMC right? As a mentor I am not trying to
> tell you where to draw the line, I am merely saying that it looks to
> me like the majority of the PPMC feel the line was drawn when the vote
> was called, if I am mistaken then please don't read my mails as ASF
> policy, the PPMC gets to set where the line is drawn.
>
> As a mentor I hope that the PPMC is also agreed that the barrier to
> entry for new committers (from OOo days or not) is relatively low and
> that the project community works hard to reach out to those who are
> upset that they missed the call. Help them become involved here at
> Apache, make them welcome, apply their documentation and code patches
> quickly, recognise their work to get the Apache OOo message out there.
> In general make sure everyone is welcome whether they have the
> "committer" title or not.
>

+1 i would highly appreciate that we welcome everybody and make the entry
barrier as low as possible aligned with the Apache rules. Everything else
comes over time if new people start real work on the project and show us
their commitment and contributions.

Juergen



>
> Ross
>
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 03:37
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
> >
> > On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >> On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that
> >>> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past
> >>> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project
> >>> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went
> >>> before.
> >>
> >> One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org
> >> contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So,
> this
> >> remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about
> June
> >> 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged.
> >
> > It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should
> > have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there
> > wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn
> > up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to
> > add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer
> > be significantly active. The process took weeks.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>

Re: IRC Channel?

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Christian,

maybe i got something wrong but i think in the end we decided to move
forward with the existing channel #dev.openoffice.org

Juergen

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Christian Lohmaier
wrote:

> Hi *,
>
> So what is the deal now?
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Ross Gardler 
> wrote:
> > On 14/06/2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> >>> On 14.06.2011 19:49, Rob Weir wrote:
> 
>  e.g., #dev.openoffice.org
>  on
>  freenode
> >
> > In the ASF it it didn't happen on the mailing list then it didn't happen.
> [...]
>
> In another thread, the newly created #ooo-dev channel was mentione (a
> bad idea to not reuse the old channel, but to create a new one, but
> your choice).
>
> What will happen with the existing OOo-channels?
> Are the officially abandoned?
>
> If so, I'll retreat from those, and also have IZBot leave them. (If
> you want it to join #ooo-dev, drop me a note).
>
> (I'll also consider them abandoned if there won't be any answer - if
> you want IZBot back in the channels after I made it part, drop me a
> note)
>
> If you did abandon the channels (as it seems as they basically are
> populated, but dead), please also update chanserv message and/or the
> topic accordingly. Thanks a lot.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>

Re: Oracle Connector for SharePoint

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM, David Nelson  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) 
> wrote:
> > The Connector for MS SharePoint (also for Alfresco's CMS and Oracle's
> > Universal Content Management (UCM)) wasn't part of the OOo development.
> > It was working for OOo, too, yes, but the main point was to have it for
> > StarOffice resp. Oracle Open Office.
> >
> > I don't think it will be part of the grant but of course I enjoy a good
> > surprise. ;-)
>
> There has been a little discussion of a CMIS plugin for LibreOffice.
> The conclusion was that such a project would be better off working
> from a fresh start. Anybody interested in getting involved?
>
>
i have it on my private agenda yes. I was deeply involved in both the
Alfresco and the Sharepoint connector and a more general CMIS connector was
in our heads already ;-) It will be probaly one of the first projects where
we can benefit from another Apache project (Chemistry).

Juergen


> --
> David Nelson
>

Re: Oracle Connector for SharePoint

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Arthur,

you are definitely correct it would be a very useful enhancement where of
course would be also room for improvements. But a general CMIS connector can
help here to address more than only one CMS system. I think we all love open
standards and CMIS is promising to fill a gap here. Anyway a more
specialized SharePoint connector can be necessary to have a solution today,
i am currently don't know how good MS support already the CMIS standard in
SharePoint.

Juergen

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arthur Buijs  wrote:

> Hi Marcus,
>
> Being able to connect is the key to success. In many organisations
> OpenOffice.org (Symphony, LibreOffice, etc.) is part of a heterogeneous
> environment. For sure I am not the only one that sees the benefits of having
> the connector on board.
>
> --
> Regards/groeten,
> Arthur Buijs
>
>
>
> On 07/21/2011 02:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>
>> The Connector for MS SharePoint (also for Alfresco's CMS and Oracle's
>> Universal Content Management (UCM)) wasn't part of the OOo development.
>> It was working for OOo, too, yes, but the main point was to have it for
>> StarOffice resp. Oracle Open Office.
>>
>> I don't think it will be part of the grant but of course I enjoy a good
>> surprise. ;-)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07/21/2011 02:41 PM, schrieb Arthur Buijs:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The Oracle Connector for SharePoint is very valuable for the
>>> OpenOffice.org community. Is it (or can it be) part of the Oracle Grant?
>>>
>>> http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/en/project/**
>>> sharepoint_connector
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards/groeten,
>>> Arthur Buijs
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Stephan Bergmann <
stephan.bergmann.second...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <
> ooo-priv...@incubator.apache.org>.  We will then know not wait for it.
> >
> > If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-priv...@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need
> before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> I would rephrase the beginnings of those two paragraphs as "If you choose
> not to submit an iCLA, …" and "Otherwise, if you do intend to submit an
> iCLA, …," respectively.  (And "not wait for it" lacks a "to.")
>
>
with this proposed changes it sounds good and it is fine to contact the
initial committers who haven't shown up so far.

Juergen


> -Stephan

Re: Oracle Connector for SharePoint

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:

> I'm not up for working on CMIS at this time, personally, but I think there
> is an open-source toolkit from Alfresco that might help if it is not already
> being used.  John Newton was very keen on encouraging CMIS adoption, of
> course.
>
Alfresco provides probably one of the best or better most complete
implementations for CMIS in their CMS and would be my first choice for a
server backend for any kind of testing ...


>
> I also agree that using the open-standards route for an adapter is a good
> idea.
>
> Although Microsoft was very prominent on the OASIS CMIS Committee, and one
> of the contributors of the initial specifications, I don't know which
> version of Sharepoint provides CMIS access nor how well-developed it is.
>  This seems like the place to start though: <
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff934619.aspx>.
>
> This is interesting too, <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Management_Interoperability_Services>.
>  The client-side Apache Chemistry code is in Java, but it might be useful to
> examine for design ideas.
>
> i know and it is fine, all our connectors were implemented as extensions
and in Java. I think the realization as an extension is quite perfect
because most (private) users don't need it.

Juergen


>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 00:30
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oracle Connector for SharePoint
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM, David Nelson 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) 
> > wrote:
> > > The Connector for MS SharePoint (also for Alfresco's CMS and Oracle's
> > > Universal Content Management (UCM)) wasn't part of the OOo development.
> > > It was working for OOo, too, yes, but the main point was to have it for
> > > StarOffice resp. Oracle Open Office.
> > >
> > > I don't think it will be part of the grant but of course I enjoy a good
> > > surprise. ;-)
> >
> > There has been a little discussion of a CMIS plugin for LibreOffice.
> > The conclusion was that such a project would be better off working
> > from a fresh start. Anybody interested in getting involved?
> >
> >
> i have it on my private agenda yes. I was deeply involved in both the
> Alfresco and the Sharepoint connector and a more general CMIS connector was
> in our heads already ;-) It will be probaly one of the first projects where
> we can benefit from another Apache project (Chemistry).
>
> Juergen
>
>
> > --
> > David Nelson
> >
>
>

Re: OOO340 to svn

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Eike Rathke  wrote:

> Hi IngridvdM,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 20:17:52 +0200, IngridvdM wrote:
>
> > >The Hg archive should simply replicate the current structure at OOo,
> > >also for ease of adding in pending CWSs as branches, so a separate l10n
> > >repository.
> > >
> > Another good argument to separate l10n from trunk was given in an
> > earlier thread: This way it is easier for developers to get only
> > what they will need usually and spare the extra time and space.
> >
> > I think this is a good argument and I wonder whether we shouldn't be
> > prepared to identify more such stuff - for example the binfilter.
>
> The problem with binfilter is that it depends on modules not in
> binfilter, changing them incompatibly may entail changes necessary to
> binfilter, those changes should be in one changeset, which I think is
> not possible when not in trunk, insights anyone?
>
>
well binfilter is maybe not the best example because in the long term we
should think about the elimination of binfilter completely. Announcing the
end of life of these filters, then allow the import only for some time and
the next step is to drop it ...

Juergen



>  Eike
>
> --
>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>

Re: OOO340 to svn - directory setup

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:45 AM, IngridvdM  wrote:

> Am 03.08.2011 08:12, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Eike Rathke  wrote:
>>
>>  Hi IngridvdM,
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 2011-08-02 20:17:52 +0200, IngridvdM wrote:
>>>
>>>  The Hg archive should simply replicate the current structure at OOo,
>>>>> also for ease of adding in pending CWSs as branches, so a separate l10n
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Another good argument to separate l10n from trunk was given in an
>>>> earlier thread: This way it is easier for developers to get only
>>>> what they will need usually and spare the extra time and space.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good argument and I wonder whether we shouldn't be
>>>> prepared to identify more such stuff - for example the binfilter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with binfilter is that it depends on modules not in
>>> binfilter, changing them incompatibly may entail changes necessary to
>>> binfilter, those changes should be in one changeset, which I think is
>>> not possible when not in trunk, insights anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>  well binfilter is maybe not the best example because in the long term we
>> should think about the elimination of binfilter completely. Announcing the
>> end of life of these filters, then allow the import only for some time and
>> the next step is to drop it ...
>>
>>  Ok agreed, binfilter is not the best example.
> But what about the general idea to have a second directory where we can
> place all the stuff that is not needed to build the main office (so not
> needed in the usual day to day work of a code developer), but anyhow belongs
> to the product and to each codeline/release.
> Maybe templates or some extensions could qualify for this stuff. Maybe we
> have nothing right now but my point is, if we identify such things later I
> do not want to clutter the directory structure with more and more
> directories next to trunk.
>
> I think even that it would be more natural to have those main office
> components and the extras components both within trunk. That should also
> ease the creation of release branches.
> So another suggestion for the directory setup:
>
> ooo/trunk/main
>  with all the other main office modules
>  ooo/trunk/main/sw (writer)
>  ooo/trunk/main/sc (calc)
>  ooo/trunk/main/sd (draw)
>  ooo/trunk/main/chart2 (chart)
>  ...
> ooo/trunk/extras
>  with l10n and maybe more stuff later
>  ooo/trunk/extras/l10n
>
> ooo/tags/...
> ooo/branches/...
>  this could look like this for example
>  ooo/branches/R3_4/main
>  ooo/branches/R3_4/extras
>  ooo/branches/R3_4_1/main
>  ooo/branches/R3_4_1/extras
>
> ooo/site/...
>

i would definitely support such a structure but on the other side the
question is if it would be enough to trigger optional parts with appropriate
configure switches, e.g. mysql-connector-enabled. Extensions are somewhat
special because they can be provided as standalone extension packages or
they can be bundled. And therefor both directory structures can make sense.


But for the i18n stuff i would definitely separate it as you propose because
we have the main language English in the main repository. And of course as
you already mentioned we can identify useful parts that should belong to the
extra repo later.

Juergen


>
> Kind regards,
> Ingrid
>
>  Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>   Eike
>>>
>>> --
>>>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>>>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Request for comments: Community Wiki Services web page.

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Terry Ellison  wrote:

> I've just finished a 1st cut of outstanding tasks and issues for the Wiki.
>
> See https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
> Community+Wiki+Services
>
> Comments gratefully received on this DL and/or on the page itself.
>

very good overview and a clear structure how to proceed. I like especially
the technical issue section where you list the current state/configuration
and where you also list alternatives to improve the system. Seems that you
all make good progress with the migration.

Juergen



>
> Thanks Terry
>

Re: [Proposal]

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Mathias Bauer  wrote:

> On 08.08.2011 16:43, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> What are examples of some threads that would belong in "web develop"?
> >> Have we had any threads like this?
> >
> > One example would be the recent Managing Downloads thread, which
> > evolved into a discussion about handling which mirrors would be used
> > and whether and how they would be made available for selection.  This
> > is more the mechanics of the site rather than the content of the site,
> > and not at all the functionality of OOo.
> >
> > It's probably just as well that that thread started in ooo-dev -- as
> > Ross says, the idea is to build community -- but it might be good to
> > have a place for it to move into.
>
> Really, most of the time requests for more mailing lists are caused by
> either usage of insufficient mail clients or wrong usage of otherwise
> perfectly capable clients. Example: if a thread doesn't interest you,
> mark it as "read" and don't read it. Or even better, have a client that
> allows you to automate that. But even without such measures the pain of
> some postings too much is much smaller than the pain caused by too many
> lists.
>
> From past experience the huge number of mailings lists in the "old" OOo
> project was a PITA. It didn't happen often, but too often that people
> asked a question and were told that "this is not the right place, ask on
> the list x instead". This sucks, especially for if this was your first
> post to a list.
>
> IMHO new mailing lists shouldn't be created before the traffic in the
> existing MLs is clearly unbearable. On this list we are not even close
> to this. This will (hopefully! ;-)) change once we will have a release
> or maybe even short before this - but until then we should avoid
> everything that could bear a risk to fragment our still small commmunity.
>
> Besides that, using [tags] in subjects is a good idea. But to be useful
> they should be commonly accepted. No, I don't want to vote about them
> ;-), but we should give used tags a feedback loop.
>

i would also prefer to move forward with one list for now. The idea with
appropriate tags is very simple to apply and probably very effective. And as
Mathias already have pointed out, if somebody is not interested in a
specific topic it is quite easy to ignore this thread.

Often used and established tags should we document in the wiki as best
practices for mailing list communication.

I am sure that we will create some more lists over time and when they are
really needed. But for now i think it works well with this list.

Regards

Juergen

PS: yes OpenOffice.org is a huge project but not everything was perfect. And
by the way from my point of view we had far to many official projects with
there own mailing lists.


>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Re: [Proposal] Mail Tags

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 8 August 2011 17:35, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> > I propose we establish a convention to insert proposed mailing list names
> > into the subject of any message to this list that relates to a subject
> that
> > could potentially require its own list long-term. From scanning the list
> I
> > suggest the following initial tags:
> >
> > [Wiki]  - the migration of the OOo wiki to Apache, including page design
> > [Repo] - the migration of the OOo source to a suitable combination of
> VCSs
> >
> > If we find that these tags have sustained use over a reasonable period
> (say
> > 45 days) that would result in a viable mailing list, I further propose
> > creation of a new list where they could both be hosted (such as admin@ )
>
> +1
>
> Although I'd suggest the best way to make this happen is to just start
> doing it and let people follow suit if they find it useful. Consistent
> tags will emerge, no need to define them in advance (although it is
> certainly helpful to have examples of use like this - thanks Simon).
>
> +1 (sometimes it's better to read some more unread and older mails before
answering one)

Juergen


> Ross
>
>
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Marcus (OOo) 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 08/08/2011 05:23 PM, schrieb Simon Phipps:
> >>
> >>  My experience of various communities over the last decade suggests Ross
> is
> >>> exactly right here. Don't start new mailing lists until we've used the
> >>> proposed list names as subject-line tags and measured the traffic using
> >>> them. Once we know there is enough traffic under a specific tag, it's
> then
> >>> good to create a list with that name if everyone agrees.
> >>>
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> BTW:
> >> I'm using subdirs in my mail account to sort my mails. So, no need to
> keep
> >> every mail in the inbox itself and then loose the overview. ;-)
> >>
> >> Marcus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  On 8 Aug 2011, at 13:27, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  On 8 August 2011 12:45, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Wolf Halton
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to propose breaking out a couple more mailing lists
> >>
> >
>  Be careful about splitting lists too early. I realise that traffic is
>  very high right now but it will die down. Splitting lists splits the
>  community, at this stage we are trying to build community.
> 
>  There are better techniques than splitting the community up. For
>  example, the list should adopt a practice of tagging subject lines so
>  that people can filter appropriately. Sorry rather then a "Web
>  Content" list mails in this topic are should have subjects of the form
>  "[web] foo".
> 
>   I certainly see the need here.  But I wonder if we can make it a
> > general "sysops" or "operations" list and have it be the place for
> > admins/moderators of the wiki, the phpBB forums, Bugzilla, etc., to
> > coordinate. I think we want to encourage these groups to stay in
> close
> > contact with each other.
> >
> 
>  Generally the pull requirements for forums are less effective for
>  community building than the push of mailing lists, at least where we
>  are talking about technical users. EMail clients are very powerful,
>  forums are not. Email works offline, forums do not. etc.
> 
>   Why?  Because we can easily see the
> > advantages of linking these systems together in advanced ways.  For
> > example:
> >
> > 1) Easy way to promote a support forum question into a bugzilla issue
> >
> 
>  No advantage over mail lists.
> 
>   2) Easy way to initiate a search of the documentation before entering
> > a support forum post
> >
> 
>  Can be useful for user focussed resources but the initial proposal is
>  for "administering the
>  wiki daily operations would go, and documentation of versions of OOo".
>  Are you really going to force admins to do this, or are you going to
>  trust them?
> 
>   3) Content analytics performed on support forum to identify new
> > candidates for FAQ items
> >
> 
>  No advantage over mail lists.
> 
>  Ross
> 
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simon Phipps
> > +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>

Re: Kudos to Dennis

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I wanted to mention that Dennis has been making an incredible effort in
> bringing so many people fully into the the project.
>
> Thank you Dennis!
>

+1 from me as well

and another thank you  to Rob who also did a great job. He is trying hard to
bring everything on the correct way and that it is appropriate and well
aligned with the rules/guidelines/requirements of Apache. I think here
especially about the licenses. OpenOffice.org has now a new home at Apache,
which is good and opens us huge opportunities for the future. We should
accept this fact and some things will change or better have to change.

Juergen



>
> It is my pleasure to be interacting with you on AOOo!
>
> Best Regards,
> Dave

Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

>
> On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk 
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
>  From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would
> be
>  VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> restrict
>  discussion to rather specific aspects.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> >>> original and it is not truncated)
> >>>
>  And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to
> try
> >>> to
>  sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> >>>
> >>> Ross
> >>>
> >>
> >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once)
> on
> >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions
> are
> >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> >>
> >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> documentation
> >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> >>
> >
> > We have a mailing lists page:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> >
> > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > first paragraph.   Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > CMS in their browsers:
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> >
> > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
>
> It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community wiki so
> that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit it.
>

where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the rules
and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute valuable
content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then it
is your problem.

And by the way new tags will or should  be discussed here anyway and
probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.

Juergen


>
> S.
>
>
>

Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> 2011/8/11 Jürgen Schmidt 
>
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Simon Phipps 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 10 Aug 2011, at 23:12, Rob Weir wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <
> > > rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it
> > would
> > > be
> > > >>>> VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and
> > > restrict
> > > >>>> discussion to rather specific aspects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the
> original
> > > >>> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> > > >>> original and it is not truncated)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness
> to
> > > try
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> > > >>> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> > > >>> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> > > >>> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable"
> conclusions
> > > >>> and community consensus that is emerging.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ross
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only
> > once)
> > > on
> > > >> the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these
> > discussions
> > > are
> > > >> SO lengthy it's impossible.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the
> > > documentation
> > > >> aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > We have a mailing lists page:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> > > >
> > > > A list of proposed subject tags would fit very well there, after the
> > > > first paragraph.   Committers can easily edit this using the Apache
> > > > CMS in their browsers:
> > > >
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/edit-cms.html
> > > >
> > > > For example, I just added the link the email tips earlier today.
> > >
> > > It would be better to put the list of subject tags on the community
> wiki
> > so
> > > that those of us who've not been invited to be committers can also edit
> > it.
> > >
> >
> > where is the problem here, if you want to be a committer you know the
> rules
> > and can follow them. I don't see a real problem if you contribute
> valuable
> > content to the project. If you should have a problem with the iCLA then
> it
> > is your problem.
> >
>
> I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic to discuss here, but that strong
> comment begs a one-time response. Apart from the big, atypical, unmetered
> sign-up at the start of the project (in which I did not participate as I
> have too much respect for the term "committer" at Apache to want to get the
> role that way), the only way I am aware of to become one is to be invited
> by
> the PPMC. I've made a variety of contributions to this Apache project since
> it was proposed and they speak for themselves.


please accept my apologies if you feel attacked. I highly appreciate your
contributions and my comment wasn't against you.
A committer don't have to be a code committer only as you know, so i don't
see a problem for you to become a committer.


> As for the ICLA, I have not
> commented on it, I am not sure what you're implying and I suggest you avoid
> further accusations.
>

forget it, it was a stupid comment from my side. Probably my long history
and the never ending story around the former SCA makes me sensitive and i
think it's simply annoying when people don't want to become a committer
because of the iCLA. I know that is not true for you. So again sorry.


>
>
> > And by the way new tags will or should  be discussed here anyway and
> > probably some of the committers will add new approved tags quite fast.
> >
>
> Maybe. But I see no reason why this list needs the protection of being on a
> controlled access page and would suggest doing so is what needs justifying.
> I have not seen a reasoned counter to my proposal for it to be on the
> community wiki, so will probably create such a page soon (unless someone
> else wants to).
>

I think Rob has already pointed out why the list of tags besides the mailing
list is a good idea and i support it.

Juergen



> S.
>

Re: [email] openoffice.org email / user transition

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:05 AM, drew  wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 22:41 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> 
>
> > http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html
> >
>
> Ah right - so we should contact SPI and ask for them to stop taking
> donations for OpenOffice.org, yes?
>

mmh, i am not sure. Team OpenOffice.org still exists and is as far as i know
still committed to support OpenOffice. We have to check how this can be
aligned with Apache because we probably don't want to loose this opportunity
to get some money for the project. For example for conferences, marketing
etc.

Juergen



>
> Thanks,
>
> Drew
>
>

Re: [email] openoffice.org email / user transition

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> > I haven't seen any recent progress on planning the transition for
> openoffice.org email.
> >
> > Sooner or later the openoffice.org mail server will be replaced. We have
> seen that the system is flakey and has been down for as much as one week in
> the last month.
> >
> > (1) Mailing Lists. Maps have been proposed to transition the many mailing
> lists into fewer lists.
> >
> > Do all of these openoffice.org mailing list addresses become aliases for
> apache.org mailing list addresses?
> >
>
> Please, no.  OOo has an 100's of  mailing lists, many of then with
> very few subscribers and only spam as traffic.
>
> For example, the "Afar Language" project has 5 separate mailings list,
> but only one across them.  That is the commit message for the website:
>
> http://openoffice.org/projects/aa/lists
>
> Other projects get traffic, but it is entirely spam:
>
> http://openoffice.org/projects/about/lists/issues/archive
>
>
> So I think we end up, in the end, with a much much smaller number of
> lists.  Avoid the fragmentation and encourage collaboration.  If we
> have more than a dozen lists in the end I will be very disappointed.
>

i agree we don't need all the existing mailing lists.

Maybe we should send out a message to all lists that they will go out of
maintenance in the near future and that people should join the Apache
project. For now the ooo-dev list.


>
> > What about the subscribers to the mailing lists? Do we need to make them
> all resubscribe?
> >
>
> Perhaps we should decide that based on the existing OOo privacy policy.
>
> > (2) openoffice.org registered users.
> >
> > Should we have a way to maintain openoffice.org email aliases? Who do we
> do this for?
> >
>
> The problem we're going to run into is that there are both official
> openoffice.org email addresses, like webmas...@openoffice.org,
> stor...@openoffice.org, cd...@openoffice.org.  And then there are user
> accounts at the same domain, given out rather freely.
>
> If we are able to, under the site's existing privacy, to audit the
> user accounts, we should do so, to ensure that all of the "official"
> ones revert to the PPMC.  This would include ones that were intended
> to be official, as well as ones that may have been accidentally or
> even surreptitiously created, with names that imply they represent the
> project, e.g., sa...@openoffice.org, either in English or in other
> languages.  I'm not saying such accounts exist, but it is prudent to
> check.
>

it's a difficult question to answer because from a community point of view
we would probably like to keep them all if possible. I would at least
request some kind of sign of life from any existing user account that she/he
want to keep this alias.

I have no real opinion how important a x...@openoffice.org email address is
for some users, i hope not really important. But who knows?

Juergen


>
> One might fairly point out that at Apache, we also use the same email
> domain for official and personal email addresses.  This is true.  But
> apache.org addresses are only given to committers, who have submitted
> an iCLA, giving their real name, address, etc.  So we have recourses
> if such accounts are abused.
>
> From the branding perspective, I would also be concerned if we had
> large numbers of people, not associated with the project, using email
> addresses that imply affiliation.
>
> Am I trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet?  A fair
> question.  I'll give an example of the things that we need to watch
> out for:
>
> http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html
>
> We need to tread very carefully.  There are things here that potential
> could threaten Apache's non-profit status.  I think that we should be
> vetting every web page, every email address, every source file, every
> online service that we put out as representing this Apache project.
>
> Also, whatever we do with the forwarding addresses, I'd recommend that
> existing users of such addresses switch to something else for their
> Apache forwarding addresses.  Otherwise there is a real risk that
> during the migration that you would miss list traffic.  This is
> especially important for anyone involved in the migration of the email
> forwarding service itself.
>
> > Do legalities prevent us from retaining the user database?
> >
> > I have no idea what the best answers are. I do think that the plan does
> need to be communicated to places like us...@openoffice.org.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [email] openoffice.org email / user transition

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:

> Note that the issue of monetary contributions and/or donations is a major
> one, especially since there are real policy differences between how
> OpenOffice.org used to work under Sun/Oracle and how the ASF does it's
> fundraising.  In particular, the ASF has a fundrais...@apache.org team and
> VP who work on fundraising for all projects; individual projects do not
> specifically solicit for funds (other than to link to the ASF Sponsorship
> page, etc.).
>

thanks for this information, i still have to learn a lot about the ASF.

The point is that the amount of donated money is not to disregarded and it
have allowed us to sponsor projects like the OpenOffice.org internship
(~27000 Euro) etc.


>
> I would urge the PPMC to start a separate thread dealing with the
> contributing.oo.o page, the relationship with SPI, and any other fundraising
> matters.
>
good point


>
> Get a description of any pre-existing ways that funds might have come into
> the project in the recent past, figure out a proposed plan for what the PPMC
> would like to do in the future, and then work with fundraising@ (a
> privately archived list) to move forward.
>
i will try to figure that out and it will come back with related
information...

Juergen



>
> - Shane
>
>
> On 8/12/2011 8:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:05 AM, drew  wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 22:41 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>  
>>> http://contributing.**openoffice.org/donate.html<http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah right - so we should contact SPI and ask for them to stop taking
>>> donations for OpenOffice.org, yes?
>>>
>>>
>> mmh, i am not sure. Team OpenOffice.org still exists and is as far as i
>> know
>> still committed to support OpenOffice. We have to check how this can be
>> aligned with Apache because we probably don't want to loose this
>> opportunity
>> to get some money for the project. For example for conferences, marketing
>> etc.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Nóirín Plunkett  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >  wrote:
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!
> >>
> >> Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion.
>  Not ever.
> >>
> >> I urge you to revert those changes.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree.   Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
> >  I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
> > SVN.  If someone feels strongly, they can revert.  But note that in
> > CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
> > statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
> > the alternative.
> >
>
> Reverting should really be a last resort. I had a technical objection,
> a statement of an alternative proposal, and a willingness to implement
> the alternative.
>
> Granted, I didn't actually say "-1", but I still think it's pretty
> poor show. Consensus is not "who commits first, wins", and meaningful
> discussion that's still ongoing less than 48hrs after you made your
> proposal hardly constitutes "bikeshedding".
>
> I'm going out now, but I hope we can see a little more collaboration
> and a little less bulldozing in the future.
>
> Noirin
>

we discuss a very minor detail in a long thread, maybe some wasted time
because it doesn't really matter where the tags are listed. I personally
agree to the place where Rob has inserted them now. But i can live with the
wiki also.

Let us see it form a different point of view. It belongs to more or less
organizational things or best practices how we want to communicate on our
mailing lists. We probably don't expect too much changes here in the future.
Besides the description of our mailing lists it is a good place because it
is directly related to these lists. So probably no concerns here. The
community wiki is maybe better used for other content where we expect much
more input and more frequent changes.

Is that ok for anybody?

Juergen

Re: Fundraising

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Ian Lynch  wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>
> "Note that the issue of monetary contributions and/or donations is a major
> one, especially since there are real policy differences between how
> OpenOffice.org used to work under Sun/Oracle and how the ASF does it's
> fundraising.  In particular, the ASF has a fundrais...@apache.org team and
> VP who work on fundraising for all projects; individual projects do not
> specifically solicit for funds (other than to link to the ASF Sponsorship
> page, etc.)."
>
> "I would urge the PPMC to start a separate thread dealing with the
> contributing.oo.o page, the relationship with SPI, and any other
> fundraising
> matters."
>
> "Get a description of any pre-existing ways that funds might have come into
> the project in the recent past, figure out a proposed plan for what the
> PPMC
> would like to do in the future, and then work with fundraising@ (a
> privately
> archived list) to move forward."
>
> As suggested I'm starting a new thread. As a start can anyone post here any
> ways that they know OOo generated funds and if possible the main contact
> details of those leading that project.
>
> Team OOo is the one I think most people are familiar with but what about
> any
> others?
>

Freies Office Deutschland e.V.
http://www.frodev.org/spenden
it's the former OpenOffice e.V. that collect money for LibreOffice and
OpenOffice.org.  Donations have to be marked for LibreOffice or OpenOfffice,
if not the donation can be used for both as far as i know.

http://es.openoffice.org/
The Spanish project collects also money on their own

Maybe other language projects collect also money, i don't know and can't
read the sides

Juergen


> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>

Re: [www] Ext / Temp repository stability ( was Extensions and templates site down )

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM, drew  wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 13:37 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, drew  wrote:
> >> > [from out of left field]
> >> > Would members consider transferring ownership of the current
> repository
> >> > hosted on the OSUOSL server to a third party, perhaps created
> >> > specifically to take this over, and then working with them to create
> the
> >> > indirect reference site under the AOO project, filtering out
> >> > un-acceptably licensed items as a way to achieving option #2. This
> would
> >> > move the entire repository without needing to locate individual
> authors.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't see how we can claim ownership of the content on the OSUOSL
> >> server.
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Well, I'm not at all sure I agree with that, what exactly happened then
> > when the Sun brand came off the site and the Oracle brand went up, that
> > was window dressing with regards to the site name - Oracle could not of
> > moved the site to xxx.oracleoffice.org even if they also maintained a
> > live redirect of the old address?
> >
>
> Generally, you may do whatever the owner of the copyright allows you
> to do.  The trick is to determine what the copyright owner allows you.
>  With the lax attention to this detail by the OOo community over the
> years, this important fact is hard to determine in many cases.  This
> is something we should not seek to repeat at Apache.
>
> Not just with extensions, but throughout the project we are going to find a
> mix:
>
> 1) Things we are certain we have rights to use, e.g., things in the
> SGA, under Apache 2.0, things with clear provenance
>
> 2) Things that we are certain we do not have rights to use, e.g., GPL
> components.
>
> 3) Things that we cannot determine whether or not we have rights to use.
>
> We're going to spend most of our time on that 3rd category.  But once
> we've done that, and documented it, then we've improved the project
> considerably and made it easier for us and others going forward.  But
> it might require that we eliminate some contributions that were
> otherwise excellent, because we cannot confirm our rights to use them.
>
> >> It was not part of the Oracle SGA, as far as I know.  So it
> >> is not ours to give to a 3rd party.
> >>
> >> But if a 3rd party steps forward and is willing to navigate the
> >> licenses and figure out way to host them all, then I'd wish them the
> >> best of luck.
> >>
> >> The main technical things we need to coordinate are:
> >>
> >> 1) How are submissions made to the catalog
>
i would prefer a web form as in the existing repo


> >>
> >> 2) How is the catalog queried?
> >>
> >> 3) How are extension updates propagated?
> >>
>
The existing mechanism works quite well

See also
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Online_Update_of_Extensions
and related sub chapters


> >> 4) Do we want a single catalog, in the style of Firefox plugins, or
> >> allow multiple catalogs, perhaps filtered by support category or
> >> license, like Ubuntu?
>
i would prefer a multi repo (catalog) approach directly from the office to
allow maximal flexibility


> >>
> >> 5) What do we need to do to ensure a clean programmatic interface to
> >> the catalog (a RESTful service) as well as a good end-user UI?
> >>
> >> 6) Is there a way we can manage, with sufficient user data protection
> >> provisions, some sort of recommendation engine, where extensions are
> >> recommended either based on user actions, or based on ratings and
> >> similarities to other users (collaborative filtering)?
> >>
> >> 7) Is there anything we can do to allow the user to interact with
> >> extensions (browse, sort, filter, download, rate, update, etc.)
> >> entirely within OOo editors?
>
definitely,
update is already possible but browsing extensions directly form the office
is a long wanted feature. And not only for extensions. A new designed
template dialog that allows browsing a template repo, download of templates
for offline use, allows the upload in this repo (under Apache 2.0),

But for both extensions and templates it is important that we make it
configurable. Means it should be possible to disable it or to limit it to a
specific repo only. This is important for enterprises with more
restrictions. But it allows to manage a local repo for company wide used
extensions and templates. A single place for maintenance (updates,
bugifxes)  of these extensions/templates.


> >>
> >> So in general, I think this is an opportunity to do more than just
> >> re-host the existing extensions site.  It is an opportunity to rethink
> >> how users and extensions authors could interact.
> >
> > I agree with much of that
> > - I guess I would opt here to pull us back from either my
> > out-of-left-field idea, or the perfect solution for the moment.
> >
> > Just hit the templates site and it's back, I would rather we ask the
> >

Re: How to rebuild types.rdb ?

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

sorry for the late response but i am currently not in HH until Sunday and
can not frequently check my emails

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> On 16.08.2011 09:27, eric b wrote:
>
> > Does this method to allow "OpenOffice.org growing" only ?  If we
> > systematicaly compare to an existing but fixed blob, we have no way
> > to remove useless/no longer needed services ? (but maybe I
> > misunderstood )
>
> We can do with that reference file whatever we want, until now we had
> the requirement to refrain from incompatible API changes. Some time ago
> we decided that incompatible API changes should be allowed for future
> major releases of OOo, so the reference rdb usually would become the one
> of the last major release. There also is an exception list with "allowed
> incompatible changes", e.g. removal of superfluous (unused) types. This
> list usually was maintained by the API project lead, Jürgen Schmidt.
>

well, we decided to allow incompatible changes but we should of course be
careful and should discuss such changes before. I will search the initial
proposal how to handle such changes when i am back in HH.

The existing reference rdb is updated after every new official release from
me and further manual changes are documented in the history file with some
comments and relating bug ids


>
> > With a cold start, occurs a big and costly I/O read write process.
> > Searching what seems to cause that, it appears the .rdb files are
> > good candidates. I can be plain wrong, but I think there are a lot of
> > services embedded in the interface, who probably could be loaded ...
> > say somethingl like on demand or at least differently, no ?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. Are you referring the cold start of the
> OpenOffice.org application? That would be a completely unrelated
> discussion. IIRC Stephan Bergmann and/or Matthias Hütsch have worked on
> performance improvements regarding types.rdb in the OOo 3.2 release time
> frame.
>
> >> The reference file must not be recreated as it belongs to an older
> >> version that the current source files are compared against.
> >>
> >
> > Thinking rwice I start to see better, and I can imagine people (say
> > companies providing services around OOo) playing with IDL files and
> > introducing some issues, indeed.
>

it's simply the way how we define interfaces between different components
and can use this interface from different (by UNO supported languages). For
example the extensions make use of well defined interfaces (defined in IDL
and implemented somewhere in the office) to communicate with the office. Or
extensions can implement specific interfaces on their own (e.g.
spellchecker) and can replace an existing impl or can extend a list of
implemenatations. Think about filters, spellchcker, smart tags, grammar
checker and many more. But it is also possible to define completely new
interfaces and implement in an extenssion and make use of this stuff from
other extensions or macros. A comfortable way to implement some busness or
company logic ...

If you have more concrete questions please ask or we can IRC next week also.

Juergen


> >
> > In fact I never played too much with idl files (seems to be a simple
> > interface, that UNO will handle, isn't it ? ), excepted when we added
> > code for Impress annotation mode, and that's probably the reason why
> > I ask stupid questions in this domain I don't know well :-)
>
> Your questions weren't stupid at all. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Re: [code] stuck at offapi on unxlngx6.pro

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi Eike,

i will take a look on it tomorrow. I took a break last week and have to
catch up some mails and more ...

Regards

Juergen

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Eike Rathke  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Btw, my configure is
>
> PKG_CONFIG=/usr/bin/pkg-config ./configure \
>--with-use-shell=bash \
>--disable-strip-solver \
>--without-fonts \
>--without-ppds \
>--with-system-stdlibs
>
> PKG_CONFIG=... was neeed because configure complained about pkg-config
> version not being sufficient or not found, but that's nonsense, it's in
> the standard $PATH, maybe of an unexpected version.
>
> Usually I had a large list of --with-system-... or just
> --with-system-libs and --with-system-headers, but did not include that
> to build as much as possible from the repository.
>
>  Eike
>
> --
>  PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
>  Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
>

Re: [code] stuck at offapi on unxlngx6.pro

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Stephan Bergmann <
stephan.bergmann.second...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 28, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > Fourth, now I'm stuck at module offapi where idlc bails out with
> completely
> > senseless messages:
> >
> > Entering /build/aooo/main/offapi/com/sun/star/sdb
> >
> > Compiling: Forms.idl
> > ../../../../com/sun/star/ucb/Content.idl(296) : Illegal syntax following
> service member declaration: syntax error, unexpected IDL_IDENTIFIER
> > ../../../../com/sun/star/ucb/Content.idl(311) : Statement can not be
> parsed: property
> > ../../../../com/sun/star/ucb/Content.idl(313) : Statement can not be
> parsed: syntax error, unexpected '-', expecting ';'
> >
> > and 100s more after that. Content.idl line 296 and following are in the
> > middle of comments, apparently idlc attempts to parse those as idl
> > definitions. Currently I have no idea why.
>
> A memcpy that should rather be a memmove at <
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/idlc/source/preproc/tokens.c#l480>,
> see also <
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=03657f66600c64b33443c30952054c11d82f9c7d
> >.
>
> By the way, the source code at idlc/source/preproc appears to be copied
> from LCC code (see ) and then
> erroneously decorated with the OOo license header.  This needs to be
> addressed.  Similarly, the code at soltools/cpp appears to be a second copy
> of that code, with the same memcpy error, but at least without the erroneous
> OOo license headers.
>

oh the good old preproc code from Horst (i am sure some of you know who
Horst is -> it's an insider joke from the early days and before OOo was
born).

With the cleanup of this license headers we can try to remove the code in
one place and reuse it.

Juergen


>
> -Stephan

[DISCUSS| Info message to post on dev@api and dev@extensions

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

as the former project lead of the API and Extensions project i would like to
post the following message on the d...@api.openoffice.org and
d...@extenisons.openoffice.org mailing lists to inform all subscribers about
the future of these mailing lists. I will probably post something similar to
the other project related mailing lists but the dev@ lists are the most
relevant.The main goal is to inform and bring the subscribers over to the
new Apache project and the ooo-dev list for further communication and what
is more important to join the project actively.

Comments are welcome.

Juergen


Hi,

it's probably not really new for you but nevertheless i would like to inform
you that the OpenOffice.org project found a new home under the Apache
foundation (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/index.html) and some
things are going different under Apache. We will have only one project -
Apache Open Office - and the number of mailing lists will be limited to only
a few (see http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html).
There is a common consensus that we will create new mailing lists with
specific topics if necessary but at the moment we will move forward with
only few lists to concentrate the information flow. From my point of view
it's an advantage compared to the former setup with many projects and many
project related mailing lists.

As the project lead of the API and Extension project i would like to inform
you that this mailing list will go end of life soon (exact date not known
yet) and further discussion on API and Extension specific topics should
happen on the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list. I recommend that
you join the Apache OpenOffice project and subscribe on the ooo-dev list
asap and help to make this new Apache project successful in the same way as
before under the old setup. Well it's note really a new project but more the
continuation of the former official OpenOffice.org project. New in the sense
that it is now under the umbrella of the Apache foundation.

Maybe there will be some mail forwarding mechanisms established to ensure
that we won't lose any messages in the future but i hope that you all will
subscribe to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing lists and that we
accept the new project under Apache as it is.

The migration of the project infrastructure to Apache is ongoing (source
code, website, wiki, forum, ...) and there are still a lot of things to do.
Every helping hand is welcome. Some things will change under Apache because
of the already existing rules there and we want to be a good and well formed
project there. Every change is also the opportunity to make things better
(if necessary) in the future. And you can be part of this important move of
OOo and can help to move things forward.

The good thing at Apache is that it is independent, well accepted in the
open source world and all project members are equal. Important is that the
rules of the Apache foundation and the project are accepted and that things
are getting done.

I hope to see you all on the new project and the
ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list soon. I am looking forward to an
interesting and challenging future of OOo under the umbrella of the Apache
foundation.

Regards

Juergen

Re: [DISCUSS| Info message to post on dev@api and dev@extensions

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> 2011/8/30 Jürgen Schmidt :
> > Hi,
> >
> > as the former project lead of the API and Extensions project i would like
> to
> > post the following message on the d...@api.openoffice.org and
> > d...@extenisons.openoffice.org mailing lists to inform all subscribers
> about
> > the future of these mailing lists. I will probably post something similar
> to
> > the other project related mailing lists but the dev@ lists are the most
> > relevant.The main goal is to inform and bring the subscribers over to the
> > new Apache project and the ooo-dev list for further communication and
> what
> > is more important to join the project actively.
> >
> > Comments are welcome.
> >
>
> Maybe give the ooo-dev-subscribe address the first time you mention
> the mailing list?
>
good point


>
> Also, "I would like to inform you" sounds (to me at least) cold and
> bureaucratic.  Maybe soften it up with variations like "I want to let
> you know", "I'm pleased to announce",  "I'd like to share with you
> that..." or "You will want to know that..."


ok will change it, seems to the problem of a non native speaker ;-)

Juergen


> Otherwise, this is great!
>
>


> -Rob
>
> > Juergen
> >
> > 
> > Hi,
> >
> > it's probably not really new for you but nevertheless i would like to
> inform
> > you that the OpenOffice.org project found a new home under the Apache
> > foundation (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/index.html) and
> some
> > things are going different under Apache. We will have only one project -
> > Apache Open Office - and the number of mailing lists will be limited to
> only
> > a few (see http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
> ).
> > There is a common consensus that we will create new mailing lists with
> > specific topics if necessary but at the moment we will move forward with
> > only few lists to concentrate the information flow. From my point of view
> > it's an advantage compared to the former setup with many projects and
> many
> > project related mailing lists.
> >
> > As the project lead of the API and Extension project i would like to
> inform
> > you that this mailing list will go end of life soon (exact date not known
> > yet) and further discussion on API and Extension specific topics should
> > happen on the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list. I recommend
> that
> > you join the Apache OpenOffice project and subscribe on the ooo-dev list
> > asap and help to make this new Apache project successful in the same way
> as
> > before under the old setup. Well it's note really a new project but more
> the
> > continuation of the former official OpenOffice.org project. New in the
> sense
> > that it is now under the umbrella of the Apache foundation.
> >
> > Maybe there will be some mail forwarding mechanisms established to ensure
> > that we won't lose any messages in the future but i hope that you all
> will
> > subscribe to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing lists and that we
> > accept the new project under Apache as it is.
> >
> > The migration of the project infrastructure to Apache is ongoing (source
> > code, website, wiki, forum, ...) and there are still a lot of things to
> do.
> > Every helping hand is welcome. Some things will change under Apache
> because
> > of the already existing rules there and we want to be a good and well
> formed
> > project there. Every change is also the opportunity to make things better
> > (if necessary) in the future. And you can be part of this important move
> of
> > OOo and can help to move things forward.
> >
> > The good thing at Apache is that it is independent, well accepted in the
> > open source world and all project members are equal. Important is that
> the
> > rules of the Apache foundation and the project are accepted and that
> things
> > are getting done.
> >
> > I hope to see you all on the new project and the
> > ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list soon. I am looking forward to
> an
> > interesting and challenging future of OOo under the umbrella of the
> Apache
> > foundation.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> > 
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS| Info message to post on dev@api and dev@extensions

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:34 PM, TJ Frazier  wrote:

> Hi, Jürgen,
> Just a typo alert.
>
>
> On 8/30/2011 09:21, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as the former project lead of the API and Extensions project i would like
>> to
>> post the following message on the d...@api.openoffice.org and
>> d...@extenisons.openoffice.org mailing lists to inform all subscribers
>> about
>> the future of these mailing lists. I will probably post something similar
>> to
>> the other project related mailing lists but the dev@ lists are the most
>> relevant.The main goal is to inform and bring the subscribers over to the
>> new Apache project and the ooo-dev list for further communication and what
>> is more important to join the project actively.
>>
>> Comments are welcome.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> it's probably not really new for you but nevertheless i would like to
>> inform
>> you that the OpenOffice.org project found a new home under the Apache
>> foundation 
>> (http://incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg/index.html<http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/index.html>)
>> and some
>> things are going different under Apache. We will have only one project -
>> Apache Open Office - and the number of mailing lists will be limited to
>> only
>> a few (see http://incubator.apache.org/**openofficeorg/mailing-lists.**
>> html <http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html>).
>> There is a common consensus that we will create new mailing lists with
>> specific topics if necessary but at the moment we will move forward with
>> only few lists to concentrate the information flow. From my point of view
>> it's an advantage compared to the former setup with many projects and many
>> project related mailing lists.
>>
>> As the project lead of the API and Extension project i would like to
>> inform
>> you that this mailing list will go end of life soon (exact date not known
>> yet) and further discussion on API and Extension specific topics should
>> happen on the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list. I recommend that
>> you join the Apache OpenOffice project and subscribe on the ooo-dev list
>> asap and help to make this new Apache project successful in the same way
>> as
>> before under the old setup. Well it's note really a new project but more
>> the
>>
>
> s/note/not/
>  /tj/ (nitpicker in residence)


thanks, will change it

Juergen


>
>  continuation of the former official OpenOffice.org project. New in the
>> sense
>> that it is now under the umbrella of the Apache foundation.
>>
>> Maybe there will be some mail forwarding mechanisms established to ensure
>> that we won't lose any messages in the future but i hope that you all will
>> subscribe to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing lists and that we
>> accept the new project under Apache as it is.
>>
>> The migration of the project infrastructure to Apache is ongoing (source
>> code, website, wiki, forum, ...) and there are still a lot of things to
>> do.
>> Every helping hand is welcome. Some things will change under Apache
>> because
>> of the already existing rules there and we want to be a good and well
>> formed
>> project there. Every change is also the opportunity to make things better
>> (if necessary) in the future. And you can be part of this important move
>> of
>> OOo and can help to move things forward.
>>
>> The good thing at Apache is that it is independent, well accepted in the
>> open source world and all project members are equal. Important is that the
>> rules of the Apache foundation and the project are accepted and that
>> things
>> are getting done.
>>
>> I hope to see you all on the new project and the
>> ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org mailing list soon. I am looking forward to
>> an
>> interesting and challenging future of OOo under the umbrella of the Apache
>> foundation.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>
>

Re: OOO Test Bugzilla instance

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:

> Am 27.08.11 09:53, schrieb RGB ES:
>
>  2011/8/27 Mark Thomas:
>>
>>> As per [1], all user passwords (except those for ASF infra users with
>>> system admin privs) have been reset to:
>>>
>>> password
>>>
>>>  Do not work for me: I obtain "The username or password you entered is
>> not valid. "
>> I can log-in on the original OOo bugzilla without problems.
>>
>>  You hav not only to use the OOo User Name. You have to use the OOo Mail
> Adress. My OOo name was rbircher. So for the Login on the test instance I
> have to type rbirc...@openoffice.org. Them it works
>

i doesn't work for me i can't log in with my full OOo username jsc...

Juergen


>
> Greetings Raphael
>
> --
> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
>

[DISCUSS] OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin -> grant of source code

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

i stumbled over the OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin on my disk and asked
myself if it is included in the source grant from Oracle. I have a copy on
my disk but i am not sure if it is the most recent one and the problem is
that i can't check it. api.openoffice.org, wiki.services.openoffice.org and
hg.services.openoffice.org seems to be not available :-(

Does anybody know if is part of the grant. If i remember it correct it was
initially checked in under the api project because it started as a
standalone GSOC project and we kept it outside of the normal build process
because it was developed and built with NetBeans. But i think i have moved
it somewhere in  the hg repository or at least it was the plan.

The best thing is to ask Andrew if it is already part of the grant or if not
if it is possible to include it.

Juergen

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin -> grant of source code

[Jürgen Schmidt]

for people who don't know yet what this plugin is and for what it can be
used see http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/OpenOffice_NetBeans_Integration

It is very useful for extension and simplifies the development a lot. It
really can help to increase the eco system around the office suite.
Something similar is available for Eclipse but with a smaller feature set as
far as i know. I don't know how useful it is today i have only used the
NetBeans plugin.

Juergen

2011/8/31 Jürgen Schmidt 

> Hi,
>
> i stumbled over the OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin on my disk and asked
> myself if it is included in the source grant from Oracle. I have a copy on
> my disk but i am not sure if it is the most recent one and the problem is
> that i can't check it. api.openoffice.org, wiki.services.openoffice.organd
> hg.services.openoffice.org seems to be not available :-(
>
> Does anybody know if is part of the grant. If i remember it correct it was
> initially checked in under the api project because it started as a
> standalone GSOC project and we kept it outside of the normal build process
> because it was developed and built with NetBeans. But i think i have moved
> it somewhere in  the hg repository or at least it was the plan.
>
> The best thing is to ask Andrew if it is already part of the grant or if
> not if it is possible to include it.
>
> Juergen
>

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin -> grant of source code

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Carl Marcum  wrote:

>
> On 08/31/2011 06:08 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> for people who don't know yet what this plugin is and for what it can be
>> used see http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/**wiki/OpenOffice_NetBeans_**
>> Integration<http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/OpenOffice_NetBeans_Integration>
>>
>> It is very useful for extension and simplifies the development a lot. It
>> really can help to increase the eco system around the office suite.
>> Something similar is available for Eclipse but with a smaller feature set
>> as
>> far as i know. I don't know how useful it is today i have only used the
>> NetBeans plugin.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> 2011/8/31 Jürgen 
>> Schmidt
>> >
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> i stumbled over the OpenOffice.org NetBeans plugin on my disk and asked
>>> myself if it is included in the source grant from Oracle. I have a copy
>>> on
>>> my disk but i am not sure if it is the most recent one and the problem is
>>> that i can't check it. api.openoffice.org, wiki.services.openoffice.**
>>> organd
>>> hg.services.openoffice.org seems to be not available :-(
>>>
>>> Does anybody know if is part of the grant. If i remember it correct it
>>> was
>>> initially checked in under the api project because it started as a
>>> standalone GSOC project and we kept it outside of the normal build
>>> process
>>> because it was developed and built with NetBeans. But i think i have
>>> moved
>>> it somewhere in  the hg repository or at least it was the plan.
>>>
>>> The best thing is to ask Andrew if it is already part of the grant or if
>>> not if it is possible to include it.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>
> I do use the plugin for extension projects.
>
> I have a download of the plugin I was able to find after some searching of
> 2.0.7.alpha for NB 6.9 back in March.
>
> i think the latest unofficial release that we made is a 2.0.8 and should be
available in the file section of the API project when the site is back. But
i am talking more about the code to create the plugin. If possible we should
provide it in the future as well and ideally something comparable for
Eclispe as well.

Juergen

Re: OOO Test Bugzilla instance

[Jürgen Schmidt]

2011/8/31 Jürgen Schmidt 

> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
>
>> Am 27.08.11 09:53, schrieb RGB ES:
>>
>>  2011/8/27 Mark Thomas:
>>>
>>>> As per [1], all user passwords (except those for ASF infra users with
>>>> system admin privs) have been reset to:
>>>>
>>>> password
>>>>
>>>>  Do not work for me: I obtain "The username or password you entered is
>>> not valid. "
>>> I can log-in on the original OOo bugzilla without problems.
>>>
>>>  You hav not only to use the OOo User Name. You have to use the OOo Mail
>> Adress. My OOo name was rbircher. So for the Login on the test instance I
>> have to type rbirc...@openoffice.org. Them it works
>>
>
> i doesn't work for me i can't log in with my full OOo username jsc...
>
> Juergen
>

i send a reset password request and now after changing my password
everything works fine.

Juergen


>
>
>>
>> Greetings Raphael
>>
>> --
>> My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
>>
>
>

Re: Fwd: openoffice.org not responding

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> Hi Andrew--
>
>
> On 08/31/2011 10:17 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> This is not related to the DNS transfer. That process has not yet begun,
>> and appropriate warning will be given when it is.
>>
>
>  That transfer should painless when it occurs, as it will only involve
>> changing the owner of the DNS entries, not the content of them.
>>
>> (looks like OOo & kenai are back. I have not determined what the issue
>> was, but it was not related to transfer of OOo or any decommissioning of
>> the servers)
>>
>
> well good news, but panic nonetheless. Maybe a wake-up call to get stuff
> moved (somewhere) as quickly as possible. Definitely a priority with me at
> the moment! :/
>
>
i still can't reach www.openoffice.org, api.openoffice.org or
hg.services.openoffice.org, ...

Juergen


>
>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 8/31/2011 5:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> It looks like openoffice.org is still down, odftoolkit.org is also down.
>>>
>>> It looks like all of Kenai is down.
>>>
>>> Is the dns transfer in flux, or wrong? Is there a wrong action on
>>> INFRA-3898?
>>>
>>> Please advise.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>  From: Simon Brouwer
 Date: August 30, 2011 11:06:46 AM PDT
 To:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.**org 
 Cc: Kay Schenk
 Subject: Re: openoffice.org not responding
 Reply-To:ooo-dev@incubator.**apache.org
 Reply-To:simon.o...@xs4all.nl

 Hi Kay,

 nl.openoffice.org is up, but server response is really slow. I wanted
 to manage mailinglists since yesterday but had to give up getting timeout
 after timeout.

 Best regards
 Simon

 Op 30-8-2011 20:01, Kay Schenk schreef:

> Re Eike's post of about an hour ago.
>
> Does anyone know what's going on with openoffice.org
> orwww.openoffice.org.
>
>
> kenai.org is up but not openoffice.org.
>
>
 --
 Vriendelijke groet,
 Simon Brouwer.

 |http://nl.openoffice.org  |http://www.opentaal.org  |


>> --
>>
>>
>> Oracle Email Signature Logo
>> Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
>> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
>> Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847
>>
>
> --
> --**--**
> 
> MzK
>
> "Music expresses that which cannot be said and
>  on which it is impossible to be silent."
>-- Victor Hugo
>

[PROPOSAL] Add 2 more tags to structure our communication on this mailing list

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

i have send a message to dev@api and dev@extensions mailing lists to
announce the EOL of this lists in the near future and to invite people to
join this list for further discussion. To make it easier to follow specific
discussions on api and extension relevant topics i would like to add 2 new
tags [API] and [EXTENSIONS] in the existing list of tags. If nobody has any
objections i will add them.

Juergen

Re: [PROPOSAL] Add 2 more tags to structure our communication on this mailing list

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Forum <"OOo FR"@nike.apache.org> wrote:

> [EXTENSIONS] is too long. Perhaps [OXT] will be better?
>
ok, i agree but would prefer [EXT] over [OXT]

Juergen



>
> - Mail original -
> De: "Jürgen Schmidt" 
> À: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Envoyé: Samedi 3 Septembre 2011 10:27:59
> Objet: [PROPOSAL] Add 2 more tags to structure our communication on this
> mailing list
>
> Hi,
>
> i have send a message to dev@api and dev@extensions mailing lists to
> announce the EOL of this lists in the near future and to invite people to
> join this list for further discussion. To make it easier to follow specific
> discussions on api and extension relevant topics i would like to add 2 new
> tags [API] and [EXTENSIONS] in the existing list of tags. If nobody has any
> objections i will add them.
>
> Juergen
>

Re: Live testing of SF download mirrors

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/18/12 2:45 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:

Hi all,

we have been testing AOO downloads for about 10 days, below our findings:

- downloads per day ( http://goo.gl/jKbnC )
- info about geographies (
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stats/map )
- operating systems (
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stats/os )

We spent the first days to tune our delivery system and facilities to
serve AOO downloads, We actually started by putting a CDN in place
that could grab files from our master mirror as its origin server, and
we learned we needed to pre-cache files to speed up downloads. Once
CDN was working properly, and we got those test results we updated the
test to servey we eventually switched to serve up these files from our
normal mirror network. As of today we updated also the download page,
now reporting the information formerly delivered by the download page
at Apache (e.g. http://goo.gl/WXSuk).


Our understanding based on the above data, and the expectations set by
the community prior to the test is that we are not serving all
downloads, (e.g. downloads.openoffice.org/es, automatic updater
downloads, etc) and it's unclear how many downloads are actually
served by different pages. We should probably try to route all
download traffic, so that we can provide more accurate download stats.

We have tested our expanded mirror network, and burst CDN capacity,
and are confident that we are well positioned to serve much heavier
download traffic than is expected at release time. Since the traffic
will be high also be high for updates, we might take additional
precautions and continue to route auto updater downloads through
MirrorBrain, and use Apache and sourceforge.net mirrors as a backup.

To the extent that sourceforge.net is the primary recomended download
source for AOO downloads we feel it is important to keep providing the
PPMC with accurate stats info (see above), also via API, as mentioned
before (see http://goo.gl/tTgZ6). If there is more download
statistical data that the PPMC would like to see, please let us know
so that we can try to meet those needs.



Hi Roberto,

thanks for this useful numbers and the good report. Very impressive 
numbers. I am looking forward to see some numbers for AOO 3.4 ;-)


Juergen



Roberto

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Roberto Galoppini  wrote:




On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

Please note:  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119194

I'm about to apply this patch. It will cause download requests to go
to the SourceForge mirrors instead of MirrorBrain.  We want to confirm
that things are set up properly on the SF side, before we get the
deluge of downloads for AOO 3.4.

So please respond to this post with any oddities you see or hear about
with users downloading OOo 3.3 releases over the next few days.



This is live now (in production).

Two issues that I see so far:

1) The MirrorBrain downloads were redirecting the user to
http://www.openoffice.org/download/contribute.html, along with URL
parameters that indicated the file that was downloaded.

This is very useful for a couple of reasons:

A) This is our best chance to make the user aware of the support
options, the mailing lists, the install instructions, etc.  It is our
opportunity to "hook" them into getting more involved with the
community and the ecosystem.

B) The URL parameters give us information on what platforms and
languages are downloaded most often.  For example:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/contribute.html?download-mirrorbrain&files/stable/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Win_86_install-wJRE_en-US.exe

The current SourceForge download path does not do these things.  I
think this is important and needs to be addressed.  Maybe something
could be done by forming similar URL's and showing that page in an
IFrame from the SF download page?



We can put links to AOO contribution resources next to the ad unit. We are also 
open to help to find new developers through our media channels, and we have an 
'help wanted' feature that can be used for this scope.





2) I have not done any timings, but the download speed seems slower,
at least the time taken until the download is actually started.



Think this was on Friday when we were still tuning our mirrors and caching 
files.

Roberto





-Rob


-Rob






This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may 
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended 
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your 
system. Thank you.

Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/18/12 10:16 PM, Joost Andrae wrote:

Hi,

when providing an OOo snapshot as a release candidate binaries were
signed. Will this be the case with the first RC provided for AOO ?

Kind regards, Joost



when you mean if we can sign the windows binary with an official Apache 
certificate to avoid warning message during the installation etc. then 
no. This is an open topic where I have asked questions on the list and 
asked for advice from our mentors how to proceed. Maybe  I have overseen 
something but we have no answer yet.


I will focus on a clarification asap when I have the time for it becasue 
it is important. A signed binary (not the already provided signing of 
the download packages)) will increase the trust in our project, 
organization etc. It should be of high interest for Apache as well.


Juergen

[RELEASE]: status update for our first RC

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

I would like to inform you about the current status for our RC.

Andrew has updated the NOTICE file and we will rebuild the office now. I 
have also updated the version number string for the src package. 
Building, signing and update will take some time. And once the bits are 
available I will start the voting immediately.


The new revision for building the RC is *1327774*

I will keep you informed.

Juergen

Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/19/12 8:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name.
Also follow the account here:  https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo

I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how
to use it.  (Group accounts work a little differently than normal
Twitter accounts).

Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage.

-Rob


you can count me in, I have to improve my twitter experience ;-)

Juergen

Re: Apache OpenOffice Project Twitter Account

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/19/12 9:41 AM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

On 4/19/12, Rob Weir  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

On 4/18/12, Rob Weir  wrote:

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roberto Galoppini
wrote:

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alexandro Colorado
wrote:


On 4/17/12, drew  wrote:

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:15 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

My point is that we are going to be bombarded with support
questions,
regardless if we choose not to, is not up to us.

Sure you can redirect them to the ML/Forums, but that would be done
99% of the time, which will frustrate the user and the handlers.

That's the point I wanted to make based on the experience of
handling
these accounts in the past.

Like I said, I am more concern with solving the issue of operation
first than figuring out which new accounts to create and why/why
not.


Well, I am not advocating removal of any existing accounts.


I am sure you didn't. That is not what I said.



Hi Alexandro and all,

Will @openofficeorg be under the Apache OpenOffice control? If this is
the
case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use that one instead of the
new
ones. In case I'd recommend to upload the new logo, as well as to update
the short description.



We've tried to contact the owner of @openofficeorg, to discuss putting
this account under PPMC control.  We have no had success with that. So
we're going forward with a new account.  It should be easy and quick
to get a similar number of followers once we promote it on the
homepage.


Who decided this? you?



Decided what? That it would be easy to get a similar number of
followers?  That is purely my estimate, based on the fact that we've
managed to get almost 8000 users to sign up on the ooo-announce list.
Following someone on Twitter should is much easier than signing up on
an ezmlm list.   So if we have 8000 there, getting  more than 1500
Twitter followers should not be hard.


So you are deciding things? When you said 'we're going forward' you
mean you are moving forward.


I think you misunderstand something here. Rob decided not on his own, I 
think it was the outcome of this longer discussion. and if the owner of 
the existing account doesn't reply it is natural to move forward with a 
new one, isn't it?


What is your concern here?

Juergen












What I am advocating is the creation of a set un-ambiguous official
Apache OpenOffice project accounts.


what will happened when the unambigous official account get support
inquiries everyday?



I had a look at the flow of questions and answers, it seems manageable
to
me.







I believe that there is work needing to be done to establish the
Apache
OpenOffice identity.

It seems to me that this is an appropriate step to further that goal.




Here my list of recommendations:

1. Rebranding existing accounts (see above)
2. Spend some time to choose (few) people to follow (maybe using
keywords
like office suites, odf, open standards, etc).
As of today only Alexandro and Rob are followed by @openofficeorg,
think we should spend some time to choose people to follow, so that it
could be easier to engage in conversations using tools like
googlefinder,
Listorious, etc.


That is an interesting point.  Many people decide who to follow based
on recommendation engines that look at existing following patterns in
Twitter.  So having a good set of mutual followers will help.


3. Start simple. So announcements, news from our blog, new committers,
etc.
4. Be consistent. Two message a day could be a good starting point,
maybe
once a day over the week-ends.
5. Don't follow back just for the sake of it, it's wise to follow only
people we might want to engage with.
6. Start conversations with people we know, related projects, etc.


For example, we might congratulate other OSS projects,Apache and
external, that make new releases, if these would be of interest to our
followers.


7. Establish a clear policy about language style, but especially for how
to
handle "crises"
8. Use a tool to measure our improvements, both Klout and PeerIndex may
be
useful in this respect.

Roberto




Sure I agree, but my point is really about how to do it based on
previous issues.



//drew



On 4/17/12, drew  wrote:

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 11:02 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

I think this provide a bit of confussion on the user end. Also I
recognize the struggle of keeping the accounts active. Making

multiple

accounts will increase the job.

The blog itself has not been updated that frequently, and I am
not
sure if this will increase as we get a release.

Most of the use of the accounts on my experience is support-like
issues. So relying on one single point of contact is also pretty
bad.

Having an AOO-Support and AOO-Annoucement is equally not good

strategy

in my account because people will tend to stick to the account
that
they see crossing their path. (Just because we structure one way,
doesnt mean users will do so).

One of the issues of ope

Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/19/12 8:12 PM, Donald Harbison wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:


Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users
and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem.  Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some
enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and
chat "hangouts".  The user base is slightly different as well. Google+
is more "cutting edge" at present, compared to Twitter, and has more
early adopters.

An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that
Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account "managers",
allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share
responsibilities for maintaining it.

I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official
Google+ account for the project.   I'd be happy to add any PPMC
members who are willing to help me with it.  Just send me your Google
ID and I will add you.



Please add: dpharbison


me too jogischmidt

Juergen






https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about

-Rob

Re: Seeking PPMC volunteers for shared project Twitter account

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/19/12 5:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
  wrote:

On 4/19/12 8:26 AM, Rob Weir wrote:


I can support up to 10. Please send me your Twitter account name.
Also follow the account here:  https://twitter.com/#!/apacheoo

I'll give you access to the account and send you instructions for how
to use it.  (Group accounts work a little differently than normal
Twitter accounts).

Ideally we'd have some geographical and language coverage.

-Rob



you can count me in, I have to improve my twitter experience ;-)



What is your Twitter ID?


it should be jogischmidt but I haven't used it for a while. And I have 
problems to connect here from China. But I also have problems to connect 
Facebook.


Juergen




Juergen

Re: [Proposal] Official Google+ Page for Apache OpenOffice

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/19/12 9:40 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

I don't see how this is not duplicating an effort. If you want to
contribute to the account you are welcome. But creating a brand new
account is exactly duplicating efforts.


please Alexandro read what Rob have written. We don't want an account 
controlled by a single person. For whatever reasons you have created 
this account it seems that you were not interested to share it with the 
PPMC.


You are always quite fast to create such accounts or register domains 
like openoffice.org.es, libreoffice.es, ... and use it for your private 
interests You should have learned that this will not longer will work.



Juergen




On 4/19/12, Rob Weir  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

we already have this one

https://plus.google.com/b/110957008676542606262/



Yes, an account that has been dormant since last November, and which
you have never offered to put under PPMC control.


please avoid duplicating efforts.



I'm not duplicating a dormant account controlled by a single user.
I'm creating an account that all PPMC members can use.  You've had the
opportunity to do this for many months, but either you did not feel
like or did not think it was important.  You also never thought it
useful to provide project news on that account, point to project blog
posts or do anything that would be part of running a healthy community
project social networking account.

I am not interesting in duplicating that effort.  I am interesting in
doing far, far better.  And I'd welcome you to join with me in doing
this.  Give me you your Google ID and I'll add you as a manager for
this account immediately.

This is not duplicating effort since you have obviously put in nearly
zero effort for your Google+ account.

-Rob


On 4/19/12, Donald Harbison  wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:


Like Twitter and Facebook, Google+ is a good way to engage with users
and the larger OpenOffice ecosystem.  Unlike Twitter, Google+ has some
enhanced capabilities, such as ease of sharing pictures and video and
chat "hangouts".  The user base is slightly different as well. Google+
is more "cutting edge" at present, compared to Twitter, and has more
early adopters.

An important capability from the perspective of the PPMC is that
Google+ has built in support for allowing multiple account "managers",
allowing us to put an account under PPMC control and share
responsibilities for maintaining it.

I'm proposing that we make this Google+ account into the official
Google+ account for the project.   I'd be happy to add any PPMC
members who are willing to help me with it.  Just send me your Google
ID and I will add you.



Please add: dpharbison




https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/114598373874764163668/114598373874764163668/about

-Rob






--
Alexandro Colorado
OpenOffice.org Español
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [RELEASE]: status update for our first RC

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/20/12 4:10 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi Lily,

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:58 AM, xia zhao  wrote:

Is the langauge package be built as well?

Lily


At least me, I've built Linux language packs, I'm uploading the
packages right now.



We have built them for Windows and MacOS as well and I am currently 
uploading them. But I am not sure of we will release them. Anyway they 
can be used for testing.


Juergen

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache 
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release 
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of 
OpenOffice.org.



This release candidate provides the following important key changes 
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external 
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and 
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd 
party libraries

(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under 
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.


The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary 
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and 
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following 
wiki page:


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

   UTC midnight Wednesday, 25 April: 2012-04-25 24:00 UTC.

After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on 
gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like 
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project 
members.


   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
   [ ]  0 Don't care
   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Re: Help with MacOSX Build

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/23/12 9:32 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

I have some questions about building for MacOSX

The project wiki is not very clear. [1][2]

(1) Where can I get a copy of Mac 10.4 SDK?

(2) What version of XCode should I install?

Google answers (1) and (2) with the TDF's wiki[2]. I downloaded XCode 3.2.6 for 
my MacOSX 10.6.8 system and checked the Mac 10.4 SDK option during 
installation. Took a couple of hours, but worked fine.

(3) dmake and epm. It should be more obvious that the config step can build 
these.

(4) The Java 1.6 vs. 1.5 issue is confusing as well. I'm on 10.6.8 and have 
Java SE 1..6.0_31- yes I applied the Flashback update. Will everything work ok?

(5) I did the autoconfig and bootstrap i put the files from 
http://www.openoffice.org/tools/moz_prebuild/OOo3.2/ into moz/zipped/ as the 
config process suggested. I started the build, after quite awhile I had an 
error with moz. I am unsure what to do next



can you tell us which configure switches you have used?

For example --disable-build-mozilla is important here. See for example 
the configure switches I have used to build the binaries


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-buildflags

Juergen



Here is my moz directory structure:

./extractfiles.mk
./makefile.mk
./patches/arm_build_fix.patch
./patches/brokenmakefile.patch
./patches/consecutive_ldap_queries.patch
./patches/cygwin_paths_in_ldap_sdk.patch
./patches/dtoa.patch
./patches/embed_manifest.patch
./patches/gcc46.patch
./patches/index.txt
./patches/link_fontconfig.patch
./patches/no_core_abspath_in_nss.patch
./patches/nss_linux.patch
./patches/respect_disable_pango.patch
./patches/wchart_on_msvc8.patch
./prj/build.lst
./prj/d.lst
./README
./seamonkey-source-1.1.14.patch
./unxmacxi.pro/inc/myworld.mk
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIinc.zip
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIlib.zip
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIruntime.zip

Here is the output:

Entering /Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz

mkout -- version: 1.8
Use of internal mozilla is disabled.

Entering /Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz/zipped

---
Error: No makefile.mk found!
---
force_dmake_to_error
dmake:  Error executing 'force_dmake_to_error': No such file or directory
dmake:  Error code -1, while making 'no_traget'

1 module(s):
moz
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making 
/Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz/zipped

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by 
running:

build --all:moz

Regards,
Dave

[1] 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX
[2] 
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX
[3] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Install_Mac_OS_X_Dependencies

Re: [SDK] Problems on SDK document

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/23/12 1:27 AM, drew wrote:

On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 11:47 -0400, drew jensen wrote:

On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 00:27 +0900, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:

I have noticed some problems on SDK, here are those.


Howdy Tsutomu,


Double post, forgive.

I suppose the right thing is to open one or two issues in bugzilla, yes?

If you are planning to do so great, otherwise I already have a few
non-showstopper (imo) issues for which I'll be checking bugzilla for
later tonight and I can do so (just to let you know).

//drew



Sitting in front of Ubuntu 11.04 (64bit) currently.



Link from sdk/index.html to Developer's Guide shows empty page because
of the name of the office has been changed. This can solve with
redirect in the wiki.


Confirmed - bad page displayed (comes up in Japanese in my browser BTW)
- however, easy work around just click the bread crumb for the dev guide
on the wiki jumps to the correct page for me.




IDL Reference and C++ Reference generated by autodoc still have
copyright of Oracle only.


Yes, confirmed - this is in the installed copy of the file.


it seems that I have missed to update autodoc accordingly





Year of the copyright is "2011" in the SDK but about box of the office is 2012.


Confirmed



Link to License in the sdk/index.html is broken, because of the file
has been removed or moved.


Confirmed. Changed location it appears, the file is now in the root of
the SDK directory on my install here.



indeed something that I have missed after we moved the license.
The same is true for the Developer's Guide where a variable is used to 
adapte the link. But this is not longer necessary and comes from earlier 
days :-(


Juergen



//drew



Best Regards,
Tsutomu

Re: RC Readmes point to Wiki ML Page that needs Update

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/24/12 5:44 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
  wrote:

I did some double-checking of RC1 and 
updated.

The most interesting aspect is that there are a total of six readme copies in 
the install; the only NOTICE and LICENSE files are in an obscure place.  Here 
is the layout:

$PROGRAMFILES$\
   OpenOffice.org 3\
  readme.html
  readme.txt
  readmes\
  readme_en-US.html
  readme_en-US.txt
  share\
  readme\
  LICENSE.txt
  NOTICE.txt
  readme_en-US.html
  readme_en-US.txt

The readme files appear to be identical.  They also seem to be identical to the 
ones in the previous developer snapshots.



the duplication is a result of the damn 3 layer office structure that we 
should definitely eliminate in the future.


The NOTICE and LICENSE files should probably go in the program directory.


There are some differences in the web-site locations being referenced, but it 
is still very confusing.  Most of the readme information is irrelevant to what 
needs to be known about the specific release.



Even if the information were relevant, the files themselves would be
irrelevant.

Let's be realistic, no end user goes spelunking through their file
system looking for readme files in their Program Files directory.  The
fact that Apache release requirements merely requires that we stick
the readme file in the binary package shows that they are not fully
thinking through what end-user software is.   That's fine.  We'll
teach them ;-)

The only way an end user will see a readme file is if we either:

1) Load it automatically into OpenOffice Writer the first time it launches,

or

2) Link to it from an item under the Help menu.

or

3) Add a link to it in the program's folder

I'd suggest we take one of the above approaches in AOO 4.0.  Note that
this approach would require translation as well.


Indeed and we have already some ideas how to make theses files available.



-Rob


I could not find where in the SVN these files reside.


as I mentioned before these files are generated during the build process 
and you have to understand the used format.


The source is in readlicense_oo/docs/readme/readme.xrm. I would suggest 
that we define first how we want handle it in the future. And a 
translated version of the README is from my perspective a very useful.


Juergen




  - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 17:16
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: RC Readmes point to Wiki ML Page that needs Update

On Monday, 23. April 2012 at 07:37, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I did a complete QA read-through and link check on the r1309668 Windows Readme,
. I haven't checked the 
one in RC1 yet.

I saw a lot to clean up.

That is nothing new and we already have discussed that the readme has to be 
reworked completely. But it is more work and the readme for the binaries are 
different to the one in the src release.
It contains also platform dependent content and I think that can make sense to 
point on platform dependent stuff. The intention here is and was to make it 
more and better readable.

But anyway the work needs to be done by somebody. If somebody is volunteering 
here I can help to find the right places.

I would move this cleanup work to the next version because it requires 
translation effort.

Juergen

The easiest solution would be to cut back the readme to have only essential 
information that is important to have there, with only a couple of links to 
related material.

The problem with target links at openoffice.org is that many of those have been 
turned into compendium pages, so you have to hunt for the information the 
readme is saying will be found there. The net effect is to make it too much 
work for the users.

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 14:03
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: RC Readmes point to Wiki ML Page that needs Update


On Apr 22, 2012, at 1:54 PM, drew wrote:


On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 16:41 -0400, TJ Frazier wrote:

On 4/22/2012 15:31, Dave Fisher wrote:

Hi -

While evaluating the RC, I reviewed the MacOSX Readme file. This points to the 
old OOo wiki page[1] with OOo MLs:

Would someone please update this page?

Regards,
Dave

[1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Website/Content/help/mailinglists

Hi, Dave,

I fixed the sub-unsub links, but (sorry to admit it) I don't know enough
to provide the archive link(s). I'd really like to say something like,
"The ooo-users ML is archived at "[LINK]". The former OpenOffice.org ML
is archived at "[LINK2]"." If I knew what to say ...



Hi tj

Was thinking the same thing, I think I'll set it up as a table

Re: Running the RAT Report

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/24/12 9:15 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

Hi,

I found and review the rat-excludes file. This is very well annotated.

I would like to run the RAT report. Is there a build.xml available somewhere or 
am I expected to role my own?

Regards,
Dave


The RAT tool is triggered automatically on the build bots every time and 
started by these scripts.


You find the nightly report under 
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html


But it should be straight forward to run RAT directly on the sources.

Juergen

Re: Help with MacOSX Build

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/24/12 9:13 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the help. I have successfully built AOO 3.4 on MacOSX. It took a 
long time 



that is normal, not nice but quite normal and now you feel the pain that 
we have to deal with every time on all platforms ;-)

Help to improve the build performance is always welcome 

But good to know that you were able to built it and maybe you can give 
some feedback which part of the build guide was unclear or not enough 
and where improve things. Or feel free to change it directly.


Thanks

Juergen


Regards,
Dave

On Apr 22, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Chao Huang wrote:


For my input mistake, please add "*--disable-mozilla*". Thanks!


2012/4/23 Dave Fisher



On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Chao Huang wrote:


I build out the latest aoo3.4 source code (revision 1329048) on my Mac

OS X

10.6.8. It's very simple to follow the build guide "


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX

".

Here is my configure args :
./configure --with-dmake-url="
http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2"; \
   --with-epm-url="
http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz"; \
   --disable_mozilla \
   --disable-build-mozilla \
   --enable-verbose \
   --enable-category-b\
   --enable-minimizer\
   --enable-presenter-console\
   --enable-wiki-publisher


I used:

./configure --with-dmake-url=
http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2   \
   --with-epm-url=
http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \
--disable-build-mozilla \
   --enable-verbose \
   --enable-category-b \
   --enable-minimizer \
   --enable-presenter-console
   --enable-wiki-publisher

So, I'll change to add --disable_mozilla tomorrow and report back.

Thanks ans Regards,
Dave




2012/4/23 Dave Fisher


I have some questions about building for MacOSX

The project wiki is not very clear. [1][2]

(1) Where can I get a copy of Mac 10.4 SDK?

(2) What version of XCode should I install?

Google answers (1) and (2) with the TDF's wiki[2]. I downloaded XCode
3.2.6 for my MacOSX 10.6.8 system and checked the Mac 10.4 SDK option
during installation. Took a couple of hours, but worked fine.



You can find Xcode 3.2.6 installation package in the Mac OS X 10.6 disk.
Please select "Mac OS X 10.4 Support" in step "Installation Type".



(3) dmake and epm. It should be more obvious that the config step can
build these.



Please set them in config args.




(4) The Java 1.6 vs. 1.5 issue is confusing as well. I'm on 10.6.8 and
have Java SE 1..6.0_31- yes I applied the Flashback update. Will

everything

work ok?



It's OK for me to build source code with Java 1.6.0_31. I updated the JVM
to the latest one with "Software Update".



(5) I did the autoconfig and bootstrap i put the files from
http://www.openoffice.org/tools/moz_prebuild/OOo3.2/ into moz/zipped/

as

the config process suggested. I started the build, after quite awhile I

had

an error with moz. I am unsure what to do next



I disabled mozilla in configure.




Here is my moz directory structure:

./extractfiles.mk
./makefile.mk
./patches/arm_build_fix.patch
./patches/brokenmakefile.patch
./patches/consecutive_ldap_queries.patch
./patches/cygwin_paths_in_ldap_sdk.patch
./patches/dtoa.patch
./patches/embed_manifest.patch
./patches/gcc46.patch
./patches/index.txt
./patches/link_fontconfig.patch
./patches/no_core_abspath_in_nss.patch
./patches/nss_linux.patch
./patches/respect_disable_pango.patch
./patches/wchart_on_msvc8.patch
./prj/build.lst
./prj/d.lst
./README
./seamonkey-source-1.1.14.patch
./unxmacxi.pro/inc/myworld.mk
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIinc.zip
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIlib.zip
./zipped/MACOSXGCCIruntime.zip

Here is the output:

Entering /Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz

mkout -- version: 1.8
Use of internal mozilla is disabled.

Entering /Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz/zipped

---
Error: No makefile.mk found!
---
force_dmake_to_error
dmake:  Error executing 'force_dmake_to_error': No such file or

directory

dmake:  Error code -1, while making 'no_traget'

1 module(s):
  moz
need(s) to be rebuilt

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/Users/dave/Documents/AOO/aoo-3.4.0/main/moz/zipped

When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build

by

running:

  build --all:moz

Regards,
Dave

[1]


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Building_on_MacOsX

[2]


http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_MacOSX

[3]


http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Install_Mac_OS_X_Dependencies





--
Best regards,
Chao Huang






--
Best regards,
Chao Huang

Re: RC candidate testing - status

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/25/12 12:19 AM, drew jensen wrote:

Hi,

Just a word on what I've been up to.

For the following platforms:
Ubuntu 11.04 (64bit) - Unity
Ubuntu Business Desktop 11.10 (32 bit) - Unity
OpenSuse 12.01 (32bit) Gnome 2.32
OpenSuse 12.01 (64bit) Gnome 3.0
MS Vista home (32bit)
MS 7 home (64bit)
[Vista and 7 using avast anti-virus]

Have installed each onto a clean (fully removed all old OO.o installs
w/any old config information) system. No problems.

Then proceeded to install the following extensions on each platform:
ODT2Daisy
ODT2Brail
Bookmark Menus
Writer2EPub
SUN Report Builder
SUN MySQL Connector

Installed SQLite 3 with JDBC/ODBC drivers on all platforms.
Installed AdaBase on Windows Vista only.
Installed HSQLdb 2.2.8 on all paltforms
Installed Daisy player under Vista only.
Installed Thunderbird on all platforms.


Writer -

Used ODTDaisy, ODTBrail and Writer2EPub to generate exports from the
current draft copy of the AOO 3.4 Getting Started Guide.
Checked output of Daisy files with reader (Windows only)
Checked ePub format with Calibre (Ubuntu only)
Have no way to check the Brail output at the moment.

Impress -

Created a presentation on each platform, also opened, edited, presented
another set of 6 files on each platform. Focused on custom animations
and multi-media (video/sound) support.

Included Draw in this for creating some simple graphics, also for
importing some SVG images.

Database -

Started with a set of csv files of names provided by the US Census
bureau and a MS Access (jet) database of Baseball stats for all
pro-players back to 1880 (it's my test set of data :)

Imported csv file into:
Calc
Base (hsqldb embedded) as linked text table.

Exported from Calc and Base to a new Base file as dBase format.

Exported the dBase format into new Base file as embedded HSQLdb.

Connected to MS Access data Read/Write capable - On Windows w/ direct
connector, on Linux via UnixODBC.

Exported MS Access Data into new Base file connected via JDBC to SQLite
3, did again using ODBC.

Connected to MS Access (accdb format) copy of Baseball stats,
read/write, under Windows only.

Exported accdb data to new Base file connected to SQLite 3, JDBC and
ODBC.

For each platform created a new Base file using the built in table
templates (customers, employees, orders, orderdetails) via the wizard
for the following backends:
dbase, hsqldb embedded, hsqldb 2.2.8 file based, SQlite 3
[FK relation created where supported]
- created simple set of forms via wizard
- edited one form adding secondary sub-form
- created simple report (no Report Builder installed) via wizard
- created simple report via Report Builder wizard

Then opened a set of 6 ODB files, all embedded HSQL on each platform,
each file utilizes a different set of functions. All utilize basic
scripting for added functionaity - one for mail merging, one heavy on
Builder Reports, another heavy on dataform manipulation, etc.

=== NOT FINISHED YET 
For Todays test
I'll do imports, new table adds, quick forum and reports for PostgreSQL
9.1 via JDBC and MySQL 5.5 with the connector extension.
Connect to Thunderbird on all platforms for an Address book connection
and then some mail merge runs.

=== problems so far ===
Usual and expected data format issues on export/import but no crashes or
hangs during imports.

Table wizard is not handling all FK creation properly, but no crashes
anywhere.

So far all the Report Designer reports seem to be functioning - but have
not really pushed it as far as covering designer features.

The dataforms open in print view mode, not web view mode - there is a
workaround. [open any writer window, switch to web view, close the
window (no need to save) and all Base forms open properly now for the
duration of the office session]

The embedded HSQLdb file access got slower as did it seems all JDBC
based connections, but the embedded is as usual the worse.

Did find one way to reliably crash the entire office:
The basic SHELL command will crash when:
1- executed from a basic library embedded in an ODB file
2- requires a badly formed command string
The same script coding error will generate an error dialog when executed
from a stand alone basic library.

Have not been able to execute a LoadLibrary for the embedded ODB
BasicLibraries object. I think this is a regression, certainly not a
showstopper.

The bookmark extension is not working at all under linux. (the same
version of the extension does still work with the current LibO, so think
maybe it was AOO that changed something)

=

Anyway, I'll probably use all of the alloted time to keep going but:
so far, so good I think.


thanks for this good overview of how and what you have tested, I feel 
more comfortable now.


Seeing all the good feedback, the reports the detailed QA report from 
Lily are all very useful to get a good impression about the quality and 
the stability.
We all know that we always find minor issues and that will probably 
never change but the question is alw

Re: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/25/12 12:02 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote:

On 24.04.2012 16:55, Risto Jääskeläinen wrote:

See: Thread: Fix for bug 116639 almost


I don't think that 116639 was the root cause. Looking at the problematic
string in the screenshot you provided at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/rjaaskel/Kuvat/Tulostaikkuna.jpg
the reason was simply a strange translation of what is named "Comments",
"Kommentare", "Comentarios", "Commenti", etc. in other languages.

In the Finnish localization as of AOO340_rc1 it reads:
"Kun tämä valinta on tehty, ohjelman lisäämät tyhjät sivut tulostetaan.
Tämä on tarpeen, kun tulostetaan kaksipuoleisesti. Esimerkiksi kirjassa
\"luku\"-kappaletyyli on määritelty alkavaksi aina parittomalta sivulta.
Jos edellinen luku päättyy parittomalle sivulle, %PRODUCTNAME lisää
parillisen tyhjän sivun. Tämä valinta ohjaa mainitun parillisen sivun
tulostusta."
which is defined in the "STR_PRINTOPTUI 18" line of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source/fi/localize.sdf

Getting such a long string into a poor little dialog is does of course
cause some trouble.


[...] Bug is fixed in
Pootle but correct translation is not yet in publshed package.


The other translations for the other STR_PRINTOPTUI lines in the finnish
localize.sdf were also a bit long. Have they been fixed too?

 >>> I am sorry if this is not correct way of voting

I'd like to extend that question by asking (e.g. the mentors) if it
should be possible to split the voting in such situations, so that e.g.
individual localization could vote for a different revision? Is a
staggered release process allowed?

Otherwise there would be a inherent scalability problem in the release
process of such a huge multi-platform and multi-language application
targeted at end users: if one problematic localization could reset the
work of everyone else then this would be a recipe for a lot of
frustration, as building, distributing, announcing and especially
testing of a new revision is a huge effort and a lot of people are
involved.


I agree in general and it would be good to have more flexibility here. 
But in this case we will simply not release Finnish and will move it in 
the next micro release.


It was somewhat special for this release because we have underestimate 
the effort around the pootle server because the lack of knowledge and 
too many other things to do.


Juergen

Re: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/25/12 12:54 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:


On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:

On 24.04.2012 16:55, Risto Jääskeläinen wrote:


See: Thread: Fix for bug 116639 almost



I don't think that 116639 was the root cause. Looking at the problematic
string in the screenshot you provided at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/rjaaskel/Kuvat/Tulostaikkuna.jpg
the reason was simply a strange translation of what is named "Comments",
"Kommentare", "Comentarios", "Commenti", etc. in other languages.

In the Finnish localization as of AOO340_rc1 it reads:
"Kun tämä valinta on tehty, ohjelman lisäämät tyhjät sivut tulostetaan. Tämä
on tarpeen, kun tulostetaan kaksipuoleisesti. Esimerkiksi kirjassa
\"luku\"-kappaletyyli on määritelty alkavaksi aina parittomalta sivulta. Jos
edellinen luku päättyy parittomalle sivulle, %PRODUCTNAME lisää parillisen
tyhjän sivun. Tämä valinta ohjaa mainitun parillisen sivun tulostusta."
which is defined in the "STR_PRINTOPTUI 18" line of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source/fi/localize.sdf
Getting such a long string into a poor little dialog is does of course cause
some trouble.


[...] Bug is fixed in

Pootle but correct translation is not yet in publshed package.



The other translations for the other STR_PRINTOPTUI lines in the finnish
localize.sdf were also a bit long. Have they been fixed too?



I am sorry if this is not correct way of voting


I'd like to extend that question by asking (e.g. the mentors) if it should
be possible to split the voting in such situations, so that e.g. individual
localization could vote for a different revision? Is a staggered release
process allowed?

Otherwise there would be a inherent scalability problem in the release
process of such a huge multi-platform and multi-language application
targeted at end users: if one problematic localization could reset the work
of everyone else then this would be a recipe for a lot of frustration, as
building, distributing, announcing and especially testing of a new revision
is a huge effort and a lot of people are involved.




I think we can handle this efficiently.  But we would need to take
some precautions.  Start with making a branch of RC1 in SVN, if RC1 is
approved.  If we then want to update a single language or a single
platform, then we can make those changes in the branch.


Or RC2. A branch this big will require coordination with Infra.


we will need a branch anyway to have a code line for bugfixes etc. based 
on the release and the main trunk to continue the development to the 
next release.


Juergen




I think we would still require a release vote for any additional files
we publish, such as updated translations, etc.  So the same 72-hour
voting process.


Makes sense to me.


But I don't think it would require that the IPMC do an in-depth review
of the entire release, and it should not be necessary for us to do a
complete regression test.  I'd hope the IPMC would be satisfied to
look at the SVN logs and see that only translations had been changed,
and that would be enough to justify their approval.


Before we hope, let's get through a release with IPMC approval.

Depending on how we do, a push for graduation makes sense. In that case our PMC 
votes will be enough.

Regards,
Dave





-Rob


Herbert

Re: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/25/12 5:31 AM, Risto Jääskeläinen wrote:

Hello!

There was for unknown reason mixture of UI texts and Tooltip texts in
place for UI lines. When I now look at Pootle, there is no long string
at wrong places any more. At least not in STR_PRINTOPTUI lines.

I have no rights to accept anything in Pootle or elsewhere.

I don't know what is most easy way handle this case. If it can just edit
web-page "rubbing" out Finnish there it is OK to me. I mean that if it
is not advertised as ready suite with Finnish translation then nobody is
hurt?
This are only my opinions. I have no position to demand anything. I just
happens there are not many who can understand Finnish and as far as I
know nobody of them has any rights to handle accept translations etc.



Hi Risto,

I have accepted the changes you have made but the time was to short to 
integrate the new updated translation from Pootle into the build. I will 
do that asap and it will be contained in the next micro update for 3.4


We appreciate very much your work on the translation and everything else 
you do here but sometimes we simply have to prioritize things. They day 
has only 24h and the week 7 days and we all did a lot. Many languages 
are not part of the first release and I have already put some priority 
on Finnish as feedback on your work on the mailing list and your 
translation work.


So please be patient.

Juergen



Thanks
Risto

Herbert Duerr [h...@apache.org] kirjoitti:

On 24.04.2012 16:55, Risto Jääskeläinen wrote:
> See: Thread: Fix for bug 116639 almost

I don't think that 116639 was the root cause. Looking at the
problematic string in the screenshot you provided at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/rjaaskel/Kuvat/Tulostaikkuna.jpg
the reason was simply a strange translation of what is named
"Comments", "Kommentare", "Comentarios", "Commenti", etc. in other
languages.

In the Finnish localization as of AOO340_rc1 it reads:
"Kun tämä valinta on tehty, ohjelman lisäämät tyhjät sivut
tulostetaan. Tämä on tarpeen, kun tulostetaan kaksipuoleisesti.
Esimerkiksi kirjassa \"luku\"-kappaletyyli on määritelty alkavaksi
aina parittomalta sivulta. Jos edellinen luku päättyy parittomalle
sivulle, %PRODUCTNAME lisää parillisen tyhjän sivun. Tämä valinta
ohjaa mainitun parillisen sivun tulostusta."
which is defined in the "STR_PRINTOPTUI 18" line of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source/fi/localize.sdf

Getting such a long string into a poor little dialog is does of course
cause some trouble.

>>> [...] Bug is fixed in
>>> Pootle but correct translation is not yet in publshed package.

The other translations for the other STR_PRINTOPTUI lines in the
finnish localize.sdf were also a bit long. Have they been fixed too?

>>> I am sorry if this is not correct way of voting

I'd like to extend that question by asking (e.g. the mentors) if it
should be possible to split the voting in such situations, so that
e.g. individual localization could vote for a different revision? Is a
staggered release process allowed?

Otherwise there would be a inherent scalability problem in the release
process of such a huge multi-platform and multi-language application
targeted at end users: if one problematic localization could reset the
work of everyone else then this would be a recipe for a lot of
frustration, as building, distributing, announcing and especially
testing of a new revision is a huge effort and a lot of people are
involved.

Herbert

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/21/12 8:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
OpenOffice.org.


This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
party libraries
(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate



Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4
(incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC midnight Wednesday, 25 April: 2012-04-25 24:00 UTC.

After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...



+1

I used the RC and all the dev builds before in my daily work since 
weeks. I have build the source tarball successful and it works as expected.


Juergen

[VOTE][Preliminary RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

The vote period to release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1 is 
still ongoing for 2 hours but this preliminary result gives a short 
overview.


Because of longer traveling activities and to start the IPMC vote on the 
RC1 I have already counted the votes that we have received so far.


The ballot result was +34 including one IPMC member binding +1, 22 +1 
votes fro PPMC members, one +1 from a committer, 8 +1 votes from 
community members and one PPMC abstentions (0).  One -1 non-binding 
ballot were cast related the Finish translation that will be now not 
part of the release. Means we will not release a Finnish localized 
binary package.


VOTE TALLY

+1  Dave Fisher - IPMC (binding)

0   Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)

+1  Pedro Giffuni - PPMC
+1  Hagar Delest - PPMC
+1  Ian Lynch - PPMC
+1  Rob Weir - PPMC
+1  RGB ES - PPMC
+1  Zoltán Reizinger - PPMC
+1  Donald Harbison - PPMC
+1  Kay Schenk - PPMC
+1  Armin Le Grand - PPMC
+1  Herbert Duerr - PPMC
+1  Carl Marcum - PPMC
+1  Marcus Lange - PPMC
+1  Regina Henschel - PPMC
+1  Andrew Rist - PPMC
+1  Andrea Pescetti - PPMC
+1  Ariel Constenla-Haile - PPMC
+1  Juergen Schmidt - PPMC
+1  Oliver Rainer Wittmann - PPMC
+1  Kazunaro Hirano - PPMC
+1  Maho Nakato - PPMC
+1  Andre Fischer - PPMC
+1  Eric Bachard - PPMC
+1  Raphael Bircher - PPMC
+1  Drew Jensen - PPMC
+1 Chritoph Jopp - PPMC

+1  Yuri Dario -Committer

+1  Larry Gusaas
+1  Shen Feng Liu
+1  Rory O'Farrell
+1  Chao Huang
+1  Albino Biasutti Neto
+1  Peng Chen
+1  Ying Sun
+1  ZuoJun Chen


-1  Risto Jääskeläinen, only for Finnish translation


35   Votes +1
 1   Votes  0
 1   Votes -1

[VOTE][RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

the preliminary vote result is identical with the final vote result. We 
had a further +1 (PPMC) vote on ooo-private but that can't be counted here.


The ballot result was +34 including one IPMC member binding +1, 22 +1 
votes fro PPMC members, one +1 from a committer, 8 +1 votes from 
community members and one PPMC abstentions (0).  One -1 non-binding 
ballot were cast related the Finish translation that will be now not 
part of the release. Means we will not release a Finnish localized 
binary package.


VOTE TALLY

+1  Dave Fisher - IPMC (binding)

0   Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)

+1  Pedro Giffuni - PPMC
+1  Hagar Delest - PPMC
+1  Ian Lynch - PPMC
+1  Rob Weir - PPMC
+1  RGB ES - PPMC
+1  Zoltán Reizinger - PPMC
+1  Donald Harbison - PPMC
+1  Kay Schenk - PPMC
+1  Armin Le Grand - PPMC
+1  Herbert Duerr - PPMC
+1  Carl Marcum - PPMC
+1  Marcus Lange - PPMC
+1  Regina Henschel - PPMC
+1  Andrew Rist - PPMC
+1  Andrea Pescetti - PPMC
+1  Ariel Constenla-Haile - PPMC
+1  Juergen Schmidt - PPMC
+1  Oliver Rainer Wittmann - PPMC
+1  Kazunaro Hirano - PPMC
+1  Maho Nakato - PPMC
+1  Andre Fischer - PPMC
+1  Eric Bachard - PPMC
+1  Raphael Bircher - PPMC
+1  Drew Jensen - PPMC
+1 Chritoph Jopp - PPMC

+1  Yuri Dario -Committer

+1  Larry Gusaas
+1  Shen Feng Liu
+1  Rory O'Farrell
+1  Chao Huang
+1  Albino Biasutti Neto
+1  Peng Chen
+1  Ying Sun
+1  ZuoJun Chen


-1  Risto Jääskeläinen, only for Finnish translation


35   Votes +1
 1   Votes  0
 1   Votes -1

Re: [VOTE][Preliminary RESULT] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/26/12 6:34 AM, Anton Meixome wrote:

2012/4/26 Jürgen Schmidt:

The vote period to release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1 is still
ongoing for 2 hours but this preliminary result gives a short overview.

Because of longer traveling activities and to start the IPMC vote on the RC1
I have already counted the votes that we have received so far.

The ballot result was +34 including one IPMC member binding +1, 22 +1 votes
fro PPMC members, one +1 from a committer, 8 +1 votes from community members
and one PPMC abstentions (0).  One -1 non-binding ballot were cast related
the Finish translation that will be now not part of the release. Means we
will not release a Finnish localized binary package.

VOTE TALLY

+1  Dave Fisher - IPMC (binding)

0   Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)

+1  Pedro Giffuni - PPMC
+1  Hagar Delest - PPMC
+1  Ian Lynch - PPMC
+1  Rob Weir - PPMC
+1  RGB ES - PPMC
+1  Zoltán Reizinger - PPMC
+1  Donald Harbison - PPMC
+1  Kay Schenk - PPMC
+1  Armin Le Grand - PPMC
+1  Herbert Duerr - PPMC
+1  Carl Marcum - PPMC
+1  Marcus Lange - PPMC
+1  Regina Henschel - PPMC
+1  Andrew Rist - PPMC
+1  Andrea Pescetti - PPMC
+1  Ariel Constenla-Haile - PPMC
+1  Juergen Schmidt - PPMC
+1  Oliver Rainer Wittmann - PPMC
+1  Kazunaro Hirano - PPMC
+1  Maho Nakato - PPMC
+1  Andre Fischer - PPMC
+1  Eric Bachard - PPMC
+1  Raphael Bircher - PPMC
+1  Drew Jensen - PPMC
+1 Chritoph Jopp - PPMC

+1  Yuri Dario -Committer

+1  Larry Gusaas
+1  Shen Feng Liu
+1  Rory O'Farrell
+1  Chao Huang
+1  Albino Biasutti Neto
+1  Peng Chen
+1  Ying Sun
+1  ZuoJun Chen


-1  Risto Jääskeläinen, only for Finnish translation


35   Votes +1
  1   Votes  0
  1   Votes -1


+1 From Galician group

We performed basics tests on Windows 7 and Ubuntu 11.10


thanks for pointing this out and give us feedback, but I think I can 
only count votes from single individuals not from a group.


Anyway thanks a lot for the feedback and good to know that the Galician 
group can support the RC1 as a final release.


Juergen

[RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

to be prepared for the upcoming release I plan to use the following 
directory structure on


https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo

Existing
3.3
3.3/patches
3.3/patches/cve-2012-0037/...
DATE
KEYS

New added:
3.4.0/source
3.4.0/windows/...
3.4.0/windows/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/macos/...
3.4.0/macos/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/languagepacks/...


16 languages: en-US ar cs de en-GB es fr gl hu it ja nl ru pr-BR zh-CN zh-TW

Do we need to prepare or adapt the download page?

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/27/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

2012/4/27 Jürgen Schmidt


Hi,

to be prepared for the upcoming release I plan to use the following
directory structure on

https://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo<https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo>

Existing
3.3
3.3/patches
3.3/patches/cve-2012-0037/...
DATE
KEYS

New added:
3.4.0/source
3.4.0/windows/...
3.4.0/windows/languagepacks/..**.
3.4.0/macos/...
3.4.0/macos/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/languagepacks/**...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/**languagepacks/...


16 languages: en-US ar cs de en-GB es fr gl hu it ja nl ru pr-BR zh-CN
zh-TW

Do we need to prepare or adapt the download page?

Juergen




Juergen--

This will considerably change the current logic being used. Is there some
reason you don't want to use the existing setup of:

root DL area/files/stable/3.4/...
root DL area/files/localized/3.4/...

see:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/


I had a look to other projects in the dist folder on Apache and looked 
what we already have.


From my point of view the old structure doesn't really make too much sense.

Why should we for example put the localized bit in separate directories 
when we have the language Id as part of the name?


And we have only stable releases in the future. Ok we will have archives 
of older versions but that's it.


Do we have the time to adapt it to the new structure. We should do it ow 
if possible.


What do others think?

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/27/12 10:09 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:



On 04/27/2012 12:47 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 04/27/2012 09:34 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:


On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:


Am 04/27/2012 08:49 PM, schrieb J�rgen Schmidt:

On 4/27/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

2012/4/27 J�rgen Schmidt


Hi,

to be prepared for the upcoming release I plan to use the following
directory structure on

https://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo




Existing
3.3
3.3/patches
3.3/patches/cve-2012-0037/...
DATE
KEYS

New added:
3.4.0/source
3.4.0/windows/...
3.4.0/windows/languagepacks/..**.
3.4.0/macos/...
3.4.0/macos/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/languagepacks/**...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/**languagepacks/...


16 languages: en-US ar cs de en-GB es fr gl hu it ja nl ru pr-BR
zh-CN
zh-TW

Do we need to prepare or adapt the download page?

Juergen




Juergen--

This will considerably change the current logic being used. Is
there some
reason you don't want to use the existing setup of:

root DL area/files/stable/3.4/...
root DL area/files/localized/3.4/...

see:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/


I had a look to other projects in the dist folder on Apache and looked
what we already have.

From my point of view the old structure doesn't really make too much
sense.

Why should we for example put the localized bit in separate
directories
when we have the language Id as part of the name?

And we have only stable releases in the future. Ok we will have
archives
of older versions but that's it.

Do we have the time to adapt it to the new structure. We should do
it ow
if possible.

What do others think?


It won't work because the DL logic is working the old way, and only
this way. ;-)

The old structure has everything in a single directory. The only
separation is for en-US only (stable) and all other languages
(localized).

When we change the structure now where the builds are physicaly
existing, then we have to adapt the complete logic, too, which is an
effort that I cannot predict.

So, the best solution is to keep the old separation and think about
to change this with a new release.

Then I would prefer to have every install file for a specific version
in a single directory. This makes it the easiest way to assemble
download links:

Example:

/files/3.4.0/...
/files/3.4.1/...
/files/3.5.0/...
...


We can only keep the most current version in Apache dist. All older
versions go to the archive.


Oh yes, right, then it's only one directory.

Marcus


right now -- especially with the desire to continue to serve up
"friendly" dl logic in the new /download/3.3.0 directory, this is really
and truly critical. Yes, it's true, given the Apache current release
dictum, we will only have one directory setup --

/dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable
/dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized


ok that means I will upload the files in this way

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.asc
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.md5
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.sha1
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.sha512
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/...

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.asc
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.md5
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.sha1
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.sha512
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ar/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/cs/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/en-GB/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/es/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/fr/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/gl/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/hu/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/it/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ja/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/nl/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/pt-BR/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ru/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/zh-CN/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/zh-TW/...


Note that I don't use the version in the localized folders again. 
Oth

Re: RC Readmes point to Wiki ML Page that needs Update

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/27/12 9:59 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 24/04/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

The source is in readlicense_oo/docs/readme/readme.xrm. I would suggest
that we define first how we want handle it in the future. And a
translated version of the README is from my perspective a very useful.


The README is already localized; at least, in the Italian version I
still see the text that we translated years ago, and that anyway is
badly outdated now, like the English version analyzed by Dennis at
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119217



no surprise to me, once we have updated the English version the 
translation should be triggered automatically.


Juergen

Re: Distributing AOO 3.4: The 22 things we need to do before we announce

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/28/12 1:40 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks

Please review this task list and see if anything is missing.   It
would be great to confirm that this list is complete and to have a
volunteer's name listed against each one of these tasks.



I added a new task, now #2.  Once we have the final files approved we
should "whitelist' them with Symantec, so users will get fewer
false-hits from anti-virus.

https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/new/

Among the information they need is URL and SHA256 hash. It looks like
each language will need to be submitted separately.


Ok we have currently sha1 and sha512 checksums, should we skip one of 
them in favor of sha256?


I'm assuming only

Windows.  Or is Symantec used on MacOS as well?


Symantec is used on Mac as well

Juergen



-Rob


Note the additional complexity caused by having hard-coded download
logic on the various NL pages.

-Rob

New group Apache OpenOffice on XING

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

I have created a new group Apache OpenOffice on XING that is under 
control of the project.


https://www.xing.com/net/pri344752x/aoo

PPMC members with XING account who have interest to help this group as 
co-moderator please let me know and I will add you.


The former group OpenOffice.org is still present but I failed so far to 
convince the moderator of this group to allow further moderators from 
the PMC. But I will continue to get or at least share control over this 
group by the PPMC.


Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/30/12 9:12 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 4/27/12 10:09 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:



On 04/27/2012 12:47 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 04/27/2012 09:34 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:


On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:


Am 04/27/2012 08:49 PM, schrieb J�rgen Schmidt:

On 4/27/12 5:32 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

2012/4/27 J�rgen Schmidt


Hi,

to be prepared for the upcoming release I plan to use the following
directory structure on

https://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo<https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo>





Existing
3.3
3.3/patches
3.3/patches/cve-2012-0037/...
DATE
KEYS

New added:
3.4.0/source
3.4.0/windows/...
3.4.0/windows/languagepacks/..**.
3.4.0/macos/...
3.4.0/macos/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/languagepacks/**...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/**languagepacks/...


16 languages: en-US ar cs de en-GB es fr gl hu it ja nl ru pr-BR
zh-CN
zh-TW

Do we need to prepare or adapt the download page?

Juergen




Juergen--

This will considerably change the current logic being used. Is
there some
reason you don't want to use the existing setup of:

root DL area/files/stable/3.4/...
root DL area/files/localized/3.4/...

see:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/


I had a look to other projects in the dist folder on Apache and
looked
what we already have.

From my point of view the old structure doesn't really make too much
sense.

Why should we for example put the localized bit in separate
directories
when we have the language Id as part of the name?

And we have only stable releases in the future. Ok we will have
archives
of older versions but that's it.

Do we have the time to adapt it to the new structure. We should do
it ow
if possible.

What do others think?


It won't work because the DL logic is working the old way, and only
this way. ;-)

The old structure has everything in a single directory. The only
separation is for en-US only (stable) and all other languages
(localized).

When we change the structure now where the builds are physicaly
existing, then we have to adapt the complete logic, too, which is an
effort that I cannot predict.

So, the best solution is to keep the old separation and think about
to change this with a new release.

Then I would prefer to have every install file for a specific version
in a single directory. This makes it the easiest way to assemble
download links:

Example:

/files/3.4.0/...
/files/3.4.1/...
/files/3.5.0/...
...


We can only keep the most current version in Apache dist. All older
versions go to the archive.


Oh yes, right, then it's only one directory.

Marcus


right now -- especially with the desire to continue to serve up
"friendly" dl logic in the new /download/3.3.0 directory, this is really
and truly critical. Yes, it's true, given the Apache current release
dictum, we will only have one directory setup --

/dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable
/dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized


ok that means I will upload the files in this way

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.asc

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.md5

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.sha1

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg.sha512

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/stable/...

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.asc

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.md5

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.sha1

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_de.dmg.sha512

.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/de/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ar/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/cs/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/en-GB/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/es/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/fr/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/gl/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/hu/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/it/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ja/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/nl/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/pt-BR/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/ru/...
.../dist/incubator/ooo/files/3.4.0/localized/zh-CN/...
.../dist/incubator

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/30/12 2:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:




On 04/27/2012 01:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Andrea Pescetti
  wrote:


Kay Schenk wrote:



Please take a look at and give feedback on a test page for the new
/download/index.html page at:
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/test/index_new_dl.**html
Yes, it's a bit strange with lots of nonsense at the top that I wanted
you to see, but will of course go away in production.




The page is nice, but it's the concept that leaves me dubious.

We have another thread
http://comments.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.apache.incubator.**
ooo.devel/16219
where there seems to be consensus towards a solution that:
1) Uses SF (and possibly Apache) for the web-based downloads
2) Does not phase out MirrorBrain, and uses it for the updates (i.e.,
downloads initiated by OpenOffice with the "Look for updates" function)



That's what I understand as well.



oh -- OK. I thought we were going to use MirrorBrain for 3.3 DLs as well
-- i.e. what Marcus will be working on. I know right now, we're using
SourceForge for that though.




  The "possibly Apache" in 1) is due to the fact that I haven't understood

yet
what technology Apache will be using and if Apache will distribute only
sources or binaries too (it's obvious that we as a project will release
sources and binaries, but I'm not 100% sure that Apache wants to put
binaries on its mirrors too: I think so).




Well it's not all that complicated actually. Take a look at the security
patch info page...

http://www.openoffice.org/**security/cves/CVE-2012-0037.**html

and you can see what the link looks like.

Actual source/binaries are, for us, put in:

http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo/

This said, you could be right in having issues tracking down problems.
Right now, the SF setup is more "user friendly" in my opinion. I thought we
were *required* to use Apache for downloads, but maybe we've gotten a
dispensation for this release. Though I didn't think is was 100% someplace
else. I admit I haven't kept up as much as I should have though.

The other issue is how will it LOOK to users -- one moment they may be one
place; if they happen to do a shift-reload, they may go someplace else with
an entirely different look and feel.




Fact is, we should avoid the random selection as much as possible,
mainly to
be able to quickly identify problems, and you will see details in that
thread. The cleaner separation we can get, the better.



So how about something very simple:

1) AOO 3.4 downloads use SourceForge by default from the
/download/index.html page.  Just like they are doing today.



This WOULD make things a lot simpler.



But we also have a links there that point to Apache mirrors for:

a) Hashes and detached signatures
b) source distribution
c) a link to the full release tree



Well, SF will need to implement in their sidebar or the main page for
openoffice.org they have, right?

Anyway, good conversation.



In other words, no rolling the dice, noting fancy.  100% of normal
users will download from SF.

2) When we enable the automated updates, in a week or two, then we
decide what we want to do.  Maybe we do it via SF.  Maybe MirrorBrain.
  Maybe a mix,

  On the other side, release time is approaching and I can only hope that

talks between Peter Poeml (MirrorBrain author) and Apache Infra, that had
started on this list, are progressing now.



I think it is too late for any of those talks to influence how we deal
with AOO 3.4 initial downloads.  But maybe the update downloads in a
couple of weeks.

-Rob

  Regards,

  Andrea.




--
--**--**

MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
  And life has a funny way of helping you out
  Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette




Ok, I am hoping this will be about the last, final review on the new
download/index.html --

prototype at:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html

This assumes SourceForge ONLY, and that the  3.4 pre-built client packs
will be in the hiearchy as the 3.3 is -- stable, etc.

Naturally NONE of the links will work until something gets out there and
there is a TON of alerts which I will of course eventually comment out.


It suddenly dawned on me *just today* that we don't want to continue to
generate links for OSes we no longer support now, like Sun's retinue, and
for some reason because of how this all operates, it took me forever to fix
this one aspect.  I could have not bothered with this but well, I didn't
want to lead folks astray with a "not found

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:



On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenk  �wrote:




Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use SF...which is
setup in the "old" way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for pre-build
client downloads.

So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs and will
they
just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs --

i.e.

/files/stable//


and

/files/localized///

I'm hoping the answer is "YES".



Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works now and
for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not
something where it will be easier to clean up later.



Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work.

Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory structure
that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release.

However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic work this
way, too.

As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of AOO 3.4 I
wouldn't do bigger changes now.



Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a
3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful?



The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't be big
changes. For further releases see above.

Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old project,
so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal.


It seems the easiest way to go to me too.

Roberto


OK, I need some clarification here -- again.

I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that
the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3, but


we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK,
we just need some awareness.

So -- can someone tell me what's what here.


I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed structure 
in the beginning of this thread if it is possible.


That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a 
little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including 
the checksum files) for each downloadable file.


And it will work for future releases as well.

I have agreed to use the same structure as for 3.3 but I also have said 
that I skip the version in the localized folder because we already have 
it in the path. No direct feedback on this and I took it as common 
consensus.


But now I am confused. We should clarify the structure before I will 
start the upload tomorrow.


I haven't looked in the details behind the download scripts and don't 
know how much work it is to adapt them to a new directory structure. 
That means I will use the structure that will work for now.


Juergen




I CAN change the friendly scripts to go with the NEW (Apache) structure.
In fact I'm going to work on THAT approach today (along with Rob's
changes) and hopefully we'll be set for either instance.





To setup a new structure that makes maybe more sense can be done later for a
release after 3.4.x.




my 2 ct

Marcus


This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may 
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended 
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your 
system. Thank you.

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has 
concluded.


The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E 




Thank you for your support

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 12:23 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/01/2012 11:09 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Tuesday, 1. May 2012 at 22:11, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/01/2012 08:23 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 4/30/12 11:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:



On 04/30/2012 12:47 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 04/30/2012 07:00 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:


On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kay Schenk
�wrote:




Right now I have the DL friendly script setup to only use
SF...which is
setup in the "old" way. I don't think we'll be usign Apache for
pre-build
client downloads.

So, I have a question -- who will be setting up the SF packs
and will
they
just stick with the current structure on that system for DLs --

i.e.

/files/stable//


and

/files/localized///

I'm hoping the answer is "YES".


Whatever we do, let's try to get a directory schem that works
now and
for AOO 3.4.1 and AOO 3.5 and for AOO 4.0, etc.. �This is not
something where it will be easier to clean up later.





Honestly spoken, I don't know if this will work.

Of course it could be easy and fast to think about a directory
structure
that will work also for a AOO 5.0 release.

However, I doubt that we will have the time to make the DL logic
work this
way, too.

As I've no idea how close we are from the first public download of
AOO 3.4 I
wouldn't do bigger changes now.



Thinking ahead, what do we do when we have a new release, like a
3.4.1? �And what can we do now to make that future less painful?





The DL logic for 3.4.1 can be the same as for 3.4.0. There shouldn't
be big
changes. For further releases see above.

Juergen is already OK to setup the structure like it was in the old
project,
so that the need changes to the DL logic is minimal.




It seems the easiest way to go to me too.

Roberto


OK, I need some clarification here -- again.

I am to understand by the above statements by Marcus and Roberto that
the directory structure for 3.4 will be the same as it is for 3.3,
but


we will have a *different* structure on www.apache.org/dist? Also, OK,
we just need some awareness.

So -- can someone tell me what's what here.


I am currently also confused. I would still prefer my proposed
structure
in the beginning of this thread if it is possible.

That would allow us to easy add further platforms and keep the bits a
little bit separated. Think about 100 languages and 5 files (including
the checksum files) for each downloadable file.




Maybe it will look more clean but thats not important. Normally the
average user should not be pointed to a mirror to find her/his favorite
file. For this we have the user-friendly and one-click-download
webpages.

For the former OOo release the structure was very good and also scalable
for new releases and languages. And it is much easier to upload
everything into a flat structure.




I can't really see a flat structure in the old directory tree. One
directory for each language etc.


OK, maybe it was not the right wording and my thinking not correct.

So, your idea is the following:

/ooo//source/...
/ooo///...
/ooo///languagepacks/...

It seems there is not other ASF project with releases for specific
platforms *and* languages (otherwise please point me to the project), so
maybe we can stick with this and divide only into platform-specifc
directories.

Maybe we can agree on the following structure for a AOO 3.5 release?

/dist/incubator/ooo//src/...
/dist/incubator/ooo//bin//...



why should we add a further indirection "bin" here? Keep it simple! 
Either we split in different platform directories or we can use one for 
all but not both.


We will discuss the future structure in  new thread asap to have enough 
time to adapt the scripts.


Juergen



If necessary we can provide additional files as subdirs inside the
/ directory (e.g., documentation in "docs/", hotfixes in
"patches/", etc.).

And new releases as Beta or RC can be uploaded into a new and own
/ subdirectory.

BTW:
The checksum files are created for every file and checksum format
separately, right? Do we have to store them together with the respective
files? Or is it allowed to store them in a separate directory?


To have every version, platform and
language in its own directory is much more complicated to handle in the
DL scripts.




My proposed structure used the version as start directory and than
only split the platforms and the language packs but that can be
dropped if it makes things easier. Then we would have a very flat
structure.


I would prefer to have them together with the full builds.


I really don't see here a technical problem to put the already
collected items (platform, lang, version, mirror...) in the right
order to prepare a download url.


There is indeed no technical problem. It's only a problem to get there
in time. ;-)


But anyway we will keep the old structure fo

[RELEASE][CODE]: new tag AOO340 and new branch AOO34

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

the final preparing of our 3.4 release is ongoing. As part of this I 
have created


- a tag AOO340 based on revision 1327774
- a new branch AOO34 based on revision 1327774


Why AOO34 as branch name?
We will continue fixing critical issues (including security fixes) and 
will update translations on this branch and will prepare releases on 
demand 3.4.1, 3.4.2, ... All this work will happen on this branch and we 
will create further tags for each future micro release on this 3.4 code 
base.


Juergen

Re: [RELEASE][CODE]: new tag AOO340 and new branch AOO34

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 9:31 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:

Cool. Shouldn't tags/branches be created before the vote, though, in the
future? That way the voted artifact and SCC will be in sync, and it's
clear exactly which revision the vote is happening on...


we know the revision on which the vote took place and I have created 
both exactly on this revision. I see no problem here the revision was 
clearly communicated.


We can of course tag each RC but I would create the final branch only 
for final bits.


Juergen



Issac

On 5/2/2012 10:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi,

the final preparing of our 3.4 release is ongoing. As part of this I
have created

- a tag AOO340 based on revision 1327774
- a new branch AOO34 based on revision 1327774


Why AOO34 as branch name?
We will continue fixing critical issues (including security fixes) and
will update translations on this branch and will prepare releases on
demand 3.4.1, 3.4.2, ... All this work will happen on this branch and
we will create further tags for each future micro release on this 3.4
code base.

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 11:07 AM, Xia Zhao wrote:

Juergen,

So I assume we will have 16 language packages? I need double check them
then.


exactly 16 language packs

Juergen



Best regards,

Lily

2012/4/27 Jürgen Schmidt


Hi,

to be prepared for the upcoming release I plan to use the following
directory structure on

https://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/ooo<https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo>

Existing
3.3
3.3/patches
3.3/patches/cve-2012-0037/...
DATE
KEYS

New added:
3.4.0/source
3.4.0/windows/...
3.4.0/windows/languagepacks/..**.
3.4.0/macos/...
3.4.0/macos/languagepacks/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/...
3.4.0/linux-x86/languagepacks/**...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/...
3.4.0/linux-x86-64/**languagepacks/...


16 languages: en-US ar cs de en-GB es fr gl hu it ja nl ru pr-BR zh-CN
zh-TW

Do we need to prepare or adapt the download page?

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE]: proposed directory structure on dist

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

to sum up this longer thread and the structure how I will upload the bits

Source release reflecting a future directory structure already:

.../incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.bz2
.../incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
.../incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.zip
.../incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/...

Binary releases keeping the old structure:
.../incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/ar/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/cs/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/de/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-BG/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/es/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/fr/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/gl/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/hu/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/ja/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/nl/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/pt-BR/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/ru/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-CN/3.4.0/...
.../incubator/ooo/files/localized/zh-TW/3.4.0/...


The directories will include all files (including the checksum files) 
for all platforms and the language packs. The SDK is available in en-US 
only and o only in ...files/stable


Juergen

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 11:03 AM, Xia Zhao wrote:

Juergen,

Good news to all of us!

When the publish will be finished? I'd like to try the download testing
with official build published.



I will keep you informed

Juergen


Best regards,

Lily

2012/5/2 Jürgen Schmidt


The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has
concluded.

The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-**
dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.**9000707%40googlemail.com%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E>


Thank you for your support

Juergen

Re: Need a code branch for RC

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 4/14/12 7:24 PM, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi all,

I want to commit some features and bug fixes, but want not to do this
immediately before a RC. The danger of producing regressions and
problems is too high.

I suggest that RC gets a branch, so that working on trunk is possible
again.

Kind regards
Regina


I have created a new AOO34 branch, development work on trunk can now 
continue


See also 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201205.mbox/%3C4FA0E13E.4040703%40googlemail.com%3E



Juergen

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 3:57 PM, imacat wrote:

Dear Jürgen,

 I believe I had voted a +1 at Apr 23th but not counted, thought the
result will still be the same.  Maybe it only count on ooo-dev list?


exactly only the votes on ooo-dev were counted. The next time I will 
post it on ooo-dev only to avoid confusion. But we all learn at the 
moment how things at Apache work and we will improve over time.


Juergen



On 2012/05/02 19:37, Jürgen Schmidt said:

On 5/2/12 11:03 AM, Xia Zhao wrote:

Juergen,

Good news to all of us!

When the publish will be finished? I'd like to try the download testing
with official build published.



I will keep you informed

Juergen


Best regards,

Lily

2012/5/2 Jürgen Schmidt


The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has
concluded.

The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-**
dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.**9000707%40googlemail.com%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E>



Thank you for your support

Juergen

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/2/12 6:04 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:

On 2 May 2012 16:51, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

...


I have no idea if it's common for Podlings to have a successful
vote in their first attempt but I have to say this result highlights
the determination and impecable work done by the group.


+1 (it is not common)


and it was a little bit surprising ;-) But i think we have listened and 
have incorporate feedback early and careful. And we will continue to 
improve our work here as a healthy project and a vibrant community.


My "special" role as a release manger was only a tiny piece (and nothing 
special) of the overall work we as a *community* have achieved with this 
first release. I could list many names and I am sure I would forget 
some. So I would like to say thank you to all who helped in the last 
month to bring our first release on the road.


I will list only some key areas where we have achieved a lot:
- migration of the website, the wiki, the user forum, the extensions and 
template repository, bugzilla
- setting up new internal wiki at Apache, new pootle server, new project 
web page

- IP cleanup of the code
- setting up build bots
- preparing regular dev snapshots and final RC
- great QA work
- archiving older releases and not yet integrated cws
- establishing a powerful mirror network with new partners
- work on documentation to reflect the new name and latest changes
- ...

The release is only the successful crowning end of a huge huge effort 
and a lot of work to migrate everything from Oracle infra-structure to 
Apache and partners.


We all know that it was not only the source code that was migrated/moved 
but much more and especially the way how we improved over time our 
collaboration on different tasks makes me very proud and I am really 
looking forward to continue this work with all of you.


We have strong characters in the project with different communication 
styles but I think we should always look twice what individuals are 
really doing here in the project and for the project before we 
adjudicate on somebody.


And about statements like "the major part of the community have moved 
to..." can I only laugh out loud. I felt myself always as part of the 
OOo community and I never have moved to somewhere else ;-) (sorry I 
couldn't resist)


Thanks to all of you

Juergen

Re: Need to rename ure-runtime

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/4/12 3:43 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

Hi,

I am runnign Fedora 17. On it I installed Apache OO 3.4 RC1.
I do not have LibreOffice installed on my system.

However, launching the system updater notifies me that there is an
update available for URE-Runtime (a component of LibreOffice) and
proceeds to install such update.

Needless to say, this installs over Apache OO 3.4 ure-runtime.
If an update from the Fedora repos breaks Apache OpenOffice 3.4 who's to
blame?.

I asked this on the Fedora mailing list and Caolán McNamara
caol...@redhat.com replied:

--
Both Fedora openoffice.org and the original upstream openoffice.org
ended up with a package called openoffice.org-ure. From various twists
and turns the Fedora -ure ended up with a 1 Epoch so all fedora -ure
packages are a higher n-v-r that the OOo one. Apache OOo has now
presumably got the same package names as well.

Fedora libreoffice has an upgrade path to update the Fedora
openoffice.org so it would attempt to upgrade anything called
openoffice.org-ure if installed.

Can block the libreoffice-ure in your yum.conf
--

I think this needs to be adressed by either LibreOffice or Apache OO so
that neither package steps over the ure-runtime of the other.

Thoughts? Comments?


well I think once we have an official release out we can clarify this 
with the different vendors. The package name contains openoffice.org and 
this is owned by Apache -> Apache OpenOffice.


They are free to change their distro packaging to use the package of our 
upcoming or future releases. Or they can rename the package.


Juergen

Re: [User Experience] - What is the status of the user experience project?

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/4/12 6:15 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

Hello All,

Does anyone have an update on the status of the AOO user experience
project? See http://www.openoffice.org/ux/ for current information.


I think it is stalled and is waiting on reactivation ;-) (that you 
already have started)




Are Frank Leohmann and Christoph Noack still involved?


I assume Frank has a new job and isn't active anymore and Christoph went 
to LibreOffice.




How might we validate the names of UX community as found on:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Experience/Community?



I would not spent too much time on this and would focus only on the future.

The problem with such pages is that they are always outdated.

Juergen

Re: [User Experience] - What is the status of the user experience project?

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/4/12 8:56 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

Jurgen,

Thanks for the insight. In reviewing the wiki, the backlog content is still
relevant, but the activity to do and membership are really out of date.

Is it reasonable to archive the current content, harvest actionable and
relevant backlog items, and start fresh?


I think so, if nobody work on it it is useless anyway

Starting new and fresh is a good idea. We should focus on the future and 
not on the past.


New people = new blood in the project -> new ideas, new motivation, ...


People should work on the things they are interested in and where they 
think they can help. Important is that we communicate about what we are 
doing, why we are doing it and that we agree on a common direction to 
drive our project and product forward.


I am sure we will identify areas where people have different opinions 
and especially in this situations communication and explanation is very 
important to find consensus.


Juergen



Perhaps I could make a community proposal to support a UX community wiki
refresh.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Kevin


On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:


On 5/4/12 6:15 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:


Hello All,

Does anyone have an update on the status of the AOO user experience
project? See http://www.openoffice.org/ux/ for current information.



I think it is stalled and is waiting on reactivation ;-) (that you already
have started)




Are Frank Leohmann and Christoph Noack still involved?



I assume Frank has a new job and isn't active anymore and Christoph went
to LibreOffice.




How might we validate the names of UX community as found on:
http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/User_**Experience/Community<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Experience/Community>
?



I would not spent too much time on this and would focus only on the future.

The problem with such pages is that they are always outdated.

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

I have tested 
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html on 
MacOS 10.7.3 with Firefox 12.0 and Safari 5.1.5


In both cases the click on the download butotn give me the correct 
download, perfect ;-)



Some questions as release manager:

- the link "Searching for another version? Get all platforms, languages, 
language packs" guide me on an old page. Do we have the new page with 
the reduced number of released languages already in place?


Does "source archives" on this page provide links to our source release?

- the link "Release Notes"
Do we have it in place as html file that fits in here? I know we have it 
in the wiki and there as html as well. But is the plan here?


- the "MD5 checksums"
I have read that we will probably change it to "Signatures and Hashes". 
Do we have the page/script behind it?


Or should we simply provide 4 links ASC, MD5, SHA1, SHA512 with a simple 
script appending the correct extension. Everything else should be in 
place already.


Sorry if my questions are already answered somewhere, it's easy to miss 
some mails at the moment.


Juergen


On 5/1/12 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Regina Henschelwrote:


Hi Kay,

Kay Schenk schrieb:

  Regina--


Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below...

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Regina Henschel>wrote:

  Hi,


my test results are below, all on German WinXP Home, SP3.

  [..]




  With Opera 11.62

=

Calling 
http://ooo-site.staging.**apac**he.org/download/test/**
index_new_dl.html





The green download box is missing totally.

Calling 
http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html
http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html>




results in

navigator.platform: Win32
navigator.UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de) Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1; u; de)
presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.UserAgent lower case: -1
getLink(): undefined
getPlatform(): Windows
getLanguage(): German


window.location.hrefhttp://www.openoffice.org/**
download/test/analyze.htmlhttp://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html>



navigator.platform  Win32
navigator.platform.toLowerCase()win32

navigator.userAgent Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de)
Presto/2.10.229
Version/11.62
navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()   opera/9.80 (windows nt 5.1;
u;

de) presto/2.10.229 version/11.62
navigator.language  de
navigator.userLanguage  de
navigator.systemLanguageundefined
navigator.javaEnabled() Yes


  OK -- well this is NOT good, but what kind of results do you get with

Opera
for:

  
http://www.openoffice.org/**download/legacy/

same thing or 



Yes, same error. The green box is missing.



OK -- well I feel a little better at least. I don't know what it is about
JS and Opera but I know when Marcus and I were working on something a few
years ago, we had a LOT of problems with Opera.







Despite the fact that Opera is supposed to be the most W3 compliant
browser, I know folks have had issues with it...


[..]

I see JavaScript errors in the 'Fehlerkonsole', besides some messages
about CSS, copy&paste below.



yeah-- nothing fatal... OK




Kind regards
Regina

[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 276:
-moz-border-radius: 0 0 10px 0;
  -^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
-moz-border-radius is an unknown property
Line 328:
-moz-border-radius: 0 10px 10px 0;
  -^
[01.05.2012 12:44:46] CSS - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/css/ooo.css
Linked-in stylesheet
Selector syntax error
Line 470:
  img { border: 0px; }
  -^
[25.01.1970 07:34:22] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**download_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 883 while loading: expected ';', got '304'
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/download/test/**languages_new_dl.js
Linked script compilation
Syntax error at line 104 while loading: expected ';', got '200'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
-^
[25.03.1970 11:30:57] JavaScript - http://ooo-site.staging.**
apache.org/

Re: Introduce

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/4/12 9:55 AM, taotao@cs2c.com.cn wrote:



  Ok,Yong lin,

  we (CS2C team) discussed with IBM team last month and
have done much prepare work. mainly in communication and coordination.


it was indeed interesting to meet you in China and it seems fruitful as 
well. You are here on the list now. A very warm welcome.


We met cs2c to explain how Apache and especially how Apache OpenOffice 
works and that all project relevant communication should take place on 
the mailing list.



There is no progress in development in last month.
you mean no progress in AOO? That was because of our stabilization phase 
for our upcoming 3.4 release. We were in show-stopper mode!



from now on , we began
to adapt Apache to start planning and will contribute after June.
we are looking forward to your ideas and the discussion with you about 
new features, enhancements etc. here on the list.


Juergen



  We are
interested in many area as follows:

  1. UOF format (We have a plan to
open the source code)

  2. Chinese localization. (We are willing to do the
translation and release version)

  3. we also have a plan to solve the
compatibility issues, may be in OOXML aspect.

  4. ...

  5. ...

On
13:45, Yong Lin Ma  写到:

Tao, Welcome. It was very impressive to meet
your team and hear what you are working on last month. You may talk more
here. I am sure not everyone here know about it. And would be glad to hear
that. On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Yue Helen wrote:>  Wonderful...with
more developers in, we can do more in the next release.>  >  2012/5/4
taotao.liu>  >>  Hello all,>>  >>  I am LiuTao, glad to meet you in AOO here.

I'm from China Standard Software Co.,Ltd. located in Beijing Haidian

district.>>  >>  Our team will come soon and join you. Hopefully we can

do sth.>>  >>  regards,>>  LiuTao>>  >>  2012-05-04>>  >>  >>  >>  China
Standard Software Co., Ltd. LiuTao>>  China Phone: (+86) 010-51659955-8106

http://www.cs2c.com.cn>>  http://modularization.openoffice.org>>

mailto:taotao@cs2c.com.cn>>

[RELEASE]: download page on the AOO project webpage

[Jürgen Schmidt]

Hi,

we want probably a download link/page on our Apache project page 
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/


For example in the navigation bar

About
Downloads
License
...

On this page I would propose that we link to the src release packages 
and a second section for the binaries where we simply link to the 
download page on www.openoffice.org


I am currently preparing a downloads.mdtext file and it should look a 
little bit like the src dev snaphot build page 
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/src_releases/srcrelease.html


Any ideas, comments or opinions

Juergen

Re: Hi I hava a question about how to use VBA language on the Linux

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/4/12 3:26 PM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Le 04/05/12 10:26, 史周波 a écrit :
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
>> Hi all,
>> I am researching how port the App for windows to Linux.
>> I meet a question about how to use the VBA language in AOO on the Linux?
> 
> The short answer is : you can't.
> The long answer is that you will have to rewrite your VBA in
> StarOffice/OOo Basic, the included Basic programming language (and API)
> that comes with AOOo. Some of the structures and constructs are similar,
> but there are notable differences. There used to be a Basic Programmer's
> Guide available for download on the internet, but I don't know if it is
> still around now that the project has moved to Apache stewardship, i.e.
> I don't know if that material was included in the grant made by Oracle
> to the Apache foundation. Someone else here might be able to provide
> more insight.

we have the Basic guide in the wiki
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/BASIC_Guide

Juergen

> 
> You can always take a look at the built- in help, it has a chapter or
> three on programming with OOoBasic.
> 
> 
> Alex
> 
> 

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/5/12 4:03 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/05/2012 12:08 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher:


On May 4, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:


Am 05/04/2012 06:27 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
wrote:


Hi,

I have tested http://ooo-site.staging.**apache.org/download/test/**
index_new_dl.html<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index_new_dl.html>on
MacOS 10.7.3 with Firefox 12.0 and Safari 5.1.5

In both cases the click on the download butotn give me the correct
download, perfect ;-)



YAY!





Some questions as release manager:

- the link "Searching for another version? Get all platforms,
languages,
language packs" guide me on an old page. Do we have the new page
with the
reduced number of released languages already in place?



yes, we do...it is not linked in and will need to retaing its
current name
but you can see the new version at:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/other_new_dl.html


I've created yesterday evening a first draft. So, please don't see it
as written in stone. And some links are not yet working.





Does "source archives" on this page provide links to our source
release?



see above page...


Yes, there is a little section to provide links to the source files
(should be from Apache only).


This is what should be from the Apache Mirrors and not /dist/. You can
use the cgi url that Joe has provided.

(This is item no 10.)

Let me know if you would like me to do these changes on the new other
page.


I've tried to use the aoo-closer.cgi script in the URL. But it doesn't
work yet. Do you see anything incorrect in the URL?


http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.zip[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]

http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/3.4.0/source/aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.bz2[.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]




- the link "Release Notes"
Do we have it in place as html file that fits in here? I know we
have it
in the wiki and there as html as well. But is the plan here?



I just sent out a note about this. We have one in development but
it's not
where it should be.



- the "MD5 checksums"
I have read that we will probably change it to "Signatures and
Hashes". Do
we have the page/script behind it?

Or should we simply provide 4 links ASC, MD5, SHA1, SHA512 with a
simple
script appending the correct extension. Everything else should be
in place
already.



This is a BIG unanswered question at the moment-- please see the

"Distributing AOO 3.4: The 22 things we need to do before we announce"

thread...Rob's last comments...


I can create also a webpage with links to all checksums. Shouldn't be
a problem.


Link to the signatures on /dist/. These are the trusted source. The
page should explain how to verify the sigs. There are many examples.


The checksums file is ready:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html

Just the part "How to use checksums?" needs to be filled with text. I'll
do this tomorrow.


you missed the *.asc signature files that are even more important to 
check the files.


As I mentioned in another email, we could change the link

"MD5 checksum" with 4 links ASC MD5 SHA1 SHA512

The download button has all information in place to create the package 
name and Url part.


We have to use simply 
http://www.apache.org/dyn/aoo-closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/ +  + 
 + [.asc|.md5|.sha1|.sha512]


to guide everything on the Apache mirrors


Juergen




Sorry if my questions are already answered somewhere, it's easy to
miss
some mails at the moment.



No problem...there's a LOT going on...


To be honest, I think I've lost a litle bit the plot. I don't know
exactly which webpages we want, which links on them, to which
mirrors. And what are the exceptions. ;-(


Sorry.



So, I've updated our Wikipage (see the bottom) to get the overview
back. Even if this is not relevant for a longer time, it should be
helpful for the next weeks:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Distribution+Tasks


To the best of my knowledge, so please make changes if something is
wrong.


I changed the source over to the Apache Mirrors.


OK


I think that the SDKs should be on the Apache mirrors, but then I can
also see good reasons to leave it alone.


I have it now for the SF mirrors. However, no problem to change the URLs
to ASF mirrors.

Marcus




I want to mark item 10 done when ROb is done editing.

Regards,
Dave




Thanks

Marcus




On 5/1/12 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:


On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Regina
Henschel

wrote:


Hi Kay,


Kay Schenk schrieb:

Regina--



Thanks for all this work. Please see comments inline below...

On

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 1:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html


It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody, so OK.

I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.


we can potentially drop one sha checksum ;-)

I have drafted the download page on the project page.

http://openofficeorg.staging.apache.org/openofficeorg/downloads.html

Review is appreciated.

- downloads of source files via Apache mirrors
- SDK as well
- checksum files directly from dist

Juergen

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 5:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html




It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.

A clear pointer or private email a little bit earlier would have been 
great ;-) I simply have overseen it. I thought I had double checked it.


Juergen





Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 6:50 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 5/6/12 5:45 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 05:24 PM, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:

On Sunday, 6. May 2012 at 14:19, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 01:02 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 05/05/2012 Marcus (OOo) wrote:

The checksums file is ready:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html





It's nice, even though a bit scary (four different verification
mechanisms are probably overkill); but this will satisfy everybody,
so OK.




Yes, sometimes you will see how it looks not before it's finished. IMHO
for the AOO 3.4.0 release and a bit later this will be the location for
hashes.

Juergen mentioned to put the links into the green download box. I think
this is a good idea and will be implemented after the release. So, we
will have then the "checksums.html" as fallback.


I see that many links in that page are broken (e.g., links to Windows
builds, to 64-bit DEBs and so on); I tend to believe this is known
and/or wanted for the time being, but, if it isn't, just click
around on
that page and you will see plenty of broken links.




Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds, the same
for the hash files, as you can see here:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/it/3.4.0/

I will check it asap later when I am back home. It must be an error.


Great. Hopefully enough time to upload them, too.


so the files are now available on dist. It was a tiny typo in my script.

A clear pointer or private email a little bit earlier would have been
great ;-) I simply have overseen it. I thought I had double checked it.


We have to take care of en-GB, we have no Linux packages for en-GB. I 
stumbled over this fact when I again double checked the dist folder.


I would suggest that we drop it completely if it is to complicate to 
adapt the download script.


I have an updated localization for en-GB anyway and we can include it in 
the next run.


I don't see it too critical.

Juergen




Juergen





Do you know of more missing files?


No.

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?

Thanks

Marcus




I think from here the builds will be distributed to the ASF and SF
mirrors, right? Hopefully someone is working on this issue. *wink*

Thanks for your feedback.

Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html



Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?


I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
seems to match the list of missing files):

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt


Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.


yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop 
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.


That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.



Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".


that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4

Juergen



The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512


http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512


Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 7:28 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 07:14 PM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

On 5/6/12 7:08 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 05/06/2012 06:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Marcus (OOo) wrote:

http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/checksums_new_dl.html





Yes, this is known as I wrote already that there are no localized
Windows builds at all and no Linux x86-64 full install builds

@Andrea:
You have checked the links on the checksums webpage. Can you confirm
that the hash file for these files only are missing? Or have you seen
other files?


I noticed the same pattern as you, i.e., Windows and Linux x86-64
missing, but there are minor deviations. If this can help, the list of
broken links to sha512 hashes follows (and, as far as I've seen, it
seems to match the list of missing files):

http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/missing-checksums.txt


Thanks a lot for the list. :-)

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.


yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we drop
en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.


I think when en-GB gets diabled in "languages.js", then the green box
can point to the "other.html" webpage. And on that webpage we can leave
Mac OS and Windows as available. Or we drop it completely.


en-GB is removed from dist after I have talked with infra people in IRC

It is cleaner and better to have it removed completely.

So please remove en-GB from the supported language list for 3.4. It will 
be part of the net micro update 3.4.1 with the updated localization


Juergen




Furthermore, all SDK builds are named wrong. They have "3.4" as version
string. But it has to be "3.4.0".


that can't be changed and we have to live with 3.4


OK, I'll adapt it on the download webpage.

Marcus


The links for following links are working nevertheless from your list
and from the checksums webpage:

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe.sha512




http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/localized/en-GB/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_langpack_en-GB.exe.sha512




Marcus

Re: [RELEASE] new DL test...needs review and comments, and probably correction

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 5/6/12 7:38 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi Jürgen,

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

I can see that for localized builds the files are missing consistently
(the already stated Windows full install and Linux x86-64 full install
combination), except for en-GB, here all Linux and Linux x86-64 builds
are missing.


yes I have noticed as well, en-GB is completely missing. Either we
drop en-GB completely or we drop it for Linux.

That was probably a communication error but I don't see it as critical.


I may have missed when you told what languages to build, I was building
the same set of languages we've been building so far for the Dev's
Snapshots https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sL2oAQ
that is
--with-lang="ar cs de en-US es fi fr gl hu it ja nl pt-BR ru zh-CN zh-TW"


It was my fault, don't worry. As I mentioned I have already dropped it 
from dist. We will include it for 3.4.1.



Juergen