Hi Ming Fei Ja, Steve,
On 07/22/09 07:55 PM, Ming Fei Jia wrote:
I remember checking in code to CWS does not need #issue. You mean this
#issue is for integration to MWS?
Yes the issue is necessary to send the CWS to QA. It is no problem if no
issue was used for check in, there is just a good practice to use the
issue number in the comments. It allows to provide much more information
related to the change.
I have just opened the issue
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=103780
The CWS is now in QA. I have updated the specification regarding the
password dialog related to MS document export, since I had to do a
change in this part of the specification anyway.
If you would like to provide more details in the specification regarding
encryption mechanics, I would recommend to create a new specification,
like the following one
http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/interoperability/Import_Password_Protected_MS_Office_Files.sxw
Before the CWS can be integrated into the master a feature-change
notification should be sent at least to the [email protected]
list. Would you prefer to do it yourself or should I send it?
Best regards,
Mikhail.
Additionally it is a good practice to add issue number to the commit
comments, like
"#i<issue number># <text comment>"
That allows in future to find the related to the change issue easily.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
Best Regards,
Steve Yin
-------------------------------------
Symphony Common App and Performance
IBM Corporation | Lotus Software
Tel: 86-10-82454405
Email: [email protected]
Notes: Bing BJ Yin/China/IBM
Address: 2F, Ring Bldg. No.28 Building, Zhong Guan Cun Software Park,
No.
8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, ShangDi, Haidian District, Beijing 100193,
P.R.China
From:
Mikhail Voytenko <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Date:
2009-07-21 21:32
Subject:
Re: [sw-discussion] Removed IBM(C) from IBM modified files in CWS
wordencryption
Hi all,
Sorry for the small delay with the integration.
The cws was rebased on DEV300_m51, it took a little bit more time than
expected because of local problems with the rebase process.
Additionally
I had a one week vacation, that has also delayed handling of the cws.
The only remaining task currently is to update the specification ( the
implementation should be reviewed by QA- or UX-engineer before ). After
that the cws will be ready for QA. I think the cws will get ready for
QA
status this week.
By the way, which issue was used to commit the changes to the cws?
Best regards,
Mikhail.
On 07/11/09 05:13 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi *,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ming Fei Jia<[email protected]>
wrote:
Mathias,
Any status update for the integration? We are free to privide any
support
if needed. Thanks.?
The wordencryption cws is
* not set to public
That indeed should be changed.
* is still in state "new"
This is fine as we are still in the review state.
* doesn't have any dates nor target-release set
This is fine also as it doesn't make sense to set any dates until you
know if there is still something to be done.
So I think that this wasn't the kind of status update that Ming Fei Ja
expected. :-)
Ciao,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
