Re: John McCreesh
I also heard about it and it's very sad to hear this. John was indeed a huge enrichment for the community ans he was a very pleasant person. I met him several times and worked with him in the community council in the former pre Apache era of OepnOffice. Juergen On 18/01/16 15:58, Simon Phipps wrote: > Those of us who were also part of the former OpenOffice.org project will be > shocked to hear of the sudden and untimely death of John McCreesh, who used > to be the (volunteer) marketing lead for the project. I have written more > in [a public post on Facebook][1] which also includes a newspaper report of > his death. Those with access to his Facebook wall will see a long list of > tributes. > > Regards > > Simon > > [1]: https://www.facebook.com/simon.phipps/posts/10153969052221654 > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Possible Mac problem 4.1.2
On 06/11/15 18:34, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The same symptoms Juergen reports are also attributable to the absence of a > Java Runtime Environment (JRE) that AOO can use. That is, one can create a > new empty database .odb, but cannot open it, etc. > > That there are crashes without any reports of exceptions is peculiar though. > It looks like more details are required. > > Can the user roll back to 4.1.1 and verify whether the problem exists there > also? That might narrow the situation down to something that changed in > 4.1.2 and/or the Mac. > no it's a regression, I created a db with 4.1.1 edit the table etc. and then tried to open the db with 4.1.2. In both Office installtions I used Oracle Java 8 (1.8.0_40). Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Possible Mac problem 4.1.2
On 03/11/15 10:02, FR web forum wrote: >> Possible cross problem with mailmerge function. > Issue reported: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126623 > Maybe Mac users could be confirm or not? > I can confirm that there is a problem, an existing DB file can be opened but the existing table can't be viewed or edited. But it is the same problem when you create a new DB. The table wizard can be sued to create a table but then the same problem. Creating table in design view doesn't work. Seems to be a general problem here. No further tests ... I normally don't use the db in OpenOffice Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Remembering Ian Lynch in 4.1.2 announcement
On 28/10/15 09:41, JZA wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 27/10/15 23:52, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> I was wondering whether we should remember Ian Lynch at the end of the >>> 4.1.2 Release announcement, with a sentence like >>> >>> "The OpenOffice community dedicates version 4.1.2 to the memory of Ian >>> Lynch, a member of the OpenOffice Project Management Committee and a key >>> contributor to marketing and education efforts, who passed away earlier >>> this year" [of course please adjust and fix in case] >>> >>> I have no idea on whether this is appropriate or not. I'm rather neutral >>> on the issue. Feedback welcome. Our memorial for Ian is at >>> http://www.apache.org/memorials/ian_lynch.html >>> >> >> >> my personal opinion is that we should keep the release announcement >> focused on the product. People behind and/or involved the project can be >> addressed in a separate blog where we can also remember project members >> who passed away. >> >> People leave the project or became less active (including me) and new >> people started to become more active and do more and more. I suggest to >> focus on the new fresh blood that can make the difference in the future. >> >> Juergen >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > I disagree with that view. To focus on the product, well we already have > companies for that. We are not a company, we are a community. And we dont > have 'products' we have 'projects'. The difference? well to start a project > is something that people can participate, not only purchase. So people > participation is key to the project. People are key to the project. > > FLOSS communities like KDE, Gnome, etc, have struggled but also succeed in > adressing the people behind it. This is just a great idea to do exactly > that in our community. > > Also the last line doesn't really make sense, how can we 'focus on the new > fresh blood' exactly? You mean dedicating the release after some n00b who > just got in the project, or writing a blog post about them... How can we > focus on fresh blood if they havent done anything yet, what would we write > about exactly? > I think you misunderstand me, I simply mean that we should keep it separately. An announcement for a new release is about the release and nothing else. It can be possible to write about the people who are currently mainly driving the project and remember people like Ian who passed away. But again I would do this separately from a release announcement. People like Damjan for example who really does a good job should be or can be interviewed to learn about the motivation and work areas he focusing currently. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Remembering Ian Lynch in 4.1.2 announcement
On 27/10/15 23:52, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > I was wondering whether we should remember Ian Lynch at the end of the > 4.1.2 Release announcement, with a sentence like > > "The OpenOffice community dedicates version 4.1.2 to the memory of Ian > Lynch, a member of the OpenOffice Project Management Committee and a key > contributor to marketing and education efforts, who passed away earlier > this year" [of course please adjust and fix in case] > > I have no idea on whether this is appropriate or not. I'm rather neutral > on the issue. Feedback welcome. Our memorial for Ian is at > http://www.apache.org/memorials/ian_lynch.html > my personal opinion is that we should keep the release announcement focused on the product. People behind and/or involved the project can be addressed in a separate blog where we can also remember project members who passed away. People leave the project or became less active (including me) and new people started to become more active and do more and more. I suggest to focus on the new fresh blood that can make the difference in the future. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 15:05, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote: >> Hi Jürgen, >> >> Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >>> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: >>>> [x] 0 Abstain >>>> >>>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the >>>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a >>>> bug in the source. >>> >>> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I >>> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac >>> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest >>> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always >>> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were >>> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) >>> >>> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to >>> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I >>> used to build the binaries. >> >> If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on >> Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no >> one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not >> releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful >> build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. >> > > Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build, > everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for > example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were. > > Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and > cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the > tar.gz because it was smaller. > > I will let you know when the build is finished. checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) the src package is fine. @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 27/10/15 17:45, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> >> checked the build in the morning and en-US built was successful. Besides >> the fact that we have some issues on newer Linux distros (we ever had) >> the src package is fine. >> >> @Regina, I still have no ideas what the problem is in your env but maybe >> you can give one of the tar balls a try instead of the zip. > > I have use apache-openoffice-4.1.2-r1709696-src.tar.gz now and unzipped > it in Cygwin. That source builds fine then. I have added a note to > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7 > not to use Windows tools for unpacking. good that we figured out why it didn't worked with the zip but it is strange. We can think about dropping the zip completely. Users have to use cygwin anyway and probably have the tools in place already. I would drop the zip src release in the future. Juergen > > Kind regards > Regina > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extra files in 4.1.2-RC3 source package
On 25/10/15 11:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Damjan reported an interesting finding a few hours ago: the source > package of OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC3 contains two extra files (which are not > in SVN) in "main/": MacOSXX64Env.Set and MacOSXX64Env.Set.sh. > > I've done a quick check and: > - The issue already exists in the 4.1.0 and 4.1.1 releases, and likely > in previous releases too. > - The extra files are there due to a glitch in the script that packages > sources (sources are not 100% the same as an svn export: for example, we > don't want to carry revision control specific elements around, so the > packages sources do not contain .svnignore files, and soon); similarly, > there is an extra Makefile, which is generated by the same process. > - The extra files have zero practical relevance since the configure > process will ignore them (on a Mac, it will will silently overwrite > them; on other systems, it will create the equivalent files and use > those during the build). > > I recommend that we continue voting on 4.1.2-RC3, since anyway this is > not an issue to fix in SVN. It is what would be called a "clerical > error" to blame on scripts. > > In any cases: > 1) I will work on fixing our source packages. I'll keep you posted on this. > 2) This is a clear example that shows we need to store all auxiliary > scripts in SVN too. I've collected all of them for binary builds already > and I'll commit them to SVN soon. This will help immensely in, for > example, the buildbots setup. > > Binary packages are, of course, totally unaffected by this issue. > > We should all be grateful to Damjan for finding a glitch that escaped > our scrutiny in the latest two (but possibly many more...) releases. > the src tar balls can be built in instsetoo_native/util dmake aoo_srcrelease the Mac config scripts were filtered out in the past before we switched to 64 bit on MacOS. The ant file (solenv/bin/srcrelease.xml) is a bit lazy and should be fixed to filter the correct files on Mac and of course the correct files on Windows and Linux. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 23/10/15 13:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is > now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. > > Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ > and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making > this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their > assistance and guidance. > > I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 > hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are > surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very > long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final > approval phase. > > So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: > [ ] +1 Approve > [ ] 0 Abstain > [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation > +1 approve, I use it already on my Mac and I have't found anything critical so far. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: > [x] 0 Abstain > > It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the > delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a > bug in the source. Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I used to build the binaries. Juergen > > Kind regards > Regina > > Andrea Pescetti schrieb: >> We have been in the Release Candidate stage for three weeks and it is >> now time to start a VOTE for releasing OpenOffice 4.1.2. >> >> Source and binary packages for RC3 are available at >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ >> and the reference revision is r1709696. Many people helped in making >> this available, but let me think Juergen and Herbert again for their >> assistance and guidance. >> >> I'm initially keeping the VOTE just a bit longer than the minimum 72 >> hours: please vote by Monday 26 October, 14:00 UTC. Extensions are >> surely possible if there is a need for them, but I hope that the very >> long testing phase we've gone through helps in shortening the final >> approval phase. >> >> So please VOTE on releasing RC3 (as defined above) as OpenOffice 4.1.2: >> [ ] +1 Approve >> [ ] 0 Abstain >> [ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation >> >> Regards, >>Andrea. >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Release 4.1.2-RC3 as OpenOffice 4.1.2
On 26/10/15 12:17, Regina Henschel wrote: > Hi Jürgen, > > Jürgen Schmidt schrieb: >> On 26/10/15 09:31, Regina Henschel wrote: >>> [x] 0 Abstain >>> >>> It is still not clear, whether the fact, that I cannot build the >>> delivered source on Windows 7 is a problem in my build environment or a >>> bug in the source. >> >> Regina I don't know why it doesn't build on your machine but I >> successfully built the tagged AOO410 branch for the RC on Windows, Mac >> and Linuxc 32/64 bit. It was always a clean fresh build to the latest >> tagged sources. The src tar balls are gnerated on Mac as I did it always >> in the past. The included config scripts for Mac are a mistake and were >> probably in all src releases in the past as well (good catch Damjan) >> >> Well I built the src tarball only on Mac because of the lack of time to >> do it on the other platforms as well. But again it iis the same source I >> used to build the binaries. > > If it is not my build environment, then it is likely a problem on > Windows, because building in Cygwin is a little bit special. Sadly no > one found the time to try building a src tar ball on Windows. We are not > releasing binaries but source, and as long as nobody does a successful > build of a src tall ball on Windows, I cannot vote +1 in good conscience. > Regina, I used the tar.gz tarball and started a Windows build, everything looks good so fr and it is still building. stlport for example is finished, I don#t remeber what exactly your problems were. Herbert mentioned that he remembered problems with the zip file and cygwin and permissions. Well I don't know and as mentioned I used the tar.gz because it was smaller. I will let you know when the build is finished. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [QUESTION] How Many Pre-Built Binaries are Enough?
On 21/10/15 09:55, Marcus wrote: > Am 10/21/2015 02:25 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: >> I recently started a download of all of the AOO 4.1.2 rc2 candidates, >> then see how long it was going to take and let it run overnight. In >> the morning, the download had failed to get them all. >> >> What struck me however is how big the downloads are. >> >> There are full pre-built, installable binaries for 41 separate >> languages, and separately-introducible smaller language packs for each >> of them as well. >> >> The pre-built binaries for each single language take 1s gigabyte, in >> six sets: >> >>4 flavors for Linux, taking 67% >>1 flavor for MacOS, for 18% >>1 flavor for Windows (win32 x86), for 15%. >> >> Yet the popularity of pre-built binaries, based on download >> statistics, is inverted, with about 88% for Windows, 9% for MacOS, and >> 3% for everything else. >> >> Now 3.2% (the actual fraction) of 41 million downloads of AOO 4.1.1 is >> still 1.3 million that include those Linux cases. >> >> QUESTION: Considering only pre-built binaries for downloading, my >> question is, when is it time to reduce those that represent inordinate >> demands to the needs for QA, distribution, and support? >> >> EXCLUDED: >> >> 1. This question is not about the relative use of pre-built full >> binaries for each of 41 languages. There are other questions we could >> ask about that. (The language packs for given languages are much >> smaller than the full binaries though, taking about 20MB per flavor.) >> >> 2. This question is not about the source codes and the SDK. It is >> also not about the value of building and testing for different >> platforms. It is only about distributing pre-built binaries. >> >> I suspect there are more details, and better questions, that could be >> raised. >> >> I'm all ears. What are your concerns? What do you see being >> overlooked in this calculus? > > in other words you are asking the question if and how the file sizes of > the install bits can be reduced? And when it is time to do this? Is this > right or have I understood something wrong? > > Thanks > > Marcus > > no new question and discussion. This came up at the beginning at Apache and before. I remember that Oracle engineers worked on a new installer that had a multilingual install piece and download everything else on demand (or from a disc I think). I believe we all agree that it doesn't make too much sense as it is today and a smarter packaging and installation would be nice. The point is that many users rely on the localized version and can't really start with an English version only and install the necessary language pack. It's all about convenience of an end user product for the majority of our users. A discussion if it make sense or not is useless, I would suggest to start a discussion on how to make it better from a technical perspective and work on a concept. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Incompatible change of oslFileError?
On 28/09/15 11:07, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >> $ svn diff -c1705196 sal/inc/osl/file.h >> Index: sal/inc/osl/file.h >> === >> --- sal/inc/osl/file.h(revision 1705195) >> +++ sal/inc/osl/file.h(revision 1705196) >> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ >> osl_File_E_USERS, >> osl_File_E_OVERFLOW, >> osl_File_E_NOTREADY, >> +osl_File_E_LOCKED, >> osl_File_E_invalidError,/* unmapped error: always last >> entry in enum! */ >> osl_File_E_TIMEDOUT, >> osl_File_E_NETWORK, > > Are you sure that this incompatible change is worth it? By placing the > new enumerator somewhere in the middle of the existing enum, you > unnecessarily not only break compatibility with older versions of AOO, > but also with other OOo derivatives. > Stefan is correct, this should be changed and the new enumerator should be better added to the end. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.
[X] +1, Dennis Hamilton as new Chair On 16/08/15 08:57, jan i wrote: This is a call for a formal vote among the 1 candidate for the AOO Chair role. Due to the fact that there are only 1 candidate we could use lazy consensus, but since some persons might be against that, we will use majority vote, as if there was multiple candidates. Voting rules are as follows: - Only PMC votes are binding, but everybody are welcome to vote - The nominee with the most +1 (deducted -1) gets elected - VOTE runs until Sunday August 23th - As outgoing Chair, I will send resolution to Board August 23th. Please vote [ ] +1, I want Dennis Hamilton as new Chair [ ] +0, I do not care if Dennis Hamilton becomes new Chair [ ] -1, I am against Dennis Hamilton becomes new chair (out of curtesy, please add another suggestion). Have fun voting. rgds jan i. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [NOTICE] Windows build machine setted up
On 07/08/15 09:50, Michal Hriň wrote: Thanks for providing a binary, but I am a bit concerned that a version is made public, before the PMC have even spoken about being ready to make a release candidate or started voting on a release candidate. Is this coordinated with the release manager for 4.1.2 ? Please do not misunderstand me, I think it is great that work is being done, I am just surprised we are ready to go public with 4.1.2 even as a pre-view. hrin OK. Binary is deleted. This was not coordinated, that was only snapshot .. not release candidate. All in all Linux 32bit builds from AOO410 branch are on buildbots, so everybody can downlaod it, this is not secret. Sorry, that I was excited and want to show it publically. no problem you did a good job and I don't see any problem, you did not publish anything official and just provided a new fresh binary for preview and testing if your build env is working as expected and can be used for a Windows release build. Please continue your tests and keep us informed. I'm would be happy if I don't have to prepare windows builds. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: STATE OF AOO: Overall Bugzilla Activity through July 2015
On 06/08/15 08:17, Roberto Galoppini wrote: Thanks Dennis for doing that, great job. I agree we should look deeper into what happened in 2015 only. Roberto 2015-08-06 4:56 GMT+02:00 Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org: In looking for visible indicators of project activity, I created an overview of Bugzilla activity from November 2012 through July 2015. This is a high-level view of gross activity and does not provide fine details. There is still an interesting picture. My complete tabulation is available in a PDF document at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-07-BZ-OverallActivity-2015-08-05-dh.pdf . Here is a summary of what I captured. 2012-11: #121299 First new issue in the Bugzilla of the AOO Top Level Project. 2015-07: #126439 Last new issue in the Bugzilla at the end of July, 2015. By years, (2012 and 2015 partial) 20122013 2014 2015 9292136 1739441 BZ items/month 133 198170 65 New issues/month (averages are rounded to whole numbers) As of 2015-08-05 * the oldest open issue is #497 created 2001-03-02 * 24115 issues still open from before November, 2012 * 2232 issues remain open of the 5139 new issues from November, 2012 through July, 2015 * 192 issues remain open of the 452 of those created in the first 7 months of 2015 The most noticeable aspects are the steady decline in monthly Bugzilla items (i.e., entries of all kinds) and in the number of those that are introduction of new issues. The next observation is of the tremendous number of open issues that preceded the commencement of Apache OpenOffice following the incubation period begun in June 2011. To see other patterns, it is necessary to examine finer details. I propose to do that only for 2015, so we have a better community understanding of what is happening with issues at this time. I have no interpretation of these trends, and the burden inherited by Apache OpenOffice, other than noticing what they are. The numbers are not really relevant. We had ever a huge backlog of issues that will never be fixed and where many of them are probably obsolete or invalid today. You can also delete them all and can start from scratch (by the way that would have been my preferred solution for AOO after we migrated to Apache). New issues in the last year (maybe last 2) are more valid and deserves more attention because they are coming from real users who are using probably one of the newer releases. But what do you expect of these numbers what you don't already know? You can run more statistic but the numbers won't become better. More important is to think about a solution to really work on these issues and reduce the number. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [SOURCE]: build errors on MacOS
On 29/07/15 02:06, Jose R R wrote: Niltze, Jürgen- Building on Debian AMD66, after resolving multiple issues, build --all *always* halts at recompile with -fPIC On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 27/07/15 17:40, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, I thought it can be useful to do a build on MacOS to ensure that it sill works on this platform ... The latest fixes for FreeBSD in coinmp break the build ... When I have more time I will try to fix it. I would recommend to be careful with fixes for not release relevant platforms. Juergen I reverted the changes on the coinmp patch file for testing and trunk built successful. The AOO410 branch had also problems and the file set_soenv.in from trunk have to be merged on the branch. The build is ongoing ... I updated also the 2 Centos VM's used to build Linux. After the update both have problems with Java. It seems the update replaced Java and configure has now problems to find a proper one. I will take a closer look on i when I have time. [...] /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solver/420/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o: In function `FmXGridControl::createPeer(com::sun::star::uno::Referencecom::sun::star::awt::XToolkit const, com::sun::star::uno::Referencecom::sun::star::awt::XWindowPeer const)': fmgridif.cxx:(.text+0x68b2): undefined reference to `non-virtual thunk to WindowListenerMultiplexer::acquire()' /usr/bin/ld: /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solver/420/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `_ZThn48_N25WindowListenerMultiplexer7acquireEv' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [/apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solver/420/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so] Error 1 /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:259: recipe for target /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solver/420/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so' failed make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs rm /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/solver/420/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/ExternalHeaders/Library/libxcr.so dmake: Error code 2, while making 'all' 2 module(s): odk svx need(s) to be rebuilt Reason(s): ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/odk/pack/gendocu ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making /apacheooSRC/aoo/main/svx/prj When you have fixed the errors in that module you can resume the build by running: build --from odk svx I tried editing LinuxX86-64Env.Set.sh by modifying: ##CC=gcc CC=gcc -fPIC But it 'bombs' earlier during the process. Any hints appreciated. on which Linux you are building? This is a different problem with the linker, I remember some issues with newer linkers in the past but can't remember exactly I solved my Java problem by removing an empty directory which was referenced. Well configure is lazy here and don't further check if the found directory is usable or not ... This needs some further checks! Anyway after this and a new configure both Linux builds finished successful. MacOS is still having problems on the AOO410 branch where as trunk built successful. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE] Availability of machines for binary builds
On 24/07/15 18:36, jan i wrote: On Friday, July 24, 2015, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 18/07/2015 Davide Dozza wrote: I have a vm with visual studio express 2008 I use to build AOO for win7. It is accessible from Internet. I can support the building process. I expected this thread to yield much more detailed information on what systems we used for 4.1.1 and the exact build options we used, and if those systems are still available to use (or to be ported to buildbots, or whatever). I still hope that someone can provide all details. Feel free to send them to me personally if they are in an attachment that would be rejected by the list. In the meantime, Davide, my best advice would be to try a build of https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/AOO410/ with the configuration options listed at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds (they are not 100% up-to-date, probably, but they should be quite close). The next step would be to bring this within Apache somehow (dedicated VM, buildbot...) and then the much more challenging problem of digital signing can be tackled. Note that I haven't checked the current buildbot configuration since I'm not sure at all that our 4.1.1 Windows builds came from a buildbot (actually I believe that was NOT the case). None was done with buildbot. I do however have no idea what you would do on a dedicated vm. The buildbots can be reconfigured in a single file. You basically just need to update the configure statement, I do not know where we store the release config, I have asked that question in here several times. Digital signing, can be done from any machine (apache or private). One way is to follow the steps I outlined in here a year ago. unfortunately we never reached the state where we were able to use build bots that matches the criteria we had for our binary builds. The Linux build bots had not the necessary baseline we needed and for Windows I believe to remember that some requirements were not fulfilled as well. I think I can help to build the binaries ... But as I mentioned MacOS is currently not building and I haven't tired Windows and Linux for a while. AOO 4.1.2 should be build on the AOO410 branch and related fixes have to be merged from trunk. I think Andrea is working exactly in this direction and this is just a reminder how we did it in the past. The used build flags are on this wiki page in the bottom listed https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds They should be still valid, maybe the language list got extended. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [SOURCE]: build errors on MacOS
On 27/07/15 17:40, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, I thought it can be useful to do a build on MacOS to ensure that it sill works on this platform ... The latest fixes for FreeBSD in coinmp break the build ... When I have more time I will try to fix it. I would recommend to be careful with fixes for not release relevant platforms. Juergen I reverted the changes on the coinmp patch file for testing and trunk built successful. The AOO410 branch had also problems and the file set_soenv.in from trunk have to be merged on the branch. The build is ongoing ... I updated also the 2 Centos VM's used to build Linux. After the update both have problems with Java. It seems the update replaced Java and configure has now problems to find a proper one. I will take a closer look on i when I have time. And I will start a Windows build later to see how this platform works currently... Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[SOURCE]: build errors on MacOS
Hi, I thought it can be useful to do a build on MacOS to ensure that it sill works on this platform ... The latest fixes for FreeBSD in coinmp break the build ... When I have more time I will try to fix it. I would recommend to be careful with fixes for not release relevant platforms. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header
On 11/06/15 18:23, jan i wrote: On 8 June 2015 at 16:58, Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de wrote: Hi Jürgen, is it OK to commit the patch? if it not ok to commit the patch, then I wonder how the files was committed in the first place. If it is not ok, then the files should be deleted. We cannot have files in trunk without the proper ALv2 license. Furthermore we cannot make a release with these files. I recommend applying the patch. Deleting the files might have sideeffects. No it have no sideeffect and yes it is ok to apply the patch. As I explained before these files are part of the started but currently stopped new OOXML framework. It's part of the parser generator ... Anyway it is a eclipse project in Java and the license headers were simply forgotten in the first shot. If you want a Java tooling that would have created C++ stubs and parser for doing the ground work for OOXML parsing ... Again these files should not be part of y source release and can be filtered out as some other things as well. Applying the patch and adding the license header is even better and more clean for future purpose. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Neulich bei Microsoft
On 11/05/15 09:16, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hallo, Ich stosse da gerade auf ein White Paper von MS das ich hier nicht vorenthalten möchte. http://www.whymicrosoft.com/see-why/openoffice-evaluation-criteria/ kannte ich noch nicht, danke fürs sharen ... ich leite das auch mal auf die dev Liste. Juergen Gruß Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-de-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-de-h...@openoffice.apache.org
interesting white paper from MS shared on the dev-de list
Hi, Joerg Schmidt shared an interesting whitepaper from Microsoft White Paper: OpenOffice / LibreOffice Evaluation Criteria on the dev-de list. I found it interesting and thought it can be of interest for others here as well. Juergen http://www.whymicrosoft.com/see-why/openoffice-evaluation-criteria/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RAT REPORT] - 30 files with an unknown or no License Header
On 06/05/15 14:45, jan i wrote: On 6 May 2015 at 14:14, Gavin McDonald gmcdon...@apache.org wrote: Hi All, http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html shows 30 files that need attention in getting valid license headers adding. A quick look shows to me that we should probably insert ASF license Headers in all of those files. If nobody gets to it before me I’ll provide a patch to that effect. I just had a look, all the files should really have ALv2 added. I wonder what happened, because I know a couple of these files used to have ALv2. I will take a look at svn log later. The archives however is covered by the general LICENSE file, when we make a distribution. Patches are welcome. rgds jan I. the files were from a new project that is currently stalled, I believe the headers were simply forgotten. They are not part of the office yet and if they are in the source tarball it is just a mistake. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CVE-2015-1774: OpenOffice HWP Filter Remote Execution and DoS Vulnerability
On 29/04/15 21:53, Marcus wrote: Am 04/29/2015 05:39 PM, schrieb jan i: On 29 April 2015 at 15:07, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.org wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: Given this problem is not fixed in the current download, should the project suspend downloads until it can be addressed? This looks like a very extreme measure to take. The severity of the issue would not justify it. Can you explain that please? The CVE says Severity: Important and the effects are a denial of service or possibly execution of arbitrary code by preparing specially crafted documents in the HWP document format. The fact we are unaware of current exploits does not mitigate the risk arising from distributing the software, and the rarity of the file format does not reduce the likelihood of it being used in an exploit. Maybe I am missing some of the context from the private security list? It seems to be an extremely seldom used feature, that makes the exploit unlikely. I am with Andrea, stopping downloads would not be right in this case. +1 I also don't see this as a reason to stop to offer downloads. stopping the downloads is completely exaggerated. I personally never have seen such a file besides test documents in real life. We have a simple and effective work around in place. Even Korean community members on our l10n list have mentioned that the format is no longer relevant. And of course we have analyzed the exploit and have decided to either fix it for the next release or as currently discussed to drop it completely to get away a further obsolete format. Why I don't wonder from whom this idea is coming ;-) And Simon to be serious we take security issues very serious. So for every one who want to write something about security in AOO, security issues were and still are a serious and important topic for AOO and we analyze and decide what to do for every single security issue. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 and AOO
On 18/03/15 04:19, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
On 17 Mar 2015, at 20:41, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
The problems I've seen reported are apparently all on MacOS. Something
about needing a legacy Java 6 to work and there is no way for the user to
accomplish that, apparently.
Are there others?
Do you think the message is from AOO instead of the OS?
There is also a crasher in Base, apparently, but not certain it is the same
situation.
{None of this represents deep knowledge on my part.}
FWIW, I use 4.1.1 (dev build, UK English) and Java 8 update 31. I have not
experienced any problems with the Java or with the application. I’m also
running Yosemite 10.3.3, a dev build. That said, nearly all of my use of
OpenOffice is in text, presentation, Calc, not Base, at least not in any
interesting way.
I can walk through the issues described and see what happens….
I can confirm that AOO 4.1.1 on MacOSX 10.9.5 seems to run well with
Java 8 (Oracles jdk-8u40-macosx-x64). I ran a letter wizard (using Java)
and created a new DB. But of course I did not more intensive testing
with the DB.
Juergen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page: https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ? I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion of the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion please? Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@ Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names published where it is not really needed or beneficial. Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available somewhere because: - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by any other means - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and the people contributing this way should be recognised. Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the individual names. There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC members... S. I agree with Simon. -louis I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires more work and the benefit is really low. If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else. But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors. If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-) Juergen (still smiling) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On 19/02/15 22:38, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Rob Weir wrote: Thread for discussion Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this: http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me. And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon. Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient until next weekend! thanks Andrea that you still offer a rewrite for further discussion. I think this is the way to go. I still see valid points on this page and I believe it can help people to understand a bit more all this license jungle. At least the ones who are interested. And let us put a clear disclaimer on top of the page that is the view of the AOO PMC and not ASF in general. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website
On 19/02/15 20:57, Rob Weir wrote: The page in question is here: http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html Voting choices are: [ ] Leave the page as it is. [X] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken. [ ] Delete the entire page. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] move repo to Git.
On 16/02/15 19:01, Kay Schenk wrote: I'm just curious about these statements. Have potential new developers remarked on this to you? Since most IDEs support a variety of version control mechanisms, I'm wondering how the suggestion to switch to git might have emerged. But, again, I have never used git and it might be the coolest thing ever -- I have NO idea! :) If it would have been possible to have a git repo from the beginning then we would have one already. The majority of active developers in the past prefer a git reopo and the git tooling in general. If possible to get a git repo only it make sense. That means we don't have to move any webpage related stuff into git. Just the pure code is relevant her. +1 for a git repo Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Looking for C++ APIs or Source code
On 05/02/15 04:19, BS, Nayana wrote: HI, I am very new to AOO. I want to develop a project to generate Excel report file. I am planning to use NI-Labwindows platform to develop my project. if it doesn't support then i will prefer to do with Visual Studio (VC++). Can you please send the required C++ API's for to do the same. It will be really helpful if you could send me few sample example codes. there is no C++ API that you can use standalone but you can use the C++ binding of the UNO API. The API that is used in the office but also in macros or extensions or external apps remote controlling the office. I think thr latter one can be an option for you. You have to run the office in server mode (means headless without GUI) listening on a port for incoming UNO calls. Your cleint app can connect via UNO and can create a new document and and can fill it. For a first impression take a look into the SDK [1]. But keep in mind most of the samples are in Java. But a few samples show the initial steps to bootstrap UNO in C++ and create a connection to an office. The API is the same in C++ but the language binding is a bit different to Java. Please see the Developers Guide [2] for a general introduction. Juergen [1] http://www.openoffice.org/api/SDK/index.html [2] https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 30/01/15 19:52, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the OpenOffice project PMC Chair? [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) [X] Jan Iversen (jani) (binding) Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs
On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I didn't even know about this page, http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday. I glanced at it and didn't think much about it. Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is. I agree. If you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful. Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, based on what it is within our power to provide. I am grateful to Simon for pointing out how over-reaching this page is. The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds. The footnote that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther. I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period. I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open source software and the different open source licenses. It can be seen as background information. In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse reading. If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here. We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I hope we can and will concentrate on these important things. Juergen SUGGESTION 1. Remove the page altogether. 2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that the project makes available. 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is interested). This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but I will). I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use. It should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.) 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the source code is always available from the Project. That source code is available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored. This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page. 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from there. This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source project and what is provided by the project. It is not ours to explain or describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in accord with different licensing models. Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License? -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war. That is usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are operating. For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided. What matters is our good work. Part of our care is operating as an ASF Project and providing open-source licensing and development. I assert that it is the carefulness and good will, and how breakdowns are dealt with, that has AOO be trustworthy and maybe has the project be seen as exemplary of open-source goodness. - To
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P M C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next week, I'd guess. sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the whole discussion ... I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1 votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment. I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to do it and help the project to move forward. This is my personal opinion only Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 15/01/15 01:00, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could be elected. We had nominations and long discussions and in the end we have one candidate available to be the next OpenOffice PMC Chair: Louis Suárez-Potts. It's now time to vote. Do you approve that, in his capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, Andrea Pescetti submits a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by Louis Suárez-Potts as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair? [ ] +1 Yes [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 No -1 Vote opens now and it will last one week (and a few hours), until 22 January 2015 10:00 AM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to participate. If vote passes, the resolution will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Nominations for a new PMC Chair
On 06/01/15 19:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 01/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Let's take several days, until 10 January, to receive nominations (or self-nominations) for the next PMC Chair. Just reply to this e-mail with nominations. We have 6 nominees so far, very good since all of them would be excellent choices. I'm now asking each of them to either accept or refuse the nomination by the 10 January deadline. Nominations are still open, but if you nominate someone I'll immediately refer to this mail and ask for a statement by 10 January too. Each of the (current and future) nominees should answer this mail in public and state very briefly: 1) Whether he/she is available to run for election; the term is not set, but I expect an availability to stay in the role for at least one year. 2) Where his/her efforts will primarily be directed. 3) Regardless of whether one is running or not (and regardless of whether one is elected or not), it might be that some of the candidates wish to take responsibility for a certain area. This can be very good, since the project is huge and the Chair might miss some details. For example, Hagar often updates the draft quarterly report with information about the Forum (figures, issues...). If the Chair knows that someone commits to follow a certain area closely and to help in reporting, then reporting becomes a team work and can be much better than what we have done so far. The 6 nominees so far are, in alphabetical order: - janiJan Iversen - jsc Jürgen Schmidt - kschenk Kay Schenk - louis Louis Suarez-Potts - marcus Marcus Lange - robweir Rob Weir I'm hereby asking each of them (and any future nominees) to provide their statement by 10 January; those who already sent their statement are free to expand upon it according to the above guidelines if they wish. First of all thank you for the nomination and the trust in me that I could be a good candidate. I would have been interested for sure earlier or potentially in the future but at this time I won't be available for the election. Although I am involved in the project since the beginning and already before the source code was open sourced I have switched some priorities and my work focus a bit. I believe that I would not have enough time to help the project moving forward in the near future. I am looking forward that somebody else grows in the role of the PMC chair and takes more responsibility. My wish is that the next PMC chair will be active in the project and will help to drive things forward together with the PMC. The most important goal is to activate developers and improve the product in critical areas. Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Budapest and thereafter.
On 16/12/14 16:02, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with the proper baseline. And you are volunteering to do the same (i.e., provide builds from your own machines) for 4.1.2? This is what matters to me, actually, in case I wasn't clear. this is something that is possible and I would like to move this to later when we come closer to a release date. I will for sure not able to provide dev snapshot on a regular basis because the lack of time. Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Budapest and thereafter.
On 14/12/14 10:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 14/12/2014 jan i wrote: On Saturday, December 13, 2014, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Very honestly, I would like that we don't depend on individuals for project resources, but maybe it is easier for a developer to share an existing virtual machine (and possibly get it running at Apache) than to prepare a buildbot environment. equally honest I would be happy if we just had 1 person prepared to do the job. Wishing for multiple people is a luxury I don't think we can afford. Ah no, sorry, I didn't mean that (i.e., individuals opposed to groups). I meant: resources that are important for the project (like: the machine used to build our released binaries) should not be under the control of individuals. Compare: a VM used to build releases that is hosted on one developer's workstation, and is thus unreachable to other project members, and the same VM hosted at Apache where we can arrange access to other project members when needed/desired. none of our buildbots run with release setting (something I have advocated for a long time), so its unlikely that any asf vm was used. OK, so let's wait a couple days for more details, since this is quite important: I know that Juergen builds Mac on his own hardware, but I don't know about the rest. I wondering a bit why this is new to anybody. Based on the fact that the ASF Linux bots had a different baseline and the windows machine also lacks some important parts for some time (can't remember for sure) I have built the release on private machines. Means a local windows build machine, local Linux CentOS build VMs and of course my Mac prepared with the proper baseline. But this no big thing and ones the CentOS VMs are in place it is easy to use the same settings that are probably still the same as documented on our dev snapshot wiki page. Maybe minor changes regarding languages. Anyway we can quite easy compare it. Andre Rist got my build scripts for Mac already and I offered my help... Nothing special new we just did it and didn't wait on somebody else. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Java 32
On 10/12/14 08:22, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 23:01:01 + Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: On 9 December 2014 22:19:41 GMT+00:00, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 12/09/2014 11:10 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Marcus wrote: Am 12/09/2014 06:23 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: If we are working towards a new release, could the Java not found message from Windows be extended to be more informative? It could be amended to say something like OpenOffice needs a 32 bit Java, which has not been found on this machine. ... Do you (or someone else) know where to find the sentence in teh code to extend it? If you have the exact error string, it should be fairly easy to find it here (in English): http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/ maybe Rory can help here. It's easier than to search through 1560 hits. ;-) I'll uninstall Java on on unused windows machine tomorrow and catch the error message, but it is likely to be about 15 hours from now as I have meetings tomorrow morning. Going to bed now! Here is the message as quoted on the en-Forum JRE is Defective No Java installation could be found Please check your installation I am currently have no proper windows machine in place but have anybody tested AOO on Windows with a 64 bit Java and added a JVM parameter -d32 to run the JVM in 32 mode. I can't remember if it works or not, some features will definitely not work but these are not so often used from the average user. It can potentially help to improve the search functionality and in case of a 64 bit Java this parameter is added. But I am not sure a swell if this parameter still exists in the latest Java versions. The longterm goal should be to become a 64 bit application on Windows but this is of course a little bit more more work. Juergen If you have a translation, the fastest way (it's in OpenGrok too, but in huge files) is probably to search for it in Pootle: https://translate.apache.org/projects/aoo40/ and find the English original, then do the above. Fixing the message should be quite easy too, but open an issue for it and report the number here if you have doubts. OK, let's see. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Budapest and thereafter.
On 08/12/14 20:15, jan i wrote: On 8 December 2014 at 19:50, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 19:37:41 +0100 Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 12/08/2014 06:31 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:19:17 -0800 Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: And, I didn't review the infra ticket on Cent OS carefully. Until we make a decision that we do not want to provide Linux-32 binaries, we need a 32-bit Cent OS 5 buildbot. I'' create a new ticket today. Possibly because most OO developers have 64 bit computers, we tend to overlook the need for 32 bit versions of OO. We should not lose sight of the need for such versions - it as a way of introducing people using older machines. Most of the older people I know (mostly 65+, retired) are using 32 bit machines, often handed down from their children. right, but do you really mean - or have heard/read - that they get Linux machines from their children? I think it will be still Windows - and here 32 or 64 bit doesn't matter. But anyway, yes we still need 32-bit binaries for Linux. Marcus When I am asked I guide them to 32 bit linux to help older computers work well. If we drop 32 bit for linux, we effectively abandon that area to LibO; we have enough of an uphill fight regaining users from the inbuilt installation of LibO on the distros as it is. We shouldn't abandon that area. I dont follow the notion of abandon that area, we have never had a 32bit centOS buildbot or for that matter a 64bit, so we are not abandoning anything, we are instead expanding. I dont know if we made releases available on centOS earlier, but for sure we did not do it with ASF buildbot. sure all our past releases were built on Centos machines (32 and 64 bit). This was discussed very often and the reason is that we need a certain baseline that our binaries run on as much as possible distros. You know we are not in the comfortable situation that the distros built AOO specific for their baseline and include it by default. The ASF build bots are running on Linux systems that are simply to new. Another option would be to increase the baseline and drop 32 bit Linux completely. This would reduce the effort enormous but I am not sure it is what we want. This baseline discussion might be difficult to understand for ASF infra people who are building everything from scratch. But the OpenOffice users are different and expecting simply a binary that they can install and use. Juergen rgds jan i -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
On 09/12/14 09:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough control. I do have a certificate and access key to the signing service. Details in my OpenOffice and Infra report http://markmail.org/message/6ymi35tajswcfsps item 4. Of course, I'm more than happy if someone else is willing to help with this; maybe Jan's work of months ago can now be reused and we can sign with minimal effort. I don't have time to do it but I would start with analyzing which parts have to be signed. The former process signed all binary artifacts (dll, jars, .NET assemblies, ...). I am not sure if this is all necessary or if it was just signed for simplification. The new mechanism requires a more or less rework of the signing process. And it will result probably in a multiphase signing and packaging process. First round is to sign exe, dlls, assemblies etc. figured out in the initial analysis. Second step is to package the msi and the setup.exe. And finally package the downloadable exe and sign this as well. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: opengrok.
On 06/12/14 00:49, Kay Schenk wrote: On 12/05/2014 04:26 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 04/12/14 20:10, jan i wrote: Hi all. I am currently planning (with infra) to install an apache version of opengrok. Is there anybody who can help with the configuration ? sure, I have it running on a private internal server. What exactly do you need to know. As far as I remember it was very straight forward. I update it via cron job every night but keep stable versions. Means I have an aoo34 aoo40 and trunk project. It would be nice if we could use opengrok on the symphony trunk as well. sure this is no problem, I have it for the internal version of OpenGrok. I believe it's mainly a question of disk space. I checked out the release version for example and trunk and let the indexer run over these trees. When I update trunk the indexer runs again and the search is in synch with the sources. I have no experience to use trunk directly from the repo and let the indexer run over the svn repo direclty. Juergen I would definitely handle it per project otherwise it becomes to big. Let me know if I can help or ping me Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: opengrok.
On 08/12/14 12:42, jan i wrote: On 8 December 2014 at 11:24, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/12/14 00:49, Kay Schenk wrote: On 12/05/2014 04:26 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 04/12/14 20:10, jan i wrote: Hi all. I am currently planning (with infra) to install an apache version of opengrok. Is there anybody who can help with the configuration ? sure, I have it running on a private internal server. What exactly do you need to know. As far as I remember it was very straight forward. I update it via cron job every night but keep stable versions. Means I have an aoo34 aoo40 and trunk project. It would be nice if we could use opengrok on the symphony trunk as well. sure this is no problem, I have it for the internal version of OpenGrok. I believe it's mainly a question of disk space. I checked out the release version for example and trunk and let the indexer run over these trees. When I update trunk the indexer runs again and the search is in synch with the sources. If we make a specific version for AOO then its not a problem, but if it is an opengrok solutiion for ASF it will work on trunk. If somebody wants to make a opengrok installation available for AOO it would be swell and could include whatever we want. All committers have the possiblity to get a gratis azura vm which can be setup with DDNS, so it is merely a matter of installing opengrok and doing the special branches. I have no experience to use trunk directly from the repo and let the indexer run over the svn repo direclty. That is my problem right now, I dont want to waste disk space (which is quite a lot) and not to mention the daily svn/git updates. Opengrok should be able to work directly on svn/git repos, and with a hook be able to update the indexes with every commit (no index rebuild, but a gradual change). the code is available ;-) Maybe it's possible already I made a quick and working setup only and spent not too much effort in it. Do you plan one index for each project or one big for the whole Apache repo? Juergen rgds jan i. Juergen I would definitely handle it per project otherwise it becomes to big. Let me know if I can help or ping me Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)
On 09/12/14 03:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I don't know if this is helpful or not. I'm not in a position to check. Thinking out loud: There are two cases of signatures. 1. Digital signing of installable components, such as DLLs and such. This is also important but a second-order problem. 2. Digital signing of the installer binary (the .EXE). That or shipping a signed .MSI. This is more important. It has to do with raising the confidence in downloads and installs and is of immediate benefit. It *may* be the case that the installer binary .EXE already has room in the file for a signature and it is simply not being used. The properties on the binary .EXE are also not filled in for AOO 4.1.1 en-US. Those are the ones that show a File description, File version, Product name, Product version, Copyright, Language, etc. It might be worthwhile to see if the properties and signature can be injected in the .EXE already. And if not, it may be possible to rebuild the .EXE, since the bits are still around. They are what are extracted into a folder which is then used for running setup. If feasible, this strikes me as a perfectly worthwhile exercise for slip-streaming a signed binary of AOO 4.1.1 for Windows. As Andrea remarks, It would also be a right-sized teething exercise for our learning how to work through the signing process. I'm all for starting with the least that could possibly work, even though I have no expertise on this. We had a signing mechanism in place for a long time and the reason why we have currently no digital signing is the lack of a certificate where we as project (PMC) or as representative the release manager have enough control. Anyway the new process should be used to sign the libs and other binary artifacts inside the install set and the installer binary itself. All this should be designed that it works more or less automatic or semi automatic using the new process. I hope the new signing mechanism can be used in a proper and efficient way for AOO. I am still no friend of this new process because we shift many many bits over the network and a local signing process on a dedicated machine looks more efficient and easier to me. But it is as it is and not under my control. Juergen - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter. Marcus wrote: Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense: - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December - 4.1.2 in January IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources, when doing 2 releases in such a short time frame. But I would tend to do only the bigger release (4.1.2) - let's say in January/February. When ... Honestly, Infra would like (and they are right) that after asking for years for digital signing, we actually use it. We can't put many obstacles in front of it. So a long list of things that we must have ready before that won't work. Signing Windows binaries will have to happen, and users will benefit from it in terms of trust in OpenOffice. Assuming that more or less we can master the technology, distributing the 4.1.1 signed binaries is not a huge feat for us (it would need production of the new binaries and their upload to a new directory like windows-signed and defaulting to windows-signed in the JavaScript in the download page). It is far less than a release and at least it could show that on this (new for OpenOffice) topic we are ready. In case I wasn't clear (and this is my fault for not summarizing the Budapest talks correctly) signed binaries have high priority. One way is to make a 4.1.2 release and sign it, and this requires going through the whole process (no, it can't be a Windows-only release). Another way is to ship a signed version of the existing 4.1.1 binaries as a warm up for the moment when this will be integral part of the release process. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: opengrok.
On 04/12/14 20:10, jan i wrote: Hi all. I am currently planning (with infra) to install an apache version of opengrok. Is there anybody who can help with the configuration ? sure, I have it running on a private internal server. What exactly do you need to know. As far as I remember it was very straight forward. I update it via cron job every night but keep stable versions. Means I have an aoo34 aoo40 and trunk project. I would definitely handle it per project otherwise it becomes to big. Let me know if I can help or ping me Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Another Basic Function that doesn't Work!!
On 01/12/14 22:33, Darren Myers wrote: Thank you that worked! Very frustrated why Can't that be set as a default... its such a common task to find and replace.?? as far as I know regular expression search is not on by default. And if I search January 2014 and try to replace it with December 2014 it works. And it doesn't matter what the underlying format is, I tried text as well date format. But in general the wording you have chosen in your initial mail is not very useful to get a good answer and of course not motivating for all the people who spend hours of their spare time to either develop this program or to help other users with support. If you want a 100% MS Office you have to buy a 100% MS Office, OpenOffice is definitely the wrong choice in this case. If you are looking for a free alternative that can probably do the same job (slightly different sometimes) and can solve most of your tasks OpenOffice is probably a good choice. But please the next time when you encounter a problem please summarize your problem as precise as possible, when possible send us test document and describe simply what you have done. Then volunteers here on the list or in the forum will take the time to help you. Just think about while you enjoy the free OpenOffice Juergen Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:24:51 + From: ofarr...@iol.ie To: dev@openoffice.apache.org CC: myers_dar...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Another Basic Function that doesn't Work!! On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:12:08 + Darren Myers myers_dar...@hotmail.com wrote: Didn't take me long, found another basic function that does not work in OO Who on earth built this program! Seriously... needs to find another career, maybe hairdressing or something! So when you Find Replace select a value , and then replace it with another value you get the following error message.. Search key Not Found So I can clearly see on my finance sheet I have January 2014 to December 2014 very clear, however the Find replace function !!! THAT WORKS IN Microsoft Easily Doesn't work in OO. Does this mean I have to spend more money or a team of Developers to find more code issues with OO ?? Drop More options and uncheck Regular expressions -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: I would like to give the Mac Buildbot a try
On 21/11/14 11:16, Raphael Bircher wrote: Hi at all I would like to give the Mac Buildbot a try. Therefor I ask here for what do you mean? We are waiting on some feedback from Andrew Rist who planned to work on the setup of our build env. I offered my help and be in standby mode ... Once the build bot is configured and working the bot should or will deliver daily builds as the other bots as well. Juergen permission. Regards Raphael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Problem with pootle
On 19/11/14 18:16, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 18/11/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I simply forgot it and have this step not on my list. Maybe we can add it on https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers to be aware of this step in the future. This page (which I will call A) has an outdated notice. It says that https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO (B) is the updated version, and this one in turn says that https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal (C) is better. Can we clarify this a bit? As things stand now (i.e., we use Pootle and don't have the genLang workflow enabled) which of A, B and C describes the current state of things and which one describes the latest ideas on genLang? I used mainly (A) and noticed the outdated as well :-( It's still on my to-do list to update the page according my notes and how I do it currently. This is of course independent of (C). I will also take a look on (B), I remember that this is an old page and we started to document our new collected knowledge on (A). Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Problem with pootle
On 18/11/14 11:36, jan i wrote: On 17 November 2014 23:54, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: I can not open some a page with untranslated words on Pootle (for Serbian). Is there some problem? Assuming you mean this page https://translate.apache.org/sr/aoo40/translate/#filter=incomplete it is a bit slow but works for me. It is probably slow, because a lot of po/pot files have been loaded, without reindexing (command line command). I will if I can get time to run reindex for all projects during the weekend (normally the project admin runs the command, because he/she knows when there are bigger changes). I simply forgot it and have this step not on my list. Maybe we can add it on https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers to be aware of this step in the future. Juergen rgds jan i. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Problem with pootle
On 18/11/14 15:02, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 18/11/14 11:36, jan i wrote: On 17 November 2014 23:54, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: I can not open some a page with untranslated words on Pootle (for Serbian). Is there some problem? Assuming you mean this page https://translate.apache.org/sr/aoo40/translate/#filter=incomplete it is a bit slow but works for me. It is probably slow, because a lot of po/pot files have been loaded, without reindexing (command line command). I will if I can get time to run reindex for all projects during the weekend (normally the project admin runs the command, because he/she knows when there are bigger changes). I simply forgot it and have this step not on my list. Maybe we can add it on https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers to be aware of this step in the future. any concerns to run the pootle refresh_stats directly on aoo40 and aoo40help? Juergen Juergen rgds jan i. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 2015 -- Our 30th Anniversary
On 13/11/14 17:23, Malte Timmermann wrote: Hi Louis, On 28.10.2014 21:12, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Hi Malte, And you are right wrt many early developers working for Open-Xchange now :) Yes, and perhaps one day we’ll even see something (I joke; there is already something). Actually everyone can look at the demo version of App Suite, including OX Text and OX Spreadsheet: http://www.open-xchange.com/demo cool, you make good progress, I like it Juergen Same focus - Office productivity, ODF and OOXML. Hm. You might want to share with us what’s going on over there…. See below :) Just different technology - now written for the browser. Right. Can you edit in the browser? I mean, edit ODF or OOXML docs. using, for instance, Chrome or Firefox or Safari? Exactly. ODF and OOXML are our natively supported formats that we can edit in the browser. Text and Spreadsheet are already available. We work on the documents very different compared to Open Office or MS Office. One of our most important features is the document roundtrip. You can safely switch between editing with OX Documents and editing with your native application. And we have real-time communication to quickly distribute changes to other clients. I just wrote a blog post that explains the technical details how we achieve it. http://techblog.open-xchange.com/2014/11/13/ox-documents-roundtrip-and-operations/ Best regards Malte. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO mailing list subscription totals, and other tidbits
On 12/11/14 14:55, jan i wrote: On 12 November 2014 00:30, Dave Barton d...@tasit.net wrote: Rob Weir wrote: Here's the current total subscribers for the AOO mailing lists I moderate: announce 11,318 users 584 dev 499 qa 277 l10n 233 marketing 173 api 149 (I'm not a moderator for the doc mailing list, so I can't retrieve that number). We also have 3,522 Twitter followers, 13,000 Facebook likes and 7,368 Google+ followers. And we receive 230,000 visitors to the website per day. -Rob doc 147 Thanks for making this information public. Considering that most end-users use our website and/or forum it can only be considered as quite good numbers. some more numbers via Google analytics 6,850,955 - The total number of visits to your site this month 02:03 - The average amount of time someone spends on your site in a single session 3 The average number of pages viewed in a single session Visits top countries 1,128,246 - United States 992,850 - France 695,603 - Germany 501,777 - Italy 338,467 - United Kingdom Unique visitors 5,413,113 New Visitors 521,008 Return Visitors 5,934,121 Unique Visitors Top keywords open office 78880 Visits openoffice 62311 Visits オープンオフィス7859 Visits openoffice download 4792 Visits openoffice.org 4632 Visits It's sometimes very interesting and there are some more numbers Juergen rgds jan i. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO mailing list subscription totals, and other tidbits
On 12/11/14 20:19, Andrea Pescetti wrote: jan i wrote: On 12 November 2014 15:38, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It's sometimes very interesting and there are some more numbers Mailing list numbers are very good. The announce list, if I recall correctly, used to have ~8000 subscribers, so this would be a 40-50% increment. Also, mailing list numbers show that when we write here we write to a much larger audience than the regular posters. Website numbers are different. Good traffic, but all of it is quite focused (3 pages, 2 minutes, few recurring visitors in percentage). if the 3 pages are the same we can of course focus to use this entry points and make them as useful as possible. Juergen This can probably be explained by the fact that website visitors are mostly people who download or update OpenOffice and are not planning to get involved (on the other side, active volunteers will often use other resources). Still, it's a potential that we can exploit. More numbers are coming next week as promised... But in general they reinforce the idea that Apache OpenOffice is now a mature project with good internal dynamics (even though I still see many fields where we need help and mentoring) and that this is a good moment to change pace and perspective, and use our full potential. More in one week at ApacheCon. apacheCON is in less than a week away, tuesday will have a official AOO meeting for everybody (except timewasters according to some) Occasions for a meeting are rare. It's important that we use this time at best. And that we come out with some great ideas and with motivated people willing to implement them with respect and backing from the community (and the PMC if you wish, but I find it sterile to distinguish between the two: OpenOffice is not the playground of the PMC, it is a community project for everybody to enjoy). I personally look forward to that meeting. Me too! I'm looking forward to an exciting, productive discussion and, if we need time, to a long night... Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Importing translations into Pootle (Re: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2)
On 07/11/14 23:27, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 31/10/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 30/10/14 23:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125810 too late, now where I was aware of this request I did it already Good, thanks! Could at least you take screenshots while you import Sinhala? Then maybe someone else can fill in the gaps, but we really need a starting point if we want to find volunteers who can help with this. Also too late, but adding a language that is already supported by Pootle is straight forward and you need only admin rights. OK, so what steps should one take exactly? Most of the requests we receive are for languages that are already supported by Pootle, so even documenting just this simple case can help. Also, it would help to know if the needed admin rights are on the Pootle web interface or if you need shell access too. The part of adding the language is trivial and you can do it via the web interface. If we have the language in our source already it requires more work to merge the existing sdf to the latest templates and update the Pootle stores. For this work admin access on the VM is necessary. Let me see if I can integrate as much as possible similar to the genLang project where Jan imported all. But I would like to update the templates first because it seems there were some more changes after my last update. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Pootle] Lost in translation
On 05/11/14 12:08, FR web forum wrote: Hello dev team, On Pootle, in sd/source/ui/accessibility.po We find some strange strings like: accessibility.src#SID_SD_A11Y_P_NOTES_D.string.text / PresentationNotesShape accessibility.src#SID_SD_A11Y_P_UNKNOWN_N.string.text / UnknownAccessiblePresentationShape etc Could you check it? I will try to figure it out Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Importing translations into Pootle (Re: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2)
On 30/10/14 23:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 28/10/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 27/10/14 21:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Concrete example: http://markmail.org/message/usn5khq3imrdibzq Sinhala (si) was requested two weeks ago and http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/si/ hasn't been imported yet. The natural way would have been to submit an issue task to integrate it. Even though I still think that the natural way would be to have it already available (and even more so if this is something that we can't readily do upon request), here you are with the issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125810 too late, now where I was aware of this request I did it already and also generate a new sdf. I am currently merging existing languages to the new updated templates ... which takes some time I meant the issue helps to tigger and track the work ;-) Documenting the current process is still a to-do on my long list Could at least you take screenshots while you import Sinhala? Then maybe someone else can fill in the gaps, but we really need a starting point if we want to find volunteers who can help with this. Also too late, but adding a language that is already supported by Pootle is straight forward and you need only admin rights. it's too bad that we won't make progress with the genlang project. I believe it is dead and nobody really knows enough details to continue The genLang initiative is not that relevant for this. You need an initial import into PO files anyway, with or without genLang. that is true but the whole roundtrip would be simplified Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Importing translations into Pootle (Re: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2)
On 27/10/14 21:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Well I think we added all languages on Pootle where we see activities or interest in working on the translation. Why should we add languages where nobody is working on? I don't get it. That was an example, but still it is one improvement that needs to be done. Why? Because volunteers are much more likely to be involved if they can have an idea of what they would be working on, and because we can't keep volunteers waiting too much. Concrete example: http://markmail.org/message/usn5khq3imrdibzq Sinhala (si) was requested two weeks ago and http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/extras/l10n/source/si/ hasn't been imported yet. The natural way would have been to submit an issue task to integrate it. I am currently don't follow the l10n list in detail and easy miss such requests that are on the mailing list only. Documenting the current process is still a to-do on my long list and it's too bad that we won't make progress with the genlang project. I believe it is dead and nobody really knows enough details to continue (probably). Anyway if somebody feels motivated to work on translation relevant task on Pootle just ask. Don't wait on me until I have documented everything. Asking directly is much more efficient. Juergen Probably you are now the only person who has the skills and the permissions on the relevant systems to help with this. If you take care of documenting the process in the wiki in https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Pootle_User_Guide (or a sibling page) this time, we may be able to delegate it the next time the need arises, and then maybe find someone who will progressively import the SDF files to Pootle: keeping only the SDF is really bad since one can't see progress or submit a quick fix, and if everything is on Pootle we lower the entry barrier. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2
On 24/10/14 20:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 23/10/2014 Rob Weir wrote: Let's try for a 4.1.2 release I see another priority. But it is fully compatible with making a release and actually the two can work together really well. I would like to streamline our processes and remove bottlenecks and dependencies on non-Apache systems. In other words, it's two years that we are a top-level project and it is time to reach a phase where processes just work. It is not acceptable that we produce binary builds on non-Apache hardware, it is hardly acceptable that we don't have all our languages on Pootle, and it is not acceptable that the l10n list sees a reduction in activity just because I suddenly have to use a large part of my spare time on unrelated activities. Well I think we added all languages on Pootle where we see activities or interest in working on the translation. Why should we add languages where nobody is working on? I don't get it. Juergen A release is probably a perfect way to make sure that everything is considered (and an important indicator in the Apache way). So it will take even more time, but if we can take care of all these tasks we will finally be a project with solid grounds at Apache. Some tasks, like the buildbots, are huge; some, like finding someone who can welcome volunteers on the l10n list when I can't, are easier. And it's obvious that we must work together, we can't expect that a few people do everything. 1) Whatever new languages/language updates we have, including of course dictionary updates. We are seeing interest in a couple of languages, but we don't have any new ones to release at the moment. Of course, when we establish a deadline we can communicate it to translators and make a plan. 2) Fixes for any critical bugs, especially any introduced in AOO 4.1.1. Do we know yet which bugs these are? Do we have a short list of the most critical ones? This one https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125519 is worth looking at. It's already fixed in trunk anyway. 3) Patches merged in from new dev volunteers. I think #3 is extremely important here. Sure, involving new development volunteers has been a priority in the last few months, and I'm happy to hear some new voices here. We may even manage to get some new features implemented, not only basic fixes. But again... If we go for this, then mentoring developers becomes a priority and everyone who has the required knowledge should invest time on this. What do you think? It is surely a good idea (and the version number does not matter that much), provided that all of us are ready to be actively involved as much as possible. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice lost again 6000 users (was: Improved OOXML support?)
On 24/10/14 07:54, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hello, From: Andreas Säger [mailto:saege...@t-online.de] Being a customer, I do see things differently. Every OOXML file is a vote against ODF. theoretically correct, but practically? One day in future LO will save ODF as a secondary option. Possible. But where is the problem? Either OOXML *is* ISO standard or is not ISO-standard. If the problem is however that MS is 'meddling' in the standard, then it is a political issue that requires policy responses - not a question of software development. Finally MS wins There is no tomorrow (or finally) for it - MS wins today. For example: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Berliner-Finanzaemter-wechseln-zurueck-auf-Microsoft-Office-2430961.html MS comes up with the next shit life is not a pony farm and competition is not a throw with cotton balls. It is about the competition and we have to face, and not whine. I believe a decision like the one in Berlin is always political motivated. See for example the upcoming discussion about the same topic in Munich after changes in the administration. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: the question about installing OO‘ sdk
On 24/10/14 07:22, soyol aron wrote: Hi all, I have some question about installing OO‘ sdk. I know that this topic is might not be appropriate for discussing at here. But I can't subscribe to the a...@openoffice.apache.org, It always return me the message like below at the step I confirm my mail address. Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: gmail@openoffice.apache.org Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain openoffice.apache.org by mx1.eu.apache.org. [192.87.106.230]. The error that the other server returned was: 550 mail to gmail@openoffice.apache.org not accepted here So my question is that after I installed OO'sdk, I followed the Install Guid(C:\Program Files (x86)\OpenOffice 4\sdk\docs\install.html) to get additional tools , But *Question 1*: zip tool can not be downloaded. Is there any alternative tools? this is the URL I referred, both download link is not accessible. http://www.info-zip.org/Zip.html#Downloads *Question 2*: If that additional tools is open source why don't put(e.g.GNU make, zip tools) them into SDK's Installation package? Is there any license problem? yes I think it is mainly a license issue. And on most systems the tools are available anyway apart from Windows. I will try to find some working links, I haven't checked the referenced ones for some time. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2
On 24/10/14 10:00, RA Stehmann wrote: On 23.10.2014 18:16, Rob Weir wrote: A short term goal, in addition to whatever 5.0 discussions we want to have. Let's try for a 4.1.2 release containing: 1) Whatever new languages/language updates we have, including of course dictionary updates. 2) Fixes for any critical bugs, especially any introduced in AOO 4.1.1. Do we know yet which bugs these are? Do we have a short list of the most critical ones? 3) Patches merged in from new dev volunteers. I think #3 is extremely important here. Although not as evident to users, these small fixes and small enhancements reflect wins in the community. We've had many new dev volunteers in the past few months working on easy fixes. Let's try to help them get their good work into the hands of users via a release, and give us all the good feeling that comes from shipping code. So this might be a slower release, since we're focused on new volunteers and mentoring them takes time. But I think this is a worthwhile investment in the community. What do you think? It's ok for an exceptional case, but normally we should follow the established release schema: x.y.0 and than x.y.1 and than either x+1.0.0 or x.y+1.0. It was communicated and is well known by the users, and we should demonstrate reliableness. I don`t like a x.y.5 or higher version for AOO. I love distinction ;-). Let's see the logic behind the version numbers major.minor.micro major: huge release with visible changes and new features including incompatible API changes if necessary. Translation updates are most often necessary to address the UI visible changes. minor: smaller improvements of features that don't need any translation. And of course any kind of bug fixes. micro: only selected bug fixes and most often only critical ones. This includes any potential security issues. Keeping this in mind a 4.2 would probably make more sense but will we have enough fixes and minor improvements in place? Juergen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 21/10/14 18:00, Mateusz Zasuwik wrote: For instance, here: In other words, for some reason, development of OpenOffice has all but stalled, while LibreOffice remains an active project. Much of OpenOffice's recent decline may be due to IBM's withdrawal from the project. OpenOffice 4.1.1. An anonymous informant alleges -- and web searches appear to confirm -- that IBM did nothing to publicize OpenOffice 4.1.1 when it was released on August 21, and that, since then, IBM developers have disappeared from the OpenOffice mailing lists. well I see still IBM developers here on the list frequently but of course less. It is simply because we do less but it does not mean anything else. But the question is of course more why does it matter. If we do to much people say we control the project,if do to less people say OpenOffice is dead. Really strange and people should think about Apache and how Apache works. It is potentially a harder time for OpenOffice if we do less but it is up to the community to keep the project alive together with us. Nobody should rely on our resources and expect that we will do it. OpenOffice is and remains a powerful brand even if the projects runs slower. Important is the quality and if it solves the daily tasks of our users. Juergen http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/LibreOffice-OpenOffice-and-rumors-of-unification So if everything is ok, can someone reveal list of planned features for AOO 5.0 and answer for my other questions? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Improved OOXML support?
On 21/10/14 08:34, Jörg Schmidt wrote: Hello, Does anyone know when the integration of the extended OOXML filter functionality will be completed in AOO? I mean the enhancements that have been created within a project of the OSBA: http://www.osb-alliance.de/en/working-groups/wg-office-interoperability/project-1-by-osb-alliance-working-group-office-interoperability/ No easy to answer when or if this will be integrated at all. We have spend some time to integrate 2 use cases of this project and spend many many time on it to make it complete (our work is already merged in LO). The patches were incomplete and the implementation not complete at all. We decided for us (some developer) that we don't spend further time on this. But the patches are available for any developer and can be used to work on the integration or the feature at all. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Recommend to extend the AOO 4.1.1 release notes based on tests on Windows 2012
On 17/10/14 13:24, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 17/10/14 11:13, Yuzhen Fan wrote: Hi All, During AOO 4.1.1 full regression test, I did basic tests on Windows 2012 and get them passed. In order to get sufficient tests to extend the release notes for 4.1.1, Juergen Meyer has executed further expended tests. The result is positive as 82% passed and 18% failed. Please note, these 18% tests fail with AOO3.4.1 on Windows 2003 in the same way they fail with AOO 4.1.1 on Windows 2012. As for 4.1.1, it has the same level of support as for 3.4.1, I would initial the discussion and propose that we extend the 4.1.1 release notes by adding support for Windows 2012. that are good news and from my perspective your idea to extend the release notes for AOO 4.1.1 is a good one. Windows 2012 server is replacing Windows 2003 server more and more and it is good when we can mark this platform as supported. Your tests have shown that we reached the same level of support as for Windows 2003. I believe 2003 server was not well tested in the past and it was more a relict from former days. It is very good that you + Juergen have taken the time to run these tests to ensure that we work on this platform. I definitely support this idea and give my +1 It seems that nobody has any objection against this proposal. I will add a note to the release notes of AOO 4.1.1 that we have verified the support of Windows 2012 server on the same level as for AOO 3.4.1. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Recommend to extend the AOO 4.1.1 release notes based on tests on Windows 2012
On 20/10/14 14:24, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I will add a note to the release notes of AOO 4.1.1 that we have verified the support of Windows 2012 server on the same level as for AOO 3.4.1. Thanks, and please update http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html too. done in principal, change is committed ... will check later, it seems to have a problem with the staging build. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Build System Improvements
On 17/10/14 09:32, Andre Fischer wrote: As you may know, in the past years I have made a couple of experiments regarding the build system of AOO. With the resulting experience I would now like to start to work on improving the build system. I have in mind a soft conversion that gradually replaces parts of the existing build system, not a big push that takes years to complete and then breaks everything. I would like to start with some under-the-hood changes to how the build process is controlled. At the moment we have prj/build.lst files that control how build.pl builds the dmake modules. Then there are makefiles.mk in directories of dmake modules and finally we have makefiles in gbuild modules. All of them are not makefiles in the classical sense, i.e. they seldomly contain directives of how to build a target. They are data files that primarily define dependencies between targets or, for example, which object files go into a shared library. They use three different, mostly unspecified and undocumented, notations. The first work item would be the conversion of these files into a unified XML syntax. At first these XML files would be converted back to the old syntax on-demand and on-the-fly so that the old build tool chain can still be used. Subsequent steps would then improve or replace parts of this tool chain. If you don't object to this general plan then I would start the XML conversion with the prj/build.lst files as proof of concept. I would also start to write Wiki pages that explain in more detail how the current build process works, what its draw backs are, and how, in my opinion, it can be improved. everything that help us with the build system is welcome and hopefully we can drop the crap of the gbuild stuff instead of completing it. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Recommend to extend the AOO 4.1.1 release notes based on tests on Windows 2012
On 17/10/14 11:13, Yuzhen Fan wrote: Hi All, During AOO 4.1.1 full regression test, I did basic tests on Windows 2012 and get them passed. In order to get sufficient tests to extend the release notes for 4.1.1, Juergen Meyer has executed further expended tests. The result is positive as 82% passed and 18% failed. Please note, these 18% tests fail with AOO3.4.1 on Windows 2003 in the same way they fail with AOO 4.1.1 on Windows 2012. As for 4.1.1, it has the same level of support as for 3.4.1, I would initial the discussion and propose that we extend the 4.1.1 release notes by adding support for Windows 2012. that are good news and from my perspective your idea to extend the release notes for AOO 4.1.1 is a good one. Windows 2012 server is replacing Windows 2003 server more and more and it is good when we can mark this platform as supported. Your tests have shown that we reached the same level of support as for Windows 2003. I believe 2003 server was not well tested in the past and it was more a relict from former days. It is very good that you + Juergen have taken the time to run these tests to ensure that we work on this platform. I definitely support this idea and give my +1 Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Hunspell improvement idea for italic (foreign) words
On 10/10/14 04:42, Marco A.G.Pinto wrote: Hi! Microsoft Office 2010 suggests words to be changed to italic if they are foreign, at least for Portuguese. For example: e-mail in Portuguese would be written in italic: /e-mail/. I was wondering if this could be implemented into Hunspell. The way for not breaking compatibility with older versions was to have an extra file with the italic words: pt_PT.DAT *pt_PT_italic.DAT* pt_PT.AFF The above is how that extra file would improve writing styles. The words on the new file could also exist in the normal .DAT . Could someone talk to Németh László about this since he only replied once to the e-mails I sent him in the past? I don't know him Juergen Thanks! Kind regards, Marco A.G.Pinto -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: October Board report (draft)
On 08/10/14 14:18, Andrea Pescetti wrote: The report for July, August and September is available in draft at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2014+Oct Feel free to complete and make corrections. It is due soon. it looks good to me and I have nothing to add Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: release manager for the next release
On 07/10/14 00:54, Andrew Rist wrote: On 10/4/2014 1:57 AM, jan i wrote: Thanks jürgen for the work you have done. making a mac bot a priority seems to be easier said than done. We have had a ticket open with infra for more than 2 years, and despite many pokes from arist and myself, there are still no date when we can have one An update on this. (drum roll please...) We have received the mac buildbot! There are various people to thank for finally getting this done, David Nalley (vp infra) figured out how to move it forward. At this point, I've had it for a week, but been OOTO due to some conference. I expect to have it build up and ready to go in short order. sounds perfect, when you need help please let me know. Or when I can get access on the machine I can probably help with the setup as well. Juergen A. We have the same problem with a number of our other platforms, and infra does not seems very busy with other issues than to care about our specialities. In other words, I strongly believe we have to depend on non-apache hardware to produce a major part of the binaries. A new release manager should provide or have access to several VMs in order to cut the release. It has always looked as if Jürgen had direct or indirect access to all the platforms needed. A release manager does not need to be PMC, but only the PMC have binding votes for a release..this can theoritically lead to a situation where the vote ends with only +1, but the release manager gives a non-binding -1. If nothing else that should lead to a funny board report. just my thoughts. rgds jan I Ps. it seems markmail does not support inline responses, or am I doing something wrong ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: release manager for the next release
On 07/10/14 08:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 07/10/14 00:54, Andrew Rist wrote: On 10/4/2014 1:57 AM, jan i wrote: Thanks jürgen for the work you have done. making a mac bot a priority seems to be easier said than done. We have had a ticket open with infra for more than 2 years, and despite many pokes from arist and myself, there are still no date when we can have one An update on this. (drum roll please...) We have received the mac buildbot! There are various people to thank for finally getting this done, David Nalley (vp infra) figured out how to move it forward. At this point, I've had it for a week, but been OOTO due to some conference. I expect to have it build up and ready to go in short order. sounds perfect, when you need help please let me know. Or when I can get access on the machine I can probably help with the setup as well. Can you give me some info - which OS version, is it a server version? - Xcode 5.x is recommended, for Xcode 6 we potentially need further changes and I ma not sure if we can make this changes now. We should focus on a working env with the current sources. Juergen Juergen A. We have the same problem with a number of our other platforms, and infra does not seems very busy with other issues than to care about our specialities. In other words, I strongly believe we have to depend on non-apache hardware to produce a major part of the binaries. A new release manager should provide or have access to several VMs in order to cut the release. It has always looked as if Jürgen had direct or indirect access to all the platforms needed. A release manager does not need to be PMC, but only the PMC have binding votes for a release..this can theoritically lead to a situation where the vote ends with only +1, but the release manager gives a non-binding -1. If nothing else that should lead to a funny board report. just my thoughts. rgds jan I Ps. it seems markmail does not support inline responses, or am I doing something wrong ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: release manager for the next release
On 05/10/14 19:06, Kay Schenk wrote: On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:21 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 4 October 2014 22:08, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 04/10/2014 jan i wrote: Thanks jürgen for the work you have done. Sure, thanks Juergen for being a great, reliable and patient release manager during these years. In other words, I strongly believe we have to depend on non-apache hardware to produce a major part of the binaries. A new release manager should provide or have access to several VMs in order to cut the release. It has always looked as if Jürgen had direct or indirect access to all the platforms needed. Well, this is a thing we must change. Ideally, we must be able to produce all binaries at Apache for the next release. We are now depending on individual developers providing their own systems, but this won't work for other ongoing activities too (like signing releases). If you look at the Infra list recent discussions, it seems we will be able to get our hands on suitable Mac hardware soon. So in short: a new release is not going to happen before we have fixed the release process. Part of this fix can be very challenging, like bringing all building activities to Apache hardware. But we shouldn't expect that what a release manager needs NOW is valid for the NEXT release. Same time last year, the Apple hardware was signed for ordering, when Infra found out it lacked budget. This year the discussion goes, no more hardware until what we have runs, and that is assumed to take until first part of 2015. So in other words dont put up too high hopes. Have a look at the jira ticket instead. Furthermore, please remember, AOO cannot cimpile on a standard Apple platform, we need some old (outdated unsupported apple libraries/tools installed, that makes the machine useless (or at the very least very difficult) to use for projects that want to use the newest apple platform. I hope we can get some clarification on the above statement -- old (outdated unsupported apple libraries/tools installed esp with respect to Mac since we recently dropped support for anything below 10.7. In any case, reassessing the library/other externals versions for all platforms is definitely in order. simply spoken a wrong or misleading info from Jan, the last AOO release was made on the latest MacOS version (at this time) with XCode 5. Missing Apple hardware is one problem for one platform. Missing Linux system with proper baseline is the other one that can be addressed by providing VMs with a suitable system. My hope is that we can find consensus with infra about this and can have such VMs soon. Juergen A release manager does not need to be PMC, but only the PMC have binding votes for a release..this can theoritically lead to a situation where the vote ends with only +1, but the release manager gives a non-binding -1. If nothing else that should lead to a funny board report. This is a theoretical case. The Release Manager is trusted. If I receive a -1 from the Release Manager, I'll immediately change my +1 vote to a -1 and so will do other PMC members. Let's focus on concrete discussions. Ps. it seems markmail does not support inline responses, or am I doing something wrong ? I'll be BCCing you in my responses to your messages so at least we don't break threads. thanks but really not needed, I unsubscribed from the list in order to be able to check the dev mails when I want to, without having my mailbox filled up. I can see that I do not break threads, but merely cannot respond inline. rgds jan I Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
release manager for the next release
Hi, after a longer vacation and some silence in the past weeks I would like to discuss the release manager role. I think it's time that somebody else takes over this role and drives active the next release. I did it since the beginning of OpenOffice at Apache but I think it is a good opportunity for somebody to be more active in the community and take over some responsibility. We have released some important milestones over the years and have enough experience and know what's necessary. Whoever takes over the release manager role won't be alone and will get the support from the community. In the same way I got it in the past. We had discussions about the way how to communicate and track the release planning and the progress and now it's the time that people can realize this. It's always room for improvements. The goal is that this somewhat important role is circulating and not depending on one person only. The releases are anyway a community effort and the release manager have to take care of some necessary formalism. And to make it easier a further goal is to be able to take binary builds from our build bots and release them. Currently we rely on builds made by community members but I think it's better to use official build bots for that. This means that we have to check the Windows build bot and the binaries if they can be used already or what is missing. It means that we need Linux build bots with the correct baseline or increase the baseline. And finally we need a Mac build bot. But this discussion should take place in a separate thread. For now I would like to invite all of you to think about the release manager role and if is something for you. I will not be available as release manager for the next release. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Concerns about the AOO community
On 02/10/14 01:44, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very little traffic. Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack of marketing strategy. I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation. Community mangers? Come on, you know that is not how we roll at Apache! What is amazing to be is how much LO sees a merger of the projects as a threat to them. Here's the background. At the LO conference one of the presenters spoke in favor of merging LO with AOO, of combining the efforts. This was the IT Head from the Swiss Supreme Court IT office, who also said that they preferred to use AOO for its superior stability compared to LO. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/open-and-libre-office-projects-should-reunite As you can imagine, having a speaker at a LO conference say nice things about AOO and to suggest cooperation with AOO was an insult that could not be permitted. So LO marketing went into over-drive to try to kill that message. That's why we see articles like this, and recent related blog posts by Simon and Charles. But it does make me wonder: What are they so afraid of? Why do they think the idea of cooperation so dangerous? Why do they think that users are so wrong to value stability and to think that the two projects would work better together? This is indeed a good question. I believe the TDF and LO community did a really good job to setup the foundation, the community and the project. But it is also a fact that LO benefits a lot of the things we have done and do in AOO. It's still a valid question why both projects doesn't cooperate better and focus together on important improvements. From my perspective it simply doesn't make sense and together we could reach much more. Juergen -Rob -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called
On 01/10/14 12:19, Carl Marcum wrote: On 10/01/2014 02:25 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 01/10/14 02:19, Carl Marcum wrote: Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was intended behavior or not. I have ran into this problem in an extension that I started writing in May or June and it was an issue in that the constructor was called about as many times as i opened the menu. I posted a message similar to yours to this mailing list and Ariel gave me a solution which was to use a singleton. As a result, I moved the construction code, and handlers, and event listeners, and most of my code actually, into a helper class which implemented a Singleton pattern. From then on, things went smoothly, with the notable exception that the application exit event is posted as many times as there are frames opened. A specific boolean variable can guard a code section so no problem there either. And this is the preferred way to do it, the NB plugin wizard generates a very basic and simplified skeleton only. There were plans to extend it and include a little bit more logic but it was never implemented. Juergen I was checking in to a new issue opened on the netbeans plugin. [1] For every menu item for the AddOn in the current context (ex Writer), the constructor is called then the Menu is first clicked. If there are 2 menu items the constructor is ran twice. This only happens on the first time per context opened. Is this expected behavior? Is the constructor called from office? If so it's not a bug in the plugin. I don't think it's a bug in the plugin Juergen [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125691 Thanks, Carl You might want to search the archives for Ariel's reply to my message. Cheers, -Amenel. Le Dimanche 28 septembre 2014 20h36, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org a écrit : Hi All, I was checking in to a new issue opened on the netbeans plugin. [1] For every menu item for the AddOn in the current context (ex Writer), the constructor is called then the Menu is first clicked. If there are 2 menu items the constructor is ran twice. This only happens on the first time per context opened. Is this expected behavior? [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125691 Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org Do you remember which list the post was on? Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: release manager for the next release
On 02/10/14 14:33, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, after a longer vacation and some silence in the past weeks I would like to discuss the release manager role. I think it's time that somebody else takes over this role and drives active the next release. I did it since the beginning of OpenOffice at Apache but I think it is a good opportunity for somebody to be more active in the community and take over some responsibility. Hi Juergen, Thanks, from all I assume, for your efforts in this area. Not only were you the Release Manager, but you defined the role itself for AOO, a project with more complicated release requirements than most others at Apache. If someone was considering stepping in as the Release Manager for the next release, what should they be looking at? Is there a wiki page or other documentation that defines the process? not yet but we should collect the different pieces in one place to make it easier and to have a reference or some kind of check list ... Also, are you able to review and update (if needed) the available documentation and/or help mentor the next Release Manager?Or do you think this is all documented enough that someone can just step in and RTFM? sure I will be available for any questions and will support the release manager. Juergen Regards, -Rob We have released some important milestones over the years and have enough experience and know what's necessary. Whoever takes over the release manager role won't be alone and will get the support from the community. In the same way I got it in the past. We had discussions about the way how to communicate and track the release planning and the progress and now it's the time that people can realize this. It's always room for improvements. The goal is that this somewhat important role is circulating and not depending on one person only. The releases are anyway a community effort and the release manager have to take care of some necessary formalism. And to make it easier a further goal is to be able to take binary builds from our build bots and release them. Currently we rely on builds made by community members but I think it's better to use official build bots for that. This means that we have to check the Windows build bot and the binaries if they can be used already or what is missing. It means that we need Linux build bots with the correct baseline or increase the baseline. And finally we need a Mac build bot. But this discussion should take place in a separate thread. For now I would like to invite all of you to think about the release manager role and if is something for you. I will not be available as release manager for the next release. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called
On 01/10/14 02:19, Carl Marcum wrote: Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was intended behavior or not. I have ran into this problem in an extension that I started writing in May or June and it was an issue in that the constructor was called about as many times as i opened the menu. I posted a message similar to yours to this mailing list and Ariel gave me a solution which was to use a singleton. As a result, I moved the construction code, and handlers, and event listeners, and most of my code actually, into a helper class which implemented a Singleton pattern. From then on, things went smoothly, with the notable exception that the application exit event is posted as many times as there are frames opened. A specific boolean variable can guard a code section so no problem there either. And this is the preferred way to do it, the NB plugin wizard generates a very basic and simplified skeleton only. There were plans to extend it and include a little bit more logic but it was never implemented. Juergen You might want to search the archives for Ariel's reply to my message. Cheers, -Amenel. Le Dimanche 28 septembre 2014 20h36, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org a écrit : Hi All, I was checking in to a new issue opened on the netbeans plugin. [1] For every menu item for the AddOn in the current context (ex Writer), the constructor is called then the Menu is first clicked. If there are 2 menu items the constructor is ran twice. This only happens on the first time per context opened. Is this expected behavior? [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125691 Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org Do you remember which list the post was on? Thanks, Carl - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: API for sidebar
On 28/08/14 18:40, Rory O'Farrell wrote: I have been asked by a user of the en-Forum if I knew of a section of the API which dealt with the Sidebar. I found bits and pieces, but rather expected that there might be a draft addition to the API documentation? Is there such? I should say that the user in question is doing valid programming of a new OO extension - he's not a timewaster and can understand and use the API information. with the new implementation we tried to resue the existing API, please check this side for developers for more information https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Sidebar_for_Developers And the best way is to ask detailed questions here directly. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[INFO] Your project is a Project of the Week on SourceForge!
Hi, I am a project owner of the AOO project at SourceForge that is mainly used to handle the binary artifacts for our releases. You know I do the upload of the binaries etc. I was informed that AOO was one of the projects of the week. And I thought it is worth to share it with you. ### Hello, My name is Elizabeth Daniels and I am the senior content editor for SourceForge. I am writing to inform you that your project is featured as Project of the Week and is listed on the front page of our site this week. This means your project may be included in this month's Community Project of the Month vote, depending on the number of downloads it gets. If you haven't already done so, please update your Project Summary Page. And, here is the link to the blog post notifying the community of your accomplishment: http://sourceforge.net/blog/projects-of-the-week-august-25-2014 Thanks! And best of luck. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Packages from Unofficial Apache OO Debian repository updated to version 4.1.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 25/08/14 17:05, Marcelo Santana wrote: Hi all, The unofficial Apache OO Debian repository was updated and from now it provides the version 4.1.1 of Apache Openoffice with all available languages. All information needed for new installations or upgrades are available from README file[1]. perfect, sounds good. Many thanks for this it's of great help at least for Debian users. Juergen [1]https://sourceforge.net/projects/apacheoo-deb/files/debian/ Regards, -- Marcelo G. Santana (aka msantana) | GNU/Linux User number: #208778 http://blog.msantana.eng.br | http://identi.ca/mgsantana http://www.debianbrasil.org | http://br.gnome.org GnuPG fprint: 88FB 5D63 ED02 3B5D 90D6 3A3E 8698 1CC9 89C5 5467 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT/CnVAAoJEM/u8xZRtf3oGAEP/2GREQVjvbyeXvFogSyidciR bOaYcRKveqhDlIZuMVPEM5YPV+AQlArW2oLZ96ZgXg5RPi75xcfjS7q604gs22gJ IDet75z6qrV23KrcRiGVkkF78rxitqarrEJdLy0rrhW0uAl7T6lJPFiLLXpM6CtY huSZi0PtJxHZAiHwZiD0RYjrvVSufoCuEF8Q4MVPIfg09HKvoj8WOpubAB8//GwQ OheYt0kqk29hRdvhXiQeWftz+/MJ9BmCGkqtTyuNzLQnRoRwy4X14OGIGO0M1dcl K7UfGRNP94/TO42+J2/BWncBdhiJ4lj6q2BeqcpJe6guoVoTfJR8jLhFi+Uxeczz nfqdqL3dLYOqv/zocP+z99VW/r/keVkZrWwRS9EjbVUKhooECTrGwwpPjRLvt+RK YWjYjtnMaEgrcF5iSLrdd/7ZY+bfSFeFjHBCz/sWc7ZctfkErQaJ46+mUR8Qbrlk l14Hz/d8w+spCQ3riz3pd78K8AisBICtV3AgvYWv4vFHqOT1+pr39LP9LD5A2ffA 6qWcEfKMzdY1TUDMoomfgqhqjD1TRidRbwSmKkXMsGAm8NxbphjcLmdIyyrpDfEu dMnbybt9GJpV+9XNY6jyAV757ToqSqdeHLLgxcWP7AGQR4LUMiOZ7YP39aageu2M KUcgYpzKvyQ+LlIDhP1L =B5zS -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: We need some BZ changes now that 4.1.1. is out
On 26/08/14 00:22, Kay Schenk wrote: Someone needs to add 4.1.1 to the version field for BZ. Apparently, I don't have the karma for this. :/ I have added 4.1.1 to hopefully all relevant projects Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Setting buildbot back to trunk
On 25/08/14 14:23, Regina Henschel wrote: Hi, version 4.1.1 is out. Can someone please set a Windows buildbot back to trunk? aoo-win7 fails currently anyway. I believe Herbert has already done it but not 100% sure, he is on vacation this week. Will try to check ... I am still not very familiar with the build bots. Juergen Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 21/08/14 09:24, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 21.08.2014 01:06, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/08/14 17:07, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 20.08.2014 14:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 20/08/14 01:24, Kay Schenk wrote: [snip] The files are there but in staging mode. The plan is to remove the staging bit when we are ready. I don't think that we need a lot of testing here. It should be straight forward. Website into production on Thursday, 8/21, 12:00A UTC. New links are not active yet, but I know they will be soon. :) It looks like as if the new download is already been published and active. Intention or accident? it doesn't really matter ;-) Well the links becomes active a little bit to early because the staging bit was still set. Herbert removed it in the morning. We haven't clearly communicated the exact time but the announcement mail was always first. But anyway I don't think it is a big thing. I will prepare the mail and send it out asap... Juergen Best regards, Oliver. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
Hi, I plan the following email for 2:00pm today on announce@openoffice + announce@apache ### The Apache OpenOffice project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of OpenOffice 4.1.1. You can download it from our website [1]. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful bugfixes. With 3 additional supported languages AOO 4.1.1 increases again the number of supported languages which is now 41. The supported languages are Asturian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Calalan (Valencia AVL), Catalan (Valencia RACV), Czech, Danish, German, Greek, English (GB + US), Spanish, Basque, Finnish, French, Scots Gaelic, Galician, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian Bokmal, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese Brazil, Russian, Slovak, Serbian Cyrillic, Swedish, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simplified + Traditional). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 will be the next key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice. Details of new features and enhancements in this release are described in the Release Notes [2]. Those interested in the source code can download it via the links on this page [3]. Regards, Juergen Schmidt, Apache OpenOffice Release Manager and member of the Project Management Committee [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/ [2] hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.1+Release+Notes [3] https://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html ### - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 21/08/14 11:34, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:18:13 +0200 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I plan the following email for 2:00pm today on announce@openoffice + announce@apache ### The Apache OpenOffice project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of OpenOffice 4.1.1. You can download it from our website [1]. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful bugfixes. With 3 additional supported languages AOO 4.1.1 increases again the number of supported languages which is now 41. The supported languages are Asturian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Calalan (Valencia AVL), Catalan (Valencia RACV), Czech, Danish, German, Greek, English (GB + US), Spanish, Basque, Finnish, French, Scots Gaelic, Galician, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian Bokmal, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese Brazil, Russian, Slovak, Serbian Cyrillic, Swedish, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simplified + Traditional). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 will be the next key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice. One suggestion: say Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 IS the next key milestone thanks Details of new features and enhancements in this release are described in the Release Notes [2]. Those interested in the source code can download it via the links on this page [3]. Regards, Juergen Schmidt, Apache OpenOffice Release Manager and member of the Project Management Committee [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/ [2] hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.1+Release+Notes [3] https://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html ### - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 21/08/14 11:28, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, sounds good from my point of view. Please see below for one suggestion and one correction Best regards, Oliver. On 21.08.2014 11:18, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, I plan the following email for 2:00pm today on announce@openoffice + announce@apache ### The Apache OpenOffice project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of OpenOffice 4.1.1. You can download it from our website [1]. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful bugfixes. suggestion: add and critical to useful make sense, I have changed it to ### Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful and critical bugfixes including 2 security relevant fixes (details will coming separately). ### The 2 security relevant issues will reported separately in detail Juergen With 3 additional supported languages AOO 4.1.1 increases again the number of supported languages which is now 41. The supported languages are Asturian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Calalan (Valencia AVL), Catalan (Valencia RACV), Czech, Danish, German, Greek, English (GB + US), Spanish, Basque, Finnish, French, Scots Gaelic, Galician, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian Bokmal, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese Brazil, Russian, Slovak, Serbian Cyrillic, Swedish, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simplified + Traditional). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 will be the next key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice. Details of new features and enhancements in this release are described in the Release Notes [2]. Those interested in the source code can download it via the links on this page [3]. Regards, Juergen Schmidt, Apache OpenOffice Release Manager and member of the Project Management Committee [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/ [2] hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.1+Release+Notes One 'h' too much [3] https://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html ### - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 21/08/14 13:29, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 21/08/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: I plan the following email for 2:00pm today on announce@openoffice + announce@apache I agree with the other proposed changes too, but I'm replying to this message for easier quoting. ### The Apache OpenOffice project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of OpenOffice 4.1.1. You can download it from our website [1]. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful bugfixes. Besides the new wording, I recommend adding a direct link to the bug list, or even picking a couple of them. So something like: --- Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is a micro update with many useful and critical bugfixes including 2 security relevant fixes. Bugfixes include: better compatibility with Microsoft Office files, better support for Mac OS X gestures and scrolling, enhanced compatibility with Linux desktop environments. A full list of the 88 issues fixed in this release can be found at http://s.apache.org/AOO410-solved --- (this would also fit well in the Release Notes, probably, as something between the link only and the full list). With 3 additional supported languages AOO 4.1.1 OpenOffice 4.1.1 [it's our trademark] increases again the number of supported languages which is now 41. The supported languages s/supported/released/g are Asturian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Calalan (Valencia AVL), Catalan (Valencia RACV), Czech, Danish, German, Greek, English (GB + US), Spanish, Basque, Finnish, French, Scots Gaelic, Galician, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Lithuanian, Norwegian Bokmal, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese Brazil, Russian, Slovak, Serbian Cyrillic, Swedish, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese, Chinese (Simplified + Traditional). ... Slovenian was indeed missing, thanks Feedback integrated I count 40. But it should be 41, so one is missing probably. I can't check which one now... Those interested in the source code can download it via the links on this page [3]. That page https://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html is not updated yet. To answer a question from you on this page: I would indeed recommend to point all checksums to the archive, and significant files (i.e., 100 KBytes) to dist. it is updated, check your browser cache. It took some time for me as well. the change to dist is not yet done. Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 21/08/14 13:46, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 21.08.2014 13:31, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 21/08/2014 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Can someone take care of the head line which is currently New: Apache OpenOffice 4.1.0 released! after Jürgen has announced 4.1.1? I can do it, but tonight European time. Otherwise, anyone can do it by editing http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/brand.mdtext?view=markup (the three lines beginning with announce). Ok, this seems to be easy enough for me ;-) I will perform the update after the 4.1.1 release announcement. As the announce url I will take our release notes. go ahead, the announcement is out. I got a send failure and send it again with a few more corrections, the second one from 2:16 is the correct one. Juergen Best regards, Oliver. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 19/08/14 20:43, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 19/08/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Things to do: No Release Notes? Not even a short text like sure and we have already a page for it. I had it in mind but forget to list it. It should be finalized. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes ? (URL is from my cache, CWiki is down as part of the scheduled maintenance, that actually affects a lot of sites, not only the Forum). I informed infra about our upcoming release and got the reminder to take care of the 4.1.0 related checksum files etc. from : www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... to : archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... We already point to archive for the checksums and signatures. We don't point to dist for the binaries. So the main site is OK. perfect The project page http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html was still using links to dist, that are now replaced with links to archive (and, for the future, I would recommend to use archive directly here for most files: files go to the archive a the day after they are copied to dist, and traffic is not an issue, we are talking about files that are shorter than their filename). the checksum files yes but the src release artifacts or the SDK? Should we really link to the archive for this as well? ... preferably using https://archive.apache.org/ ; note the 's' in 'https'. Done in the whole page (i.e., for older releases too). thanks Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 20/08/14 09:42, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 19/08/14 20:43, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 19/08/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Things to do: No Release Notes? Not even a short text like sure and we have already a page for it. I had it in mind but forget to list it. It should be finalized. not only in my mind, it was point 7 ;-) Thanks Oliver, you made my day. I thought I am getting old and can't remember me correctly what I have written, done, ... Juergen https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes ? (URL is from my cache, CWiki is down as part of the scheduled maintenance, that actually affects a lot of sites, not only the Forum). I informed infra about our upcoming release and got the reminder to take care of the 4.1.0 related checksum files etc. from : www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... to : archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... We already point to archive for the checksums and signatures. We don't point to dist for the binaries. So the main site is OK. perfect The project page http://openoffice.apache.org/downloads.html was still using links to dist, that are now replaced with links to archive (and, for the future, I would recommend to use archive directly here for most files: files go to the archive a the day after they are copied to dist, and traffic is not an issue, we are talking about files that are shorter than their filename). the checksum files yes but the src release artifacts or the SDK? Should we really link to the archive for this as well? ... preferably using https://archive.apache.org/ ; note the 's' in 'https'. Done in the whole page (i.e., for older releases too). thanks Juergen Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 20/08/14 01:24, Kay Schenk wrote: On 08/19/2014 07:10 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 08/19/2014 05:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, the vote for our upcoming AOO 4.1.1 release ended today successfully. That means we can continue with the final preparation and can plan to release on Thursday August 21th. Or does anything prevent us from this date? Things to do: 1. upload the release bits to dist and to the SourceForge mirrors I am already working on this and everything shoudl be available on Thursday. 2. updating the OpenOffice project page to point to the new release I will take care of it 3. updating the OpenOffice portal page (www.openoffice.org) and especially the download page to cover the new languages (ca, ca-XV, ca-XR) ?? The preparation area, in svn in download-NEXT2, has already been preliminarily tested, but needs final review and editing per the release date after #1. This can go live early tomorrow (Wed)-- about 01:00 UTC for further testing. More on this...until the binaries are accessible, we can't do complete testing and I won't be making changes to the live download area. Please see: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download-NEXT2/ for now. The links are looking fine as far as I can see. The structure is exactly the same as before. Only the version number will change. The only new part is that we have 3 more languages but this looks as well. The files are there but in staging mode. The plan is to remove the staging bit when we are ready. I don't think that we need a lot of testing here. It should be straight forward. Juergen This are is complete in svn. Let me know if and when I should port to staging in download but that means we can't publish until everything is ready to go. 4. writing an announcement mail for the announcement list I will take care of it 5. prepare the social media channels for the release ?? 6. additional blog entry ?? 7. check and finalize the release notes if necessary ?? 8. what else? Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 20/08/14 17:07, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: Hi, On 20.08.2014 14:34, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 20/08/14 01:24, Kay Schenk wrote: [snip] 3. updating the OpenOffice portal page (www.openoffice.org) and especially the download page to cover the new languages (ca, ca-XV, ca-XR) ?? The preparation area, in svn in download-NEXT2, has already been preliminarily tested, but needs final review and editing per the release date after #1. This can go live early tomorrow (Wed)-- about 01:00 UTC for further testing. More on this...until the binaries are accessible, we can't do complete testing and I won't be making changes to the live download area. Please see: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download-NEXT2/ for now. The links are looking fine as far as I can see. The structure is exactly the same as before. Only the version number will change. The only new part is that we have 3 more languages but this looks as well. The files are there but in staging mode. The plan is to remove the staging bit when we are ready. I don't think that we need a lot of testing here. It should be straight forward. Please have a look at my post '[RELEASE] feedback on download page preparation'. I have identified the one or the other problem. good catch Oliver, who is able to fix this problem? Juergen Best regards, Oliver. Juergen This are is complete in svn. Let me know if and when I should port to staging in download but that means we can't publish until everything is ready to go. [snip] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 (RC3)
On 15/08/14 09:15, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 The vote starts now and will be open until: Tuesday, 19 August: 2014-08-19 12:00am UTC+2. 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 4.1.1 [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... +1 to release RC3 as AOO 4.1.1 I did my normal tests on MacOS, Windows and Linux + building it from scratch based on the src release. I am fine with it and everything works as expected. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RESULT][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 (RC3)
The vote period to release the AOO 4.1.1 RC3 (based on release branch AOO410, revision 1617669) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 has ended. The ballot results in 25 votes, 25 +1 votes including 9 binding PMC member votes. 3 binding +1 votes are necessary for the release. That means the ballot closed successful to release the RC3 as AOO 4.1.1 Beta. Vote tally +1 Softeware Valencià +1 Jose R R +1 Yuzhen Fan (binding) +1 Regina Henschel (binding) +1 Keith N. McKenna +1 Kay Schenk (binding) +1 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (binding) +1 ShenFeng Liu +1 Kazunari Hirano (binding) +1 Alain Sanguinetti +1 Olaf Felka +1 Louis Suárez-Potts (binding) +1 Amali Praveena Soban Kumar +1 Andrea Pescetti (binding) +1 Rory O'Farrell +1 Juergen Schmidt (binding) +1 Herbert Duerr (binding) +1 Aivaras Stepukonis +1 Pedro Albuquerque +1 Josef Latt +1 Khoem Sokhem +1 Rafaello Palandri +1 Dick Groskamp +1 Jon Peli Olega +1 Nitya On 15/08/14 09:15, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 The vote starts now and will be open until: Tuesday, 19 August: 2014-08-19 12:00am UTC+2. 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 4.1.1 [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
Hi, the vote for our upcoming AOO 4.1.1 release ended today successfully. That means we can continue with the final preparation and can plan to release on Thursday August 21th. Or does anything prevent us from this date? Things to do: 1. upload the release bits to dist and to the SourceForge mirrors I am already working on this and everything shoudl be available on Thursday. 2. updating the OpenOffice project page to point to the new release I will take care of it 3. updating the OpenOffice portal page (www.openoffice.org) and especially the download page to cover the new languages (ca, ca-XV, ca-XR) ?? 4. writing an announcement mail for the announcement list I will take care of it 5. prepare the social media channels for the release ?? 6. additional blog entry ?? 7. check and finalize the release notes if necessary ?? 8. what else? Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 19/08/14 14:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, the vote for our upcoming AOO 4.1.1 release ended today successfully. That means we can continue with the final preparation and can plan to release on Thursday August 21th. Or does anything prevent us from this date? Things to do: 1. upload the release bits to dist and to the SourceForge mirrors I am already working on this and everything shoudl be available on Thursday. 2. updating the OpenOffice project page to point to the new release I will take care of it 3. updating the OpenOffice portal page (www.openoffice.org) and especially the download page to cover the new languages (ca, ca-XV, ca-XR) ?? 4. writing an announcement mail for the announcement list I will take care of it 5. prepare the social media channels for the release ?? 6. additional blog entry ?? 7. check and finalize the release notes if necessary ?? 8. what else? Translator please verify the related issues and please close them in time. th https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121851 he https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124766 pl https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124789 zh-TW https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125202 ca https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125204 pt https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125208 ca-XV https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125216 vi https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125246 km https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125249 Dictionaries ca-XR https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125265 ca https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125272 ca-XV https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125274 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125334 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125262 Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: final preparation for AOO 4.1.1
On 19/08/14 14:14, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 19/08/14 14:00, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, the vote for our upcoming AOO 4.1.1 release ended today successfully. That means we can continue with the final preparation and can plan to release on Thursday August 21th. Or does anything prevent us from this date? Things to do: 1. upload the release bits to dist and to the SourceForge mirrors I am already working on this and everything shoudl be available on Thursday. 2. updating the OpenOffice project page to point to the new release I will take care of it 3. updating the OpenOffice portal page (www.openoffice.org) and especially the download page to cover the new languages (ca, ca-XV, ca-XR) ?? I informed infra about our upcoming release and got the reminder to take care of the 4.1.0 related checksum files etc. See: Please fix the download pages re: 4.1.0's .md5's, .asc's, etc ; from : www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... to : archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0/... ... so dist/openoffice/4.1.0/ can be removed entirely, when 4.1.1 is out. ... preferably using https://archive.apache.org/ ; note the 's' in 'https'. Who will or can take care of this? Juergen 4. writing an announcement mail for the announcement list I will take care of it 5. prepare the social media channels for the release ?? 6. additional blog entry ?? 7. check and finalize the release notes if necessary ?? 8. what else? Translator please verify the related issues and please close them in time. th https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121851 he https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124766 pl https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124789 zh-TW https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125202 ca https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125204 pt https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125208 ca-XV https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125216 vi https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125246 km https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125249 Dictionaries ca-XR https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125265 ca https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125272 ca-XV https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125274 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125334 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125262 Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 (RC3)
On 16/08/14 13:23, Jose R R wrote: Niltze, Jürgen- I was about install ApacheOO 4.1.1 (RC3) but the sha256 do not match: $ wget http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.sha256 $ sha256sum -b Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1*gz 5121c9333b47bca9af71ca2f0dd41da463748a5cfb1a41eb8232284ad98323c2 *Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz $ cat Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.sha256 9624930a634891ed7ed6b2d19dd71303da1e900cf7ced56885f6d0bdceced4a9 *Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz Further: $ wget https://people.apache.org/keys/group/openoffice.asc $ wget http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.asc $ gpg --import openoffice.asc $ gpg --verify Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 13 Aug 2014 04:40:19 AM PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8 gpg: BAD signature from Juergen Schmidt j...@apache.org Am I doing something incorrectly? I don't knoowhat's going wrong on your side but I can't reproduce your problem and I get the same checksum. I use the following command shasum -b -a256 Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz I will check the openoffice.asc file ... In the meantime you can try http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/KEYS. The latter one definitely correct. Juergen Best Professional Regards. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the available release candidate (RC3) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is mainly a bugfix release with some important bugfixes. And we can provide again more complete UI translations and have now support for 41 languages. New languages for this release compared to 4.1.0 are Catalan, Catalan (Valencia AVL) and Catalan (Valencia RACV). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is the continuation of high quality software releases. An overview of the integrated release issues can be found under: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 41 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 can be found on the following wiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds (alternative directly via http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669) *.dmg files are still not recognized as binaries and have to be saved manually (save link as ...). The RC is based on the release branch AOO410, revision 1617669! And a fresh and clean RAT scan output of this revision can be found under http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_RAT_Scan.html Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 The vote starts now and will be open until: Tuesday, 19 August: 2014-08-19 12:00am UTC+2. 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 4.1.1 [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 (RC3)
On 18/08/14 04:08, Jose R R wrote: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.asc http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz.sha256 -1 Sorry to disagree. I downloaded once more the relevant files: checksum and gpg --verify fail as long as nobody else can confirm your problem I can't help. I have checked the checksum and the gpg signature and everything is fine. Juergen https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvSRw_VCMAIezN2.png:large On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the available release candidate (RC3) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is mainly a bugfix release with some important bugfixes. And we can provide again more complete UI translations and have now support for 41 languages. New languages for this release compared to 4.1.0 are Catalan, Catalan (Valencia AVL) and Catalan (Valencia RACV). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is the continuation of high quality software releases. An overview of the integrated release issues can be found under: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 41 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 can be found on the following wiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds (alternative directly via http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669) *.dmg files are still not recognized as binaries and have to be saved manually (save link as ...). The RC is based on the release branch AOO410, revision 1617669! And a fresh and clean RAT scan output of this revision can be found under http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_RAT_Scan.html Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 The vote starts now and will be open until: Tuesday, 19 August: 2014-08-19 12:00am UTC+2. 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 4.1.1 [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 Downloaded and tested Linux-32 binary. Verified all checksums for this version. Randomly verified checksums for other versions and languages. Rechecked all release blocker items that pertained to Linux or general as fixed. Tested with test area documents and my own. -- - MzK For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing. -- Simon Wiesenthal Best Professional Regards. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 (RC3)
Quick update ... Oliver has noticed that the full install rpm's contains the menu integration rpm's twice. It's an artifact of a former build that becomes part of the tar.gz. Not a big thing but I decided to package the rpm's for the full install set once again. It's the same content, means the vote will continue. It's just a clean up. Juergen On 15/08/14 09:15, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the available release candidate (RC3) as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1. Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is mainly a bugfix release with some important bugfixes. And we can provide again more complete UI translations and have now support for 41 languages. New languages for this release compared to 4.1.0 are Catalan, Catalan (Valencia AVL) and Catalan (Valencia RACV). Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 is the continuation of high quality software releases. An overview of the integrated release issues can be found under: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 41 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 can be found on the following wiki page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds (alternative directly via http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669) *.dmg files are still not recognized as binaries and have to be saved manually (save link as ...). The RC is based on the release branch AOO410, revision 1617669! And a fresh and clean RAT scan output of this revision can be found under http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc3-r1617669/AOO4.1.1_RAT_Scan.html Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.1 The vote starts now and will be open until: Tuesday, 19 August: 2014-08-19 12:00am UTC+2. 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 4.1.1 [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
