Re: Cwiki: use pictures attached on a different page

[Keith N. McKenna]

Ricardo Berlasso wrote:

I started a translation for the release notes as a child page of the
release notes itself

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=33295326

But pictures attached to the main release notes page are not displayed on
the child page. Is there any easy way to show them?

Regards
Ricardo


Ricardo;

I did some playing and was able to copy all of the missing graphics 
except the sidebar ones with the following procedure using Firefox.


1: Open the English page in your browser in view mode.
2: Open the Spanish page in another window in edit mode
3: In the English page right click on the graphic you want to copy and
   select copy image location.
4: In the Spanish page highlight the file name of the command that did
   not work and paste.

Because the sidebar ones are thumbnails, the same procdure will not work 
as the thumbnail can only be created from a graphic that is attached to 
the page. The only way I found to do this was as follows (again using 
Firefox):


1: Same as above
2: Open the Spanish page in another window in view mode mode
3: In English page click on a thumbnail to open the the original graphic
  3.1 Right click full sizd graphic and select save image as and
  download it to your local machine.
4: In Spanish page Select Add --> Attachment then browse button on the
   page that opens and select the file you just downloaded and click
   the attach button.
6: Repeat as needed.

It is know 3:00 AM here so I am heading to bed. I can download th rest 
of the sidebar graphics and attach thm to the Spanish page later today 
if it will help you out.


Regards
Keith



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Cwiki: use pictures attached on a different page

[Keith N. McKenna]

Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Ricardo Berlasso wrote:

I started a translation for the release notes as a child page of the
release notes itself

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=33295326

But pictures attached to the main release notes page are not displayed on
the child page. Is there any easy way to show them?

Regards
Ricardo


Ricardo;

I did some playing and was able to copy all of the missing graphics
except the sidebar ones with the following procedure using Firefox.

1: Open the English page in your browser in view mode.
2: Open the Spanish page in another window in edit mode
3: In the English page right click on the graphic you want to copy and
select copy image location.
4: In the Spanish page highlight the file name of the command that did
not work and paste.

Because the sidebar ones are thumbnails, the same procdure will not work
as the thumbnail can only be created from a graphic that is attached to
the page. The only way I found to do this was as follows (again using
Firefox):

1: Same as above
2: Open the Spanish page in another window in view mode mode
3: In English page click on a thumbnail to open the the original graphic
   3.1 Right click full sizd graphic and select save image as and
   download it to your local machine.
4: In Spanish page Select Add --> Attachment then browse button on the
page that opens and select the file you just downloaded and click
the attach button.
6: Repeat as needed.

It is know 3:00 AM here so I am heading to bed. I can download th rest
of the sidebar graphics and attach thm to the Spanish page later today
if it will help you out.

Regards
Keith
I couldn't sleep so I uploaded all the sidebar screenshots as 
attachments and know they render correctly.


Regards
Keith


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Cwiki: use pictures attached on a different page

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/7/18 Keith N. McKenna 

> Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>
>> Ricardo Berlasso wrote:
>>
>>> I started a translation for the release notes as a child page of the
>>> release notes itself
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/pages/viewpage.**
>>> action?pageId=33295326
>>>
>>> But pictures attached to the main release notes page are not displayed on
>>> the child page. Is there any easy way to show them?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ricardo
>>>
>>>  Ricardo;
>>
>> I did some playing and was able to copy all of the missing graphics
>> except the sidebar ones with the following procedure using Firefox.
>>
>> 1: Open the English page in your browser in view mode.
>> 2: Open the Spanish page in another window in edit mode
>> 3: In the English page right click on the graphic you want to copy and
>> select copy image location.
>> 4: In the Spanish page highlight the file name of the command that did
>> not work and paste.
>>
>> Because the sidebar ones are thumbnails, the same procdure will not work
>> as the thumbnail can only be created from a graphic that is attached to
>> the page. The only way I found to do this was as follows (again using
>> Firefox):
>>
>> 1: Same as above
>> 2: Open the Spanish page in another window in view mode mode
>> 3: In English page click on a thumbnail to open the the original graphic
>>3.1 Right click full sizd graphic and select save image as and
>>download it to your local machine.
>> 4: In Spanish page Select Add --> Attachment then browse button on the
>> page that opens and select the file you just downloaded and click
>> the attach button.
>> 6: Repeat as needed.
>>
>> It is know 3:00 AM here so I am heading to bed. I can download th rest
>> of the sidebar graphics and attach thm to the Spanish page later today
>> if it will help you out.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>>
> I couldn't sleep so I uploaded all the sidebar screenshots as attachments
> and know they render correctly.



Many thanks! I'll finish the page on the next couple of days.

Regards
Ricardo



>
>
> Regards
> Keith
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/7/17 Jürgen Schmidt 

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
> (RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
> important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
> It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>[ ]  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 4.0

Regards
Ricardo

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Rory O'Farrell]

+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[imacat]

Dear all,

The translation of Traditional Chinese was finished (100%).  Could
it be added to the release now? ^_^

https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/

On 2013/07/18 02:57, Juergen Schmidt said:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 um 20:31 schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jürgen Schmidt  
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/17/13 7:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
 I'm trying to download the source, ASC, MD5 and SHA256 files, but I'm
 getting errors
  
 I'm using the links from this page:
  
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
  
 The binaries download fine, but I can't verify the source.
  
 Anyone else running into this?
>>>  
>>> well access the files directly via
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/RC/4.0.0/source/
>>>  
>>> I haven't updated the wiki, sorry.
>>  
>> OK. I verified the hashes and signatures.
>>  
>> However, we should clarify which public keys to use. Right now we
>> say four different things:
>>  
>> 1) We have a KEYS file in the dist/incubator directory:
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/KEYS
>>  
>> 2) Your RC page points this file, which doesn't exist:
>> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/ooo.asc
>>  
>> 3) Your RC page also points to this file, which is not really suitable
>> since it is in your personal directory:
>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/aoo.KEYS
>>  
>> 4) The download page instructions
>> (http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums/3.4.1_checksums.html#howto)
>> points to this file, which does exist:
>> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/openoffice.asc
>>  
>> I thought the convention was to put a KEYS file into the root of the
>> project's dist directory. If so we need to remember to copy it over
>> into our TLP directory for AOO 4.0.
>>  
>>  
> 
> yes and there is already one that I have copied from the incubator. I will 
> clean this mess up tomorrow ;-)
> 
> Juergen
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> -Rob
>>  
>>  
>>> Juergen
>>>  
  
 -Rob
  
 -
 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
>>  
>>  
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[imacat]

-1 for Traditional Chinese version not included yet.

On 2013/07/18 16:54, Rory O'Farrell said:
> 
> +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
> 
> 


-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

4.0.0_release_blocker requested: [Bug 122780] Clicking Insert in dialog Insert Section incorrectly activated by Edit -> paste, cause application hung

[bugzilla]

fanyuz...@gmail.com has asked  for 4.0.0_release_blocker:
Bug 122780: Clicking Insert in dialog Insert Section incorrectly activated by
Edit -> paste, cause application hung
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780


--- Additional Comments from fanyuz...@gmail.com
Steps:
1. Open Writer
2. Click menu Edit -> Paste(it is enabled incorrectly)

Actual result: it pops up Insert Section dialog, when click "Insert", it is
hung
Expected result: menu Edit -> Paste( is disabled as default

Note:  
1. I reproduce it several times in both RC1, revision 1502185  on Windows and
RC2, revision 1503704 on Mac, but I cannot always reproduce it.
2. Document this issue in Bugzilla, if any one can reproduce it every time,
please help to update exact steps.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [RELEASE]: building a new RC on revision 1503704

[Yuzhen Fan]

I have downloaded Mac and Windows builds, they are all successfully
installed. I play on them for a while, no new problems found but a
hung/crash happens again in RC2 revision 1503704 (it has been reproduced
but not always on RC1 revision 1502185).

I document this issue in Bugzilla for our awareness although it is still
not reproduced every time in RC2. I will initial a new mail thread for this
bug and let's discuss and investigate there.

Regards,
Yu Zhen




On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the critical issue 122572 is the reason why I propose a respin for AOO
> > 4.0 on the AOO40 release branch, revision 1503704.
> >
> > The issue is critical for Windows 8 and Windows in general is our most
> > important platform. Especially now where this issue is known, we have a
> > fix and we know that there is a potential serious issue, the respin
> > makes sense at this time.
> >
> > I will also include the following issues, where we have fixes available
> >
> > 122620: update logo related images
> > This was already fixed and planned for a potential repsin. Windows
> > installer only. I have initially overseen this.
> >
> > 122709: Change default size of application windows on Linux
> > This was already fixed and planned for a potential respin. Will increase
> > the user experience
> >
> > 122578: Progressive corruption of rotated images
> > Fix available and reviewed
> >
> > 122753: Copy/Paste-as-Bitmap with GraphicObjects may show wrong graphic
> > Fix available and reviewed
> >
> > Besides new binaries and a new src release I will provide a patch for
> > all related changes for easier review.
> >
> > Juergen
>
> Linux build are ready.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>

Possible show stopper on Mac in RC2, please confirm

[Yuzhen Fan]

When open Writer on Mac, menu Edit -> Paste is enabled
incorrectly as default, click Paste, you will get an unexpected

"Insert Section" dialog, after click "Insert" in this dialog, the
application is hung.

I saw this issue several times in RC1 on Windows (but not in
RC1 with patch and RC2 on Windows so far), it now occurs
more frequently in RC2 on Mac.

I think it is a show stopper for Mac if it always reproduce,
please be aware of it for confirmation and investigation.

Here is the bug I opened,
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780


Regards,
Yu Zhen

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 7/18/13 12:01 PM, imacat wrote:
> -1 for Traditional Chinese version not included yet.
> 

Traditional Chinese is not part of the vote, means your vote is
unqualified and not valid. The reason why it is not included is also
known, sorry but this makes no sense.

Juergen


> On 2013/07/18 16:54, Rory O'Farrell said:
>> 
>> +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

4.0.0_release_blocker denied: [Bug 122780] Clicking Insert in dialog Insert Section incorrectly activated by Edit -> paste, causes application hung

[bugzilla]

j...@apache.org has denied fanyuz...@gmail.com's request for
4.0.0_release_blocker:
Bug 122780: Clicking Insert in dialog Insert Section incorrectly activated by
Edit -> paste, causes application hung
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780


--- Additional Comments from j...@apache.org
I tried it with RC 2 on Mac and can't reproduce this. In general it is valid to
have paste enabled when the clipboard is filled. In my test case the text from
the clipboard  is pasted in my new document and everything is fine.

It probably depends on what you have in the clipboard and we need further
information but I don't think it is a showstopper.

But I am willing to change the showstopper flag if we come to the conclusion
that it is a serious and reproducable problem

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

User Guides

[Shenfeng Liu]

Hi, all,
  I just noticed that the latest user guides we have is for OpenOffice.org
3.3, as below:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides

  I wonder if any one is willing to help to update the user guides for AOO
4.0?

  Thanks!

- Shenfeng (Simon)

Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 7/18/13 12:00 PM, imacat wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> The translation of Traditional Chinese was finished (100%).  Could 
> it be added to the release now? ^_^

no, it is too late and I won't do a respin. But I will integrate the
translation on trunk immediately and we can build an unofficial
snapshot version.

The reason is quite simply, it is too late, we don't know potential
other problem triggered by incorrect translation or whatever, nobody
has tested this version.

But as I wrote in another mail I will integrate it on trunk and we can
prepare a snapshot version for testing.

Sorry but the timeline were clear and I don't want to make any ad-hoc
decision.

Juergen

> 
> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
> 
> On 2013/07/18 02:57, Juergen Schmidt said:
>> Am Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 um 20:31 schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>  wrote:
 On 7/17/13 7:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> I'm trying to download the source, ASC, MD5 and SHA256
> files, but I'm getting errors
> 
> I'm using the links from this page:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
>  The binaries download fine, but I can't verify the
> source.
> 
> Anyone else running into this?
 
 well access the files directly via 
 http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/RC/4.0.0/source/

  I haven't updated the wiki, sorry.
>>> 
>>> OK. I verified the hashes and signatures.
>>> 
>>> However, we should clarify which public keys to use. Right now
>>> we say four different things:
>>> 
>>> 1) We have a KEYS file in the dist/incubator directory: 
>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/KEYS
>>> 
>>> 2) Your RC page points this file, which doesn't exist: 
>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/ooo.asc
>>> 
>>> 3) Your RC page also points to this file, which is not really
>>> suitable since it is in your personal directory: 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/aoo.KEYS
>>> 
>>> 4) The download page instructions 
>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums/3.4.1_checksums.html#howto)
>>>
>>> 
points to this file, which does exist:
>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/openoffice.asc
>>> 
>>> I thought the convention was to put a KEYS file into the root
>>> of the project's dist directory. If so we need to remember to
>>> copy it over into our TLP directory for AOO 4.0.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> yes and there is already one that I have copied from the
>> incubator. I will clean this mess up tomorrow ;-)
>> 
>> Juergen
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
>>> 
 Juergen
 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> -
>
> 
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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 7/18/13 1:07 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/18/13 12:00 PM, imacat wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The translation of Traditional Chinese was finished (100%).  Could 
>> it be added to the release now? ^_^
> 
> no, it is too late and I won't do a respin. But I will integrate the
> translation on trunk immediately and we can build an unofficial
> snapshot version.
> 
> The reason is quite simply, it is too late, we don't know potential
> other problem triggered by incorrect translation or whatever, nobody
> has tested this version.
> 
> But as I wrote in another mail I will integrate it on trunk and we can
> prepare a snapshot version for testing.
> 
> Sorry but the timeline were clear and I don't want to make any ad-hoc
> decision.

and please create a task for this

Juergen

> 
> Juergen
> 
>>
>> https://translate.apache.org/zh_TW/aoo40/
>>
>> On 2013/07/18 02:57, Juergen Schmidt said:
>>> Am Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 um 20:31 schrieb Rob Weir:
 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
  wrote:
> On 7/17/13 7:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I'm trying to download the source, ASC, MD5 and SHA256
>> files, but I'm getting errors
>>
>> I'm using the links from this page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>>
>>  The binaries download fine, but I can't verify the
>> source.
>>
>> Anyone else running into this?
>
> well access the files directly via 
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/RC/4.0.0/source/
>
>  I haven't updated the wiki, sorry.

 OK. I verified the hashes and signatures.

 However, we should clarify which public keys to use. Right now
 we say four different things:

 1) We have a KEYS file in the dist/incubator directory: 
 http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/KEYS

 2) Your RC page points this file, which doesn't exist: 
 https://people.apache.org/keys/group/ooo.asc

 3) Your RC page also points to this file, which is not really
 suitable since it is in your personal directory: 
 http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/aoo.KEYS

 4) The download page instructions 
 (http://www.openoffice.org/download/checksums/3.4.1_checksums.html#howto)


> points to this file, which does exist:
 https://people.apache.org/keys/group/openoffice.asc

 I thought the convention was to put a KEYS file into the root
 of the project's dist directory. If so we need to remember to
 copy it over into our TLP directory for AOO 4.0.


>>>
>>> yes and there is already one that I have copied from the
>>> incubator. I will clean this mess up tomorrow ;-)
>>>
>>> Juergen

 Regards,

 -Rob


> Juergen
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> -
>>
>>
> 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


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[PROPOSAL] Remove WikiAdmin email form

[Rob Weir]

Today I woke up to find approximately 15 spam messages to the dev
list, all from the WikiAdmin form.  It looks like spammers have found
it.

The signal/noise ratio for this was never good to start with -- maybe
10 misdirected support questions for every legitimate wiki admin
question.  But now with the spam it is starting to become a burden on
list moderators.

I'm proposing we replace the form on the wiki with text that either
directs the user to send their admin questions to the dev list, or to
enter them into Bugzilla where we have a place for issues related to
project-owned infrastructure.

Alternatively, maybe there is a way to add a CAPTCHA to the form,
preferable one that is impossible to solve ;-)

Regards,

-Rob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Structure of the CWiki?

[Rob Weir]

We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
entirely different approaches to organizing the information:

1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.

2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
plans for functional groups.

These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not consistently.

I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something like:

1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.

2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.

I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.

-Rob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: User Guides

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> Hi, all,
>   I just noticed that the latest user guides we have is for OpenOffice.org
> 3.3, as below:
>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides
>
>   I wonder if any one is willing to help to update the user guides for AOO
> 4.0?
>

We have a separate doc mailing list and volunteers who have been
working on the wiki here:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/UserGuide

-Rob


>   Thanks!
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove WikiAdmin email form

[FR web forum]

>Alternatively, maybe there is a way to add a CAPTCHA to the form,
>preferable one that is impossible to solve ;-)
Seems to be possible like this example:
http://brightbyte.de/mw/index.php?title=Special:Contact

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
> (RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
> important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
> It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>[ ]  0 Don't care
>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

+1

-Rob


> -
> 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

Release communications -- plans

[Rob Weir]

The Release Notes are starting to look very nice.  It is worth
reviewing if you have not looked recently:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes

This is the primary statement of what is in the release.  The
introductory sections are general enough that this page can be used as
a self-contained announcement message. It doesn't require additional
context.

However, we will have additional announcement statements.

1) There will be a press release.  This repeats a subset of the
contents of the release nots, but it the format and style that is
expected in a press release.  Don Harbison took the lead on drafting
that.

2) We should also have a brief blog post.  Maybe only a paragraph or
two and then a link to the Release Notes.  I don't want to spend too
much time on the blog post since I am almost certain the blog will
crash under load.  For that reason I'd recommend that we don't promote
the blog page via social media, etc.,   Promote the Release Notes
instead.

In the past we've translated the blog post.  But in this case I'd
recommend we focus on translating the Release Notes.

3) A brief announcement to our mailing lists, including the 9000
subscribers of our announcement mailing list.  Again, linking back to
the Release Notes.

4) Posts to Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc.  This is something where
everyone can help spread the news, by sharing, +1'ing,  RT'ing,. etc.

Regards,

-Rob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Fwd: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"

[Rob Weir]

Forwarding to our development mailing list where you are more likely
to get an answer.

-Rob


-- Forwarded message --
From: Singhal, Ankur 
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Subject: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"
To: "us...@openoffice.apache.org" 


Hi Team,

I need all your help in resolving my issues, while setting up my
machine(Windows 7) for development on OpenOffice.

Steps I have followed to build
(http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7)

1)  I have downloaded source code directly from
http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk .

2)  Did my configure using the below paths:

--with-cl-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC" \

--with-mspdb-path="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/Common7/IDE" \

--with-frame-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \

--with-psdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \

--with-midl-path="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0/Bin" \

--with-asm-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/bin" \

--with-csc-path="/cygdrive/c/WINDOWS/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v3.5" \

--with-jdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Java64/jdk1.6.0_35"\

--with-ant-home="/cygdrive/c/apache-ant-1.9.2" \

--with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
\

--with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \

--disable-directx \

--enable-dbgutil \

--enable-pch \

--disable-atl \

--disable-activex \

--disable-binfilter \

--without-junit

3)  Bootstrap ran properly.

4)  dmake is failing to build "stlport" module with the error
"File to Patch:"


Options that I have tried:

1)  Resolving the conflicts by going to separate files like
VC7.mak, _monetary.c, _num_put.c, _time_facets.c, _list.h.

After resolving conflicts it gives error as below:

.\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
*,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'

2)  I tried moving from Visual Studio 2008 to Visual Studio 2010.

It starts giving other error about a file named "exception" under
Visual Studio. I believe Visual Studio 2010 is not supported by
OpenOffice.

3)  I tried replacing module "stlport-4.5" with "stlport-5.2.1"
and compiling  the module. (With Visual Studio 2008)

But I am still facing the same issue.

.\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
*,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'

It would be very helpful if someone can help me in resolving this
issue or if someone have faced the same issue earlier.

I believe this is not an issue related to code but a configuration issue.

Thanks in Advance,
Ankur Singhal

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove WikiAdmin email form

[janI]

Contact page is removed.

Can we please find a way to qualify BZ requests in the future, so we can
avoid triple work (add contact page, move contact page, remove contact
page).

Qualifying request in BZ should make it obvious if its a wish, or something
the community have agreed upon.

rgds
jan I.



On 18 July 2013 15:32, FR web forum  wrote:

> >Alternatively, maybe there is a way to add a CAPTCHA to the form,
> >preferable one that is impossible to solve ;-)
> Seems to be possible like this example:
> http://brightbyte.de/mw/index.php?title=Special:Contact
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[janI]

On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:

> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
> entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
>
> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
>
> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
> plans for functional groups.
>
> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> consistently.
>
> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something like:
>
> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
>
> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
>
> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
>

If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge with
mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of wiki,
and it do cost maintenance.

rgds
jan I.


>
> -Rob
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Shenfeng Liu]

2013/7/17 Jürgen Schmidt 

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
> (RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
> important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
> It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>[ ]  0 Don't care
>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0

- Shenfeng (Simon)



>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Fwd: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"

[Herbert Duerr]

On 18.07.2013 16:26, Rob Weir wrote:

Forwarding to our development mailing list where you are more likely
to get an answer.

-Rob


-- Forwarded message --
From: Singhal, Ankur 
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Subject: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"
To: "us...@openoffice.apache.org" 


Hi Team,

I need all your help in resolving my issues, while setting up my
machine(Windows 7) for development on OpenOffice.

Steps I have followed to build
(http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7)

1)  I have downloaded source code directly from
http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk .

2)  Did my configure using the below paths:
[...]
It would be very helpful if someone can help me in resolving this
issue or if someone have faced the same issue earlier.

I believe this is not an issue related to code but a configuration issue.


Please also use the configure option
--without-stlport

With all platforms not using stlport any longer stlport4 will be removed 
and this option will be enabled by default. For a little while longer it 
is still needed.


I updated the Wiki page you referenced.

Herbert


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
>> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
>> entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
>>
>> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
>> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
>>
>> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
>> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
>> plans for functional groups.
>>
>> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
>> consistently.
>>
>> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something like:
>>
>> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
>> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
>> lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
>> change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
>> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
>>
>> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
>> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
>>
>> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
>>
>
> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge with
> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of wiki,
> and it do cost maintenance.
>

Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
images, etc.

-Rob

> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> -
>> 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] Remove WikiAdmin email form

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM, janI  wrote:
> Contact page is removed.
>
> Can we please find a way to qualify BZ requests in the future, so we can
> avoid triple work (add contact page, move contact page, remove contact
> page).
>
> Qualifying request in BZ should make it obvious if its a wish, or something
> the community have agreed upon.
>

What Infra does in some cases with JIRA, is require a URL to a thread
where the requester sought lazy consensus on the dev list first.
Maybe for some kinds of requests we do that?

Of course, that is not guaranteed to prevent all issues like this.  It
only reduces them,

-Rob

> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>
> On 18 July 2013 15:32, FR web forum  wrote:
>
>> >Alternatively, maybe there is a way to add a CAPTCHA to the form,
>> >preferable one that is impossible to solve ;-)
>> Seems to be possible like this example:
>> http://brightbyte.de/mw/index.php?title=Special:Contact
>>
>> -
>> 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

It is time to update your entry in the Directory of Volunteers

[Rob Weir]

Make sure you are included in our Directory of Volunteers and that the
information is as you want it to appear:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers

This page is linked to (indirectly) from the "credits" link of the
Help/About dialog box in AOO 4.0.  It will also be mentioned in
release announcements.

You can sign up for a wiki account, or send your information directly
to me and I will add it for you.

Regards,

-Rob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Release communications -- plans

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> The Release Notes are starting to look very nice.  It is worth
> reviewing if you have not looked recently:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
>
> This is the primary statement of what is in the release.  The
> introductory sections are general enough that this page can be used as
> a self-contained announcement message. It doesn't require additional
> context.
>
> However, we will have additional announcement statements.
>
> 1) There will be a press release.  This repeats a subset of the
> contents of the release nots, but it the format and style that is
> expected in a press release.  Don Harbison took the lead on drafting
> that.
>
> 2) We should also have a brief blog post.  Maybe only a paragraph or
> two and then a link to the Release Notes.  I don't want to spend too
> much time on the blog post since I am almost certain the blog will
> crash under load.  For that reason I'd recommend that we don't promote
> the blog page via social media, etc.,   Promote the Release Notes
> instead.
>

Draft here:  
https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=a_short_celebration_and_then


> In the past we've translated the blog post.  But in this case I'd
> recommend we focus on translating the Release Notes.
>
> 3) A brief announcement to our mailing lists, including the 9000
> subscribers of our announcement mailing list.  Again, linking back to
> the Release Notes.
>
> 4) Posts to Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc.  This is something where
> everyone can help spread the news, by sharing, +1'ing,  RT'ing,. etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Mac release

[Andre Fischer]

On 17.07.2013 22:50, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 07/15/2013 07:06 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

Am 07/15/2013 06:57 PM, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 15.07.2013 18:08, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Marcus (OOo) 
wrote:


Am 07/15/2013 10:18 AM, schrieb Andre Fischer:

Issue 122732 [1]reminded me of the problem on Mac where the system

complains that the AOO installation packaged does not come from the
Apple app store. As Ariel pointed out, this is covered in the 
release

notes for AOO 3.4.0 and 3.4.1.

I am not sure that that many users would find the note in the 
release

notes, follow the link to the solution and fix it.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to explain this at a more 
visible
place, like the download button for the Mac version. Does anybody 
know

if that is possible?

-Andre


[1]
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122732 





It is possible. However I don't like to have an exception for 
users of
platform X. This would make the "index.html" more unreadable than 
it is

already.

Therefore I've created a general text and link to the release 
notes (of

course, it's still intermediate):

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





1) Directly in the main green box.
2) In a second sub-green box.

Please have a look and tell what you think. IMHO 1) is better.

Marcus

1) is better.


I like 1 better, too. But it still looks too prominent. We don't 
want to
scare our users (when only a minority will run into this problem). 
Maybe

an explanation in the release notes is enough.


I've decreased the font size a bit. And remember only 1) or 2) will
survive at the end. Currently it's duplicated which maybe supports the
too prominent look & feel.


@Andre, all:
What do you think: Keep or leave? I just need to know this how to 
handle the final webpage.


Better leave it out.

-Andre



Thanks

Marcus




maybe change wording to "Click here for known installation issues"

I know this is going to the Release Notes page...but maybe we should
focus
on highlighting "installation".

I just edited Release Notes to duplicate the Mac OS X info in the
Upgrading/Installing section. Left it in Known Issues as well.


Great thanks.


-
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][DISCUSS]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[imacat]

On 2013/07/18 19:09, Jürgen Schmidt said:
> On 7/18/13 1:07 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 7/18/13 12:00 PM, imacat wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The translation of Traditional Chinese was finished (100%).  Could 
>>> it be added to the release now? ^_^
>>
>> no, it is too late and I won't do a respin. But I will integrate the
>> translation on trunk immediately and we can build an unofficial
>> snapshot version.
>>
>> The reason is quite simply, it is too late, we don't know potential
>> other problem triggered by incorrect translation or whatever, nobody
>> has tested this version.
>>
>> But as I wrote in another mail I will integrate it on trunk and we can
>> prepare a snapshot version for testing.
>>
>> Sorry but the timeline were clear and I don't want to make any ad-hoc
>> decision.
> 
> and please create a task for this

I see.  Thanks. ^_*'

And how to create a task?  Sorry I haven't done that before.

And thanks to you and everyone for all these works for the release
of 4.0.  Sorry that I did not help much on this.

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/7/18 imacat 

> On 2013/07/18 19:09, Jürgen Schmidt said:
> > On 7/18/13 1:07 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 7/18/13 12:00 PM, imacat wrote:
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> The translation of Traditional Chinese was finished (100%).  Could
> >>> it be added to the release now? ^_^
> >>
> >> no, it is too late and I won't do a respin. But I will integrate the
> >> translation on trunk immediately and we can build an unofficial
> >> snapshot version.
> >>
> >> The reason is quite simply, it is too late, we don't know potential
> >> other problem triggered by incorrect translation or whatever, nobody
> >> has tested this version.
> >>
> >> But as I wrote in another mail I will integrate it on trunk and we can
> >> prepare a snapshot version for testing.
> >>
> >> Sorry but the timeline were clear and I don't want to make any ad-hoc
> >> decision.
> >
> > and please create a task for this
>
> I see.  Thanks. ^_*'
>
> And how to create a task?  Sorry I haven't done that before.
>

Just create a new issue in bugzilla and assign it to Jürgen.

Regards
Ricardo


>
> And thanks to you and everyone for all these works for the release
> of 4.0.  Sorry that I did not help much on this.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' 
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
> Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/
>
>

Re: Release communications -- plans

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > The Release Notes are starting to look very nice.  It is worth
> > reviewing if you have not looked recently:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> >
> > This is the primary statement of what is in the release.  The
> > introductory sections are general enough that this page can be used as
> > a self-contained announcement message. It doesn't require additional
> > context.
> >
> > However, we will have additional announcement statements.
> >
> > 1) There will be a press release.  This repeats a subset of the
> > contents of the release nots, but it the format and style that is
> > expected in a press release.  Don Harbison took the lead on drafting
> > that.
> >
> > 2) We should also have a brief blog post.  Maybe only a paragraph or
> > two and then a link to the Release Notes.  I don't want to spend too
> > much time on the blog post since I am almost certain the blog will
> > crash under load.  For that reason I'd recommend that we don't promote
> > the blog page via social media, etc.,   Promote the Release Notes
> > instead.
> >
>
> Draft here:
> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=a_short_celebration_and_then
>

I can't get to blogs at the moment. :/


>
>
> > In the past we've translated the blog post.  But in this case I'd
> > recommend we focus on translating the Release Notes.
> >
> > 3) A brief announcement to our mailing lists, including the 9000
> > subscribers of our announcement mailing list.  Again, linking back to
> > the Release Notes.
> >
> > 4) Posts to Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc.  This is something where
> > everyone can help spread the news, by sharing, +1'ing,  RT'ing,. etc.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
>

sounds good...


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Fwd: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Ankur,

is it correct, that you want to build the version 3.4.1?

Kind regards
Regina

Rob Weir schrieb:

Forwarding to our development mailing list where you are more likely
to get an answer.

-Rob


-- Forwarded message --
From: Singhal, Ankur 
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Subject: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"
To: "us...@openoffice.apache.org" 


Hi Team,

I need all your help in resolving my issues, while setting up my
machine(Windows 7) for development on OpenOffice.

Steps I have followed to build
(http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step_by_step#Windows_7)

1)  I have downloaded source code directly from
http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk .

2)  Did my configure using the below paths:

--with-cl-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC" \

--with-mspdb-path="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/Common7/IDE" \

--with-frame-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \

--with-psdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \

--with-midl-path="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v7.0/Bin" \

--with-asm-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/bin" \

--with-csc-path="/cygdrive/c/WINDOWS/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v3.5" \

--with-jdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Java64/jdk1.6.0_35"\

--with-ant-home="/cygdrive/c/apache-ant-1.9.2" \

--with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
\

--with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz \

--disable-directx \

--enable-dbgutil \

--enable-pch \

--disable-atl \

--disable-activex \

--disable-binfilter \

--without-junit

3)  Bootstrap ran properly.

4)  dmake is failing to build "stlport" module with the error
"File to Patch:"


Options that I have tried:

1)  Resolving the conflicts by going to separate files like
VC7.mak, _monetary.c, _num_put.c, _time_facets.c, _list.h.

After resolving conflicts it gives error as below:

.\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
*,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'

2)  I tried moving from Visual Studio 2008 to Visual Studio 2010.

It starts giving other error about a file named "exception" under
Visual Studio. I believe Visual Studio 2010 is not supported by
OpenOffice.

3)  I tried replacing module "stlport-4.5" with "stlport-5.2.1"
and compiling  the module. (With Visual Studio 2008)

But I am still facing the same issue.

.\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
*,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in
'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'

It would be very helpful if someone can help me in resolving this
issue or if someone have faced the same issue earlier.

I believe this is not an issue related to code but a configuration issue.

Thanks in Advance,
Ankur Singhal

-
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: Structure of the CWiki?

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
> entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
>
> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
>
> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
> plans for functional groups.
>
> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> consistently.
>
> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something like:
>
> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
>
> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
>
> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
>
> -Rob
>

yes, this is a good reorganization format. +1


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[janI]

On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
> > On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
> >> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
> >> entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
> >>
> >> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> >> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
> >>
> >> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> >> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
> >> plans for functional groups.
> >>
> >> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> >> consistently.
> >>
> >> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
> like:
> >>
> >> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> >> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> >> lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> >> change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
> >> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
> >>
> >> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> >> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
> >>
> >> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
> >>
> >
> > If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
> with
> > mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of wiki,
> > and it do cost maintenance.
> >
>
> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
> images, etc.
>

So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
productsWe should have been a goverment agency.

But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.

rgds
jan I.


>
> -Rob
>
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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 OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Keith N. McKenna]

janI wrote:

+1

rgds
jan I


On 17 July 2013 09:40, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:


Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
(RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.

This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
to former OpenOffice releases:

(1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
Symphony grant in OpenOffice.

(2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
interoperability issues

(3) 600 defects are fixed

(4) many more features and improvements are integrated

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
.
But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
updated and polished ...

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot

The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html

The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.

But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.

[X] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
[ ]  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





 [X] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
 [ ]  0 Don't care
 [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Regards
Keith



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Dave Fisher]

On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:

> On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
>>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> 
 We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
 looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
 entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
 
 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
 there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
 
 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
 release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
 plans for functional groups.
 
 These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
 consistently.
 
 I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
>> like:
 
 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
 release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
 lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
 change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
 what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
 
 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
 and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
 
 I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
 
>>> 
>>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
>> with
>>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of wiki,
>>> and it do cost maintenance.
>>> 
>> 
>> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
>> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
>> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
>> images, etc.

Exactly. 

>> 
> 
> So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
> productsWe should have been a goverment agency.

Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki on 
day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many months. 
(1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the migration 
which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you want to find 
out about the "difficulties" that occurred.

The CWiki serves its purpose very well.

> But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.

If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help however I 
can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to Admin it which 
quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much effort has it taken to 
manage MWiki?

The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must manage our 
own MediaWiki.

Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe some 
of the CWiki content belongs there?

Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>> 
>>> 
 
 -Rob
 
 -
 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: Structure of the CWiki?

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
>
>> On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
 On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:

> We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
> looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
> entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
>
> 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
>
> 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
> plans for functional groups.
>
> These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> consistently.
>
> I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
>>> like:
>
> 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
> what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
>
> 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
>
> I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
>

 If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
>>> with
 mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of wiki,
 and it do cost maintenance.

>>>
>>> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
>>> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
>>> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
>>> images, etc.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>>
>>
>> So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
>> productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
>
> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki on 
> day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many 
> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the 
> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you 
> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
>
> The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
>
>> But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
>
> If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help however I 
> can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to Admin it 
> which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much effort has it 
> taken to manage MWiki?
>
> The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must manage 
> our own MediaWiki.
>
> Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe 
> some of the CWiki content belongs there?
>

Certainly the blog could move to WordPress.  I know WordPress pretty
well, been using it for 8 years or so on my personal blog.  It has
support for blog posts as well as "pages", which can be static content
that is not tied to a post or a typical RSS stream.   But I'd probably
just use that for content that is very strongly associated with the
blog, e.g., a comment policy or a page that tells where to go for
support.  It might not be worth using it for yet-another-cms for the
project.

Most of the stuff we have on CWiki is inward-facing pages that we use
to coordinate on parts of the project.  I think that is distinct from
the blog content.  And maybe even distinct from what most of the MWiki
is used for, which is more user facing.

As you know, we've had this discussion before and more than once.  We
have the same situation with www.openoffice.org versus
openoffice.apache.org.  Project-facing versus user-facing.

Of course, this doesn't determine our technical approach.  We could
use a single technology and have both project-facing and user-facing
content in the same tool, if we structured it right.  But the rewards
seem less tangible than the effort required to get there.

Regards,

-Rob

> Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
 rgds
 jan I.


>
> -Rob
>
> -
> 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.apach

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[janI]

On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
>
> > On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
> >>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>>
>  We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
>  looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
>  entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
> 
>  1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
>  there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
> 
>  2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
>  release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
>  plans for functional groups.
> 
>  These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
>  consistently.
> 
>  I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
> >> like:
> 
>  1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
>  release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
>  lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
>  change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
>  what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
> 
>  2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
>  and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
> 
>  I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
> 
> >>>
> >>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
> >> with
> >>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
> wiki,
> >>> and it do cost maintenance.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
> >> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
> >> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
> >> images, etc.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >>
> >
> > So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
> > productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
>
> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki
> on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many
> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you
> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
>

I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have also
seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry it
did not work out between him and infra).

on #asfinfra (where I am online)  root@ already told me some time ago about
the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type
problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra)

As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can we
do betterI cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have
them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an argument
for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the agency
part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion.



The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
>

I am sure it does, and did not dispute thatI am solely thinking of our
stretched maintenance resources (including infra), at some point we do need
to consolidate our information stores.

We have our different www's, different wikis and a blog all containing bits
and pieces of information, some of it redundant (and often not maintained
in some of the flavours), on top of that we have the forums.

My point is, independent how difficult it is, we should target a
consolidated set of information, with a clear signal, where which info is
kept.



> > But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
>
> If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help
> however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to
> Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much
> effort has it taken to manage MWiki?
>

You already help a lot, thanks for that, and you are right it will be a
hard job to get it done after a community decision.

>
> The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must
> manage our own MediaWiki.
>

I have no opinion on which systems shall survive, if we think CWIKI is the
better choice then so be it. But please dont forget ASF is you, me and many
others. What I mean is, when I maintain the servers, its hard to see if I
wear my AOO cap or my ASF/INFRA cap.

>
> Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe
> some of the CWiki content belongs there?
>

It is at the moment only a infra consideration and test. I have not dared
suggest it, but WP woul

Re: Openoffice Base copy function

[Kay Schenk]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, John 73 WA4GPS <73wa4...@sc.rr.com> wrote:

> In my club membership data base, I can use "Filter by Selection" to
> isolate a group of members that I want to send an E-mail to and, if I click
> on the "E-mail Address" field label, the entire column is highlighted but
> when I click on "Copy" and then try to "Paste" the block of E-mail
> Addresses in the Bcc field of on E-mail, I only get one E-mail address!  I
> need to be able to copy the entire block of E-mail Addresses.
>
> John


I had the same experience. You might get additional help on how to do what
you want from either the "users" list or the Forums. See our Support page:

 http://www.openoffice.org/support/index.html





-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
>
> > On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
> >>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>>
>  We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
>  looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
>  entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
> 
>  1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
>  there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
> 
>  2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
>  release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
>  plans for functional groups.
> 
>  These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
>  consistently.
> 
>  I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
> >> like:
> 
>  1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
>  release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
>  lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
>  change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
>  what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
> 
>  2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
>  and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
> 
>  I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
> 
> >>>
> >>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
> >> with
> >>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
> wiki,
> >>> and it do cost maintenance.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
> >> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
> >> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
> >> images, etc.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >>
> >
> > So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
> > productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
>
> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki
> on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many
> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you
> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
>
> The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
>

I LIKE CWiki!


>
> > But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
>
> If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help
> however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to
> Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much
> effort has it taken to manage MWiki?
>
> The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must
> manage our own MediaWiki.
>

I propose we take up the issue of wiki merging again soon. A lot has
changed since our last in-depth discussion on this. And, a lot has changed
with each of these products since that discussion.


> Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe
> some of the CWiki content belongs there?
>
> Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?
>


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> rgds
> >>> jan I.
> >>>
> >>>
> 
>  -Rob
> 
>  -
>  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
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
> >
> >> On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
>  On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
> > We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.
>  When
> > looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking
> two
> > entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
> >
> > 1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> > there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
> >
> > 2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> > release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
> > plans for functional groups.
> >
> > These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> > consistently.
> >
> > I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
> >>> like:
> >
> > 1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> > release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> > lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> > change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
> > what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
> >
> > 2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> > and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
> >
> > I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
> >
> 
>  If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
> >>> with
>  mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
> wiki,
>  and it do cost maintenance.
> 
> >>>
> >>> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
> >>> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
> >>> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
> >>> images, etc.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >> So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
> >> productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
> >
> > Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the
> CWiki on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for
> many months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do
> the migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if
> you want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
> >
> > The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
> >
> >> But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
> >
> > If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help
> however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to
> Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much
> effort has it taken to manage MWiki?
> >
> > The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must
> manage our own MediaWiki.
> >
> > Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller.
> Maybe some of the CWiki content belongs there?
> >
>
> Certainly the blog could move to WordPress.  I know WordPress pretty
> well, been using it for 8 years or so on my personal blog.  It has
> support for blog posts as well as "pages", which can be static content
> that is not tied to a post or a typical RSS stream.   But I'd probably
> just use that for content that is very strongly associated with the
> blog, e.g., a comment policy or a page that tells where to go for
> support.  It might not be worth using it for yet-another-cms for the
> project.
>
> Most of the stuff we have on CWiki is inward-facing pages that we use
> to coordinate on parts of the project.  I think that is distinct from
> the blog content.  And maybe even distinct from what most of the MWiki
> is used for, which is more user facing.
>
> As you know, we've had this discussion before and more than once.  We
> have the same situation with www.openoffice.org versus
> openoffice.apache.org.  Project-facing versus user-facing.
>
> Of course, this doesn't determine our technical approach.  We could
> use a single technology and have both project-facing and user-facing
> content in the same tool, if we structured it right.



...yes...


>  But the rewards
> seem less tangible than the effort required to get there.
>

I'm not sure about this one. Migration, of some sort, is a one time deal.
Administration is forever.




>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> > Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >>
> >> rgds
> >> jan I.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
>  rgds
>  jan I.
> 
> 
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > -

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
> (RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
> important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
> It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>
> This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
> to former OpenOffice releases:
>
> (1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
> where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
> reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
> existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
> Symphony grant in OpenOffice.
>
> (2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
> interoperability issues
>
> (3) 600 defects are fixed
>
> (4) many more features and improvements are integrated
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes
> .
> But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
> updated and polished ...
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot
>
> The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
> http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html
>
> The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.
>
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
>
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>[ ]  0 Don't care
>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

+1


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Steele, Raymond]

Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
update to support Java 7. Thought?



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be 
> looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that now 
> have Oracle identified as the provider.

This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs that had 
"Oracle" as a vendor. See
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165

Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

No distribution of OpenOffice.org 3.3 was built at Apache OpenOffice.  (There 
was an out-of-cycle security fix, but that did not require rebuilding the 
application.  I don't believe that fix was provided for Solaris, however.)  The 
Apache OpenOffice code base was based on OpenOffice.org code that was later 
than OpenOffice.org 3.3 code.

As you know, Apache OpenOffice has not provided any Solaris builds for its 
releases.  

It would appear that the best that can happen is if a private party with an eye 
on this list is able to offer such a rebuild.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Andrea Pescetti; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
update to support Java 7. Thought?



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be 
> looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that now 
> have Oracle identified as the provider.

This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs that had 
"Oracle" as a vendor. See
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165

Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.

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: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Steele, Raymond]

Thanks for responding. Do you know who built the Solaris Intel distributions 
posted on this page?

http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/other.html

I am not adverse to rebuilding the code for Solaris 10 x86, but in the 
meantime, I am looking for a quicker solution to my problem.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:08 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Steele, Raymond
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

No distribution of OpenOffice.org 3.3 was built at Apache OpenOffice.  (There 
was an out-of-cycle security fix, but that did not require rebuilding the 
application.  I don't believe that fix was provided for Solaris, however.)  The 
Apache OpenOffice code base was based on OpenOffice.org code that was later 
than OpenOffice.org 3.3 code.

As you know, Apache OpenOffice has not provided any Solaris builds for its 
releases.  

It would appear that the best that can happen is if a private party with an eye 
on this list is able to offer such a rebuild.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Andrea Pescetti; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
update to support Java 7. Thought?



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be 
> looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that now 
> have Oracle identified as the provider.

This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs that had 
"Oracle" as a vendor. See
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165

Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/18/2013 10:14 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:

Thanks for responding. Do you know who built the Solaris Intel distributions 
posted on this page?

http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/other.html

I am not adverse to rebuilding the code for Solaris 10 x86, but in the 
meantime, I am looking for a quicker solution to my problem.


I know my answer will not help you:

The inventor of Solaris - Sun Microsystems - has done all the Solaris 
x86 and Sparc builds offered on the webpage, and also all Windows, Linux 
and Mac OS builds.


Marcus




-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:08 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Steele, Raymond
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

No distribution of OpenOffice.org 3.3 was built at Apache OpenOffice.  (There 
was an out-of-cycle security fix, but that did not require rebuilding the 
application.  I don't believe that fix was provided for Solaris, however.)  The 
Apache OpenOffice code base was based on OpenOffice.org code that was later 
than OpenOffice.org 3.3 code.

As you know, Apache OpenOffice has not provided any Solaris builds for its 
releases.

It would appear that the best that can happen is if a private party with an eye 
on this list is able to offer such a rebuild.

  - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Andrea Pescetti; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
update to support Java 7. Thought?



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be
looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that now
have Oracle identified as the provider.


This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs that had 
"Oracle" as a vendor. See
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165

Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.

Regards,
Andrea.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Steele, Raymond]

Thanks and yes, no help!

-Original Message-
From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:28 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Steele, Raymond
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Am 07/18/2013 10:14 PM, schrieb Steele, Raymond:
> Thanks for responding. Do you know who built the Solaris Intel distributions 
> posted on this page?
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/other.html
>
> I am not adverse to rebuilding the code for Solaris 10 x86, but in the 
> meantime, I am looking for a quicker solution to my problem.

I know my answer will not help you:

The inventor of Solaris - Sun Microsystems - has done all the Solaris
x86 and Sparc builds offered on the webpage, and also all Windows, Linux and 
Mac OS builds.

Marcus



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:08 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Steele, Raymond
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7
>
> No distribution of OpenOffice.org 3.3 was built at Apache OpenOffice.  (There 
> was an out-of-cycle security fix, but that did not require rebuilding the 
> application.  I don't believe that fix was provided for Solaris, however.)  
> The Apache OpenOffice code base was based on OpenOffice.org code that was 
> later than OpenOffice.org 3.3 code.
>
> As you know, Apache OpenOffice has not provided any Solaris builds for its 
> releases.
>
> It would appear that the best that can happen is if a private party with an 
> eye on this list is able to offer such a rebuild.
>
>   - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM
> To: Andrea Pescetti; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7
>
> Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
> easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
> sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
> compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
> update to support Java 7. Thought?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7
>
> On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> 2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be 
>> looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that 
>> now have Oracle identified as the provider.
>
> This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs 
> that had "Oracle" as a vendor. See
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165
>
> Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/18/2013 08:41 PM, schrieb janI:

On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher  wrote:



On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:


On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:

On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:


We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
entirely different approaches to organizing the information:

1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.

2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
plans for functional groups.

These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
consistently.

I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something

like:


1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.

2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.

I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.



If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge

with

mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of

wiki,

and it do cost maintenance.



Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
images, etc.


Exactly.





So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
productsWe should have been a goverment agency.


Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki
on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many
months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you
want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.



I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have also
seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry it
did not work out between him and infra).

on #asfinfra (where I am online)  root@ already told me some time ago about
the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type
problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra)

As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can we
do betterI cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have
them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an argument
for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the agency
part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion.



The CWiki serves its purpose very well.




I am sure it does, and did not dispute thatI am solely thinking of our
stretched maintenance resources (including infra), at some point we do need
to consolidate our information stores.

We have our different www's, different wikis and a blog all containing bits
and pieces of information, some of it redundant (and often not maintained
in some of the flavours), on top of that we have the forums.

My point is, independent how difficult it is, we should target a
consolidated set of information, with a clear signal, where which info is
kept.




But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.


If the project wants to move to one wiki - sure go ahead. I'll help
however I can when I have time. I would perfectly happy to longer have to
Admin it which quite frankly has not been much of an effort. How much
effort has it taken to manage MWiki?



You already help a lot, thanks for that, and you are right it will be a
hard job to get it done after a community decision.



The balance is that the ASF manages Confluence, but the project must
manage our own MediaWiki.



I have no opinion on which systems shall survive, if we think CWIKI is the
better choice then so be it. But please dont forget ASF is you, me and many
others. What I mean is, when I maintain the servers, its hard to see if I
wear my AOO cap or my ASF/INFRA cap.



Since the ASF is considering WordPress as a replacement for Roller. Maybe
some of the CWiki content belongs there?



It is at the moment only a infra consideration and test. I have not dared
suggest it, but WP would be able to handle blog, cwiki, mediawiki and large
parts of www.



Anyone object to the deletion of the unused OOODEV cwiki?



+1

rgds
jan I


I have nothing against deletion.

And I think Jan means the same. ;-)

Marcus


---

Re: Mac release

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/18/2013 05:23 PM, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 17.07.2013 22:50, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 07/15/2013 07:06 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

Am 07/15/2013 06:57 PM, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 15.07.2013 18:08, Kay Schenk wrote:

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Marcus (OOo) 
wrote:


Am 07/15/2013 10:18 AM, schrieb Andre Fischer:

Issue 122732 [1]reminded me of the problem on Mac where the system

complains that the AOO installation packaged does not come from the
Apple app store. As Ariel pointed out, this is covered in the
release
notes for AOO 3.4.0 and 3.4.1.

I am not sure that that many users would find the note in the
release
notes, follow the link to the solution and fix it.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to explain this at a more
visible
place, like the download button for the Mac version. Does anybody
know
if that is possible?

-Andre


[1]
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122732





It is possible. However I don't like to have an exception for
users of
platform X. This would make the "index.html" more unreadable than
it is
already.

Therefore I've created a general text and link to the release
notes (of
course, it's still intermediate):

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




1) Directly in the main green box.
2) In a second sub-green box.

Please have a look and tell what you think. IMHO 1) is better.

Marcus

1) is better.


I like 1 better, too. But it still looks too prominent. We don't
want to
scare our users (when only a minority will run into this problem).
Maybe
an explanation in the release notes is enough.


I've decreased the font size a bit. And remember only 1) or 2) will
survive at the end. Currently it's duplicated which maybe supports the
too prominent look & feel.


@Andre, all:
What do you think: Keep or leave? I just need to know this how to
handle the final webpage.


Better leave it out.


OK, it's gone from the test webpage.

Marcus




maybe change wording to "Click here for known installation issues"

I know this is going to the Release Notes page...but maybe we should
focus
on highlighting "installation".

I just edited Release Notes to duplicate the Mac OS X info in the
Upgrading/Installing section. Left it in Known Issues as well.


Great thanks.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Cwiki vs Media WIki again...

[Kay Schenk]

In continuing discussions, some of you may be interested in this site:

http://www.wikimatrix.org/

No sure about accuracy.

-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, janI  wrote:
> On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
>>
>> > On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
>> >>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >>>
>>  We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.When
>>  looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking two
>>  entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
>> 
>>  1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
>>  there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
>> 
>>  2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
>>  release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status and
>>  plans for functional groups.
>> 
>>  These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
>>  consistently.
>> 
>>  I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing something
>> >> like:
>> 
>>  1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
>>  release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
>>  lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
>>  change from release to release.  It is information about the team and
>>  what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
>> 
>>  2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
>>  and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
>> 
>>  I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a merge
>> >> with
>> >>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
>> wiki,
>> >>> and it do cost maintenance.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be more
>> >> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
>> >> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
>> >> images, etc.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
>> > productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
>>
>> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the CWiki
>> on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for many
>> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
>> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if you
>> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
>>
>
> I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have also
> seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry it
> did not work out between him and infra).
>
> on #asfinfra (where I am online)  root@ already told me some time ago about
> the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type
> problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra)
>
> As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can we
> do betterI cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have
> them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an argument
> for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the agency
> part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion.
>

No one ever said you shouldn't raise concerns.  To me it looked like
you self-censored yourself when you said you "wont press further ".

But you do overstate things when you express them in absolute terms,
e.g., saying this is about "doing the right thing".  Remember, there
are many "right things" any of us could be doing in the project (or
elsewhere), but there are only 24 hours in the day.  This necessarily
leads to prioritization.

Migrating existing, perfectly good content from one technical
infrastructure to another is not high on my personal list of
priorities.  This, however, should not inhibit you are anyone else
interested from exploring this further. The direction is set by those
who think something is important, not by those, like myself, who are
indifferent.

Regards,

-Rob

>
>
> The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
>>
>
> I am sure it does, and did not dispute thatI am solely thinking of our
> stretched maintenance resources (including infra), at some point we do need
> to consolidate our information stores.
>
> We have our different www's, different wikis and a blog all containing bits
> and pieces of information, some of it redundant (and often not maintained
> in some of the flavours), on top of that we have the forums.
>
> My point is, independent how difficult it is, we should target a
> consolidated set of information, with a clear signal, where which info is
> kept.
>
>
>
>> > But I get your point, and wont press further for a simpler maintenance.
>>
>> If

Re: Cwiki vs Media WIki again...

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 07/18/2013 11:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

In continuing discussions, some of you may be interested in this site:

http://www.wikimatrix.org/

No sure about accuracy.


Great link, thanks!

Now both can be compared with facts - assumed they are correct. ;-)

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Cwiki vs Media WIki again...

[janI]

On 18 July 2013 23:32, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 07/18/2013 11:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>  In continuing discussions, some of you may be interested in this site:
>>
>> http://www.wikimatrix.org/
>>
>> No sure about accuracy.
>>
>
> Great link, thanks!
>
> Now both can be compared with facts - assumed they are correct. ;-)
>

great site, thx a lot.

I ran a compare and the difference I look after showed up.

sadly enough it does not compare to WP.

rgds
jan I.


>
> Marcus
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The 3.3.0 Releases were all by Oracle on January 18, 2011.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 01:15 PM
To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Thanks for responding. Do you know who built the Solaris Intel distributions 
posted on this page?

http://www.openoffice.org/download/legacy/other.html

I am not adverse to rebuilding the code for Solaris 10 x86, but in the 
meantime, I am looking for a quicker solution to my problem.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:08 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Steele, Raymond
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

No distribution of OpenOffice.org 3.3 was built at Apache OpenOffice.  (There 
was an out-of-cycle security fix, but that did not require rebuilding the 
application.  I don't believe that fix was provided for Solaris, however.)  The 
Apache OpenOffice code base was based on OpenOffice.org code that was later 
than OpenOffice.org 3.3 code.

As you know, Apache OpenOffice has not provided any Solaris builds for its 
releases.  

It would appear that the best that can happen is if a private party with an eye 
on this list is able to offer such a rebuild.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Steele, Raymond [mailto:raymond.ste...@lmco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Andrea Pescetti; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

Who completed the OpenOffice 3.3 Solaris x86 build? It seems that we could 
easily add the new vendor to the few files listed here, then recompile. I am 
sure someone already has the environment set up considering the code was 
compiled for Solaris x86 in the past.  This could then become a version 3.3 
update to support Java 7. Thought?



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 11:40 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton; 'Don'; Steele, Raymond
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: OpenOffice 3.3 and Java 7

On 03/07/2013 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2. OpenOffice.org, in part of its detection of available JREs, may be 
> looking for Sun as the provider.  It might not recognize JREs that now 
> have Oracle identified as the provider.

This used to be a problem (in general, not Solaris-specific) for JREs that had 
"Oracle" as a vendor. See
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1229371
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1333165

Note that 3.3.0 is unsupported.

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: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Marcus (OOo)]

+1

Marcus



Am 07/17/2013 09:40 AM, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
(RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.

This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
to former OpenOffice releases:

(1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
Symphony grant in OpenOffice.

(2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
interoperability issues

(3) 600 defects are fixed

(4) many more features and improvements are integrated

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
updated and polished ...

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot

The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html

The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.

But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
[ ]  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

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Regina Henschel]

Hi,

+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0

Kind regards
Regina

Jürgen Schmidt schrieb:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following release candidate
(RC2 revision 1503704) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0. This will be an
important release for Apache OpenOffice with bigger visible UI changes.
It is a key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.

This release candidate provides the following important changes compared
to former OpenOffice releases:

(1) a major UI change/improvement by introducing a new sidebar concept
where the idea is the comes from IBM's Symphony. It's the combination of
reimplementing a complete new framework for sidebars and merging the
existing sidebar in impress and code of various content panels from the
Symphony grant in OpenOffice.

(2) 190 fixes from Symphony are merged and integrated, mainly
interoperability issues

(3) 600 defects are fixed

(4) many more features and improvements are integrated

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes.
But keep in mind that the release notes are not yet final and will be
updated and polished ...

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 23 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 4.0 can be found on the following wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshot

The related and updated RAT scan for this RC can be found under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-4.0.0_rat/aoo-4.0.0_rat-output.html

The RC is based on the release branch AOO400, revision 1503704!

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

The vote starts now and will be open until:

UTC 3:00pm on Friday, 19 July: 2013-07-19 3:00 UTC.

But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
[ ]  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





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Volunteering to create Pootle accounts

[Andrea Pescetti]

I expect an increased traffic of Pootle account requests (from 
non-committers) next week, when we will release version 4.0 and new 
volunteers will want to translate OpenOffice 4.0 into their mother tongue.


Unless we are already covered for a timely creation of accounts, I 
volunteer to get administrator privileges in Pootle and to standardize 
the procedure for non-committers to ask for a Pootle account.


If we are already covered, or we have someone else wishing to take care 
of this, just say so, and I'll be happier! But we must avoid delays and 
standardize procedures, at least for the languages that are already in 
Pootle.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Structure of the CWiki?

[janI]

On 18 July 2013 23:31, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:41 PM, janI  wrote:
> > On 18 July 2013 20:12, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, janI wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 18 July 2013 16:50, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, janI  wrote:
> >> >>> On 18 July 2013 15:29, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >> >>>
> >>  We have the opportunity to restructure the pages on our CWiki.
>  When
> >>  looking over the current structure it looks like we've been taking
> two
> >>  entirely different approaches to organizing the information:
> >> 
> >>  1) A team-oriented approach, where at the top organizational level
> >>  there are parent pages for each team, dev, qa, doc, l10n., etc.
> >> 
> >>  2) A release-oriented approach, where the top level is a specific
> >>  release, like AOO 3.4.1 or 4.0, and subpages are used for status
> and
> >>  plans for functional groups.
> >> 
> >>  These two approaches look like they are both being used, but not
> >>  consistently.
> >> 
> >>  I wonder if would be worth being more consistent, and doing
> something
> >> >> like:
> >> 
> >>  1) Have a top-level page for each functional group, for tracking
> >>  release-independent information, e.g., links to useful other pages,
> >>  lists of volunteers, "how to" information.  The stuff that does not
> >>  change from release to release.  It is information about the team
> and
> >>  what they do, not information about tasks for a specific release.
> >> 
> >>  2) Then have top-level release-specific pages, where we store plans
> >>  and status reports, dashboards, etc., associated with a release.
> >> 
> >>  I think this is not so far from what the CWiki was evolving toward.
> >> 
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If we anyhow think about restructuring, why not also think of a
> merge
> >> >> with
> >> >>> mwiki...it does not seem correct that we need all these flavours of
> >> wiki,
> >> >>> and it do cost maintenance.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Restructuring is just drag and drop in CWiki.  Migration would be
> more
> >> >> effort, but we could restructure while migrating.  But a non-trivial
> >> >> effort unless there is a tool that automates page conversion, moving
> >> >> images, etc.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > So because its complicated we keep maintaining at 2 different
> >> > productsWe should have been a goverment agency.
> >>
> >> Don't cast this kind of note about why we have two wikis. We got the
> CWiki
> >> on day one of the project at Apache. The Mwiki remained at Oracle for
> many
> >> months. (1) It took some time to get a volunteer named Terry E to do the
> >> migration which you have taken over. Thank you. (2) Ask on #asfinfra if
> you
> >> want to find out about the "difficulties" that occurred.
> >>
> >
> > I know when AOO got CWIKI and also part of the remaining story. I have
> also
> > seen quite a lot of Terry E work (He has done quite a lot and I am sorry
> it
> > did not work out between him and infra).
> >
> > on #asfinfra (where I am online)  root@ already told me some time ago
> about
> > the initial setup and terry E. These difficulties was more "setup" type
> > problems and not really conversion problems (acc. infra)
> >
> > As a maintainer of several servers, I think its normal to think how can
> we
> > do betterI cannot see why I should not raise concerns, when I have
> > them, to me an argument about a thing being complicated is not an
> argument
> > for not doing the right thing. Admitted I did not need to write the
> agency
> > part, but I really feel stuck in the discussion.
> >
>
> No one ever said you shouldn't raise concerns.  To me it looked like
> you self-censored yourself when you said you "wont press further ".
>
> But you do overstate things when you express them in absolute terms,
> e.g., saying this is about "doing the right thing".  Remember, there
> are many "right things" any of us could be doing in the project (or
> elsewhere), but there are only 24 hours in the day.  This necessarily
> leads to prioritization.
>
> Migrating existing, perfectly good content from one technical
> infrastructure to another is not high on my personal list of
> priorities.  This, however, should not inhibit you are anyone else
> interested from exploring this further. The direction is set by those
> who think something is important, not by those, like myself, who are
> indifferent.
>

you are completly right"doing the right them" was solely from a
maintenance perspective I should have added that.

its just I am getting a bit tired of doing tiresome maintenance, when I
could use the same time to bring us forward (even though I am not sure what
the target is).

rgds
jan I.

>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> >
> > The CWiki serves its purpose very well.
> >>
> >
> > I am sure it does, and did not dispute thatI am solely thinking of
> our
>

Re: Volunteering to create Pootle accounts

[janI]

On 19 July 2013 00:46, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> I expect an increased traffic of Pootle account requests (from
> non-committers) next week, when we will release version 4.0 and new
> volunteers will want to translate OpenOffice 4.0 into their mother tongue.
>
> Unless we are already covered for a timely creation of accounts, I
> volunteer to get administrator privileges in Pootle and to standardize the
> procedure for non-committers to ask for a Pootle account.
>
thanks for volunteering, please remember pootle is a infra service (as we
wanted) and not a specific AOO service.

I personnally welcome you as admin, and will ask in infra if anybody
objects.


>
> If we are already covered, or we have someone else wishing to take care of
> this, just say so, and I'll be happier! But we must avoid delays and
> standardize procedures, at least for the languages that are already in
> Pootle.
>
> I dont know what the state of the pootle files are, that is something jsc
have done. I would recommend not to "just" add new languages, pootle is the
least problem here.

rgds
jan I.


> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Andrew Rist]

+1Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0



On 7/17/2013 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
[ ]  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

Re: Volunteering to create Pootle accounts

[janI]

On 19 July 2013 01:11, janI  wrote:

>
>
>
> On 19 July 2013 00:46, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
>> I expect an increased traffic of Pootle account requests (from
>> non-committers) next week, when we will release version 4.0 and new
>> volunteers will want to translate OpenOffice 4.0 into their mother tongue.
>>
>> Unless we are already covered for a timely creation of accounts, I
>> volunteer to get administrator privileges in Pootle and to standardize the
>> procedure for non-committers to ask for a Pootle account.
>>
> thanks for volunteering, please remember pootle is a infra service (as we
> wanted) and not a specific AOO service.
>
> I personnally welcome you as admin, and will ask in infra if anybody
> objects.
>

You will get admin priviledges for the AOO projects, I just have to make a
profile in pootle, should be in place during the weekend.

rgds
jan I.


>
>
>>
>> If we are already covered, or we have someone else wishing to take care
>> of this, just say so, and I'll be happier! But we must avoid delays and
>> standardize procedures, at least for the languages that are already in
>> Pootle.
>>
>> I dont know what the state of the pootle files are, that is something jsc
> have done. I would recommend not to "just" add new languages, pootle is the
> least problem here.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> --**--**-
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: Cwiki vs Media WIki again...

[Kay Schenk]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM, janI  wrote:

> On 18 July 2013 23:32, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
>
> > Am 07/18/2013 11:21 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >
> >  In continuing discussions, some of you may be interested in this site:
> >>
> >> http://www.wikimatrix.org/
> >>
> >> No sure about accuracy.
> >>
> >
> > Great link, thanks!
> >
> > Now both can be compared with facts - assumed they are correct. ;-)
> >
>
> great site, thx a lot.
>
> I ran a compare and the difference I look after showed up.
>
> sadly enough it does not compare to WP.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>

I'm recalling now the biggest drawback to Confluence, for an end user
portal, seemed to be -- and likely still is -- the lack of language
support. I looked for about an hour before I sent this little e-mail, and
could not find anything to the contrary.


>
>
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> > --**--**-
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
-
MzK

Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
 -- Jon Bon Jovi

Re: [VOTE]: Release OpenOffice 4.0 (RC2)

[Donald Harbison]

+1 (!)

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:

> +1Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>
>
>
> On 7/17/2013 12:40 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0
>> [ ]  0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

RE: Fwd: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"

[Singhal, Ankur]

HI Regina,

Yes It's correct I am trying to build Version 3.4.1 which is the latest stable 
version.

Thanks and Regards,
Ankur Singhal

-Original Message-
From: Regina Henschel [mailto:rb.hensc...@t-online.de] 
Sent: 18 July 2013 22:07
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Singhal, Ankur
Subject: Re: Fwd: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"

Hi Ankur,

is it correct, that you want to build the version 3.4.1?

Kind regards
Regina

Rob Weir schrieb:
> Forwarding to our development mailing list where you are more likely 
> to get an answer.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Singhal, Ankur 
> Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:24 AM
> Subject: Issue with dmake of AOO-3.4.1 for the module "stlport"
> To: "us...@openoffice.apache.org" 
>
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I need all your help in resolving my issues, while setting up my 
> machine(Windows 7) for development on OpenOffice.
>
> Steps I have followed to build
> (http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Step
> _by_step#Windows_7)
>
> 1)  I have downloaded source code directly from
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk .
>
> 2)  Did my configure using the below paths:
>
> --with-cl-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC" \
>
> --with-mspdb-path="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 
> 9.0/Common7/IDE" \
>
> --with-frame-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft 
> SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \
>
> --with-psdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft 
> SDKs/Windows/v7.0" \
>
> --with-midl-path="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Microsoft 
> SDKs/Windows/v7.0/Bin" \
>
> --with-asm-home="/cygdrive/f/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC/bin" \
>
> --with-csc-path="/cygdrive/c/WINDOWS/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v3.5" \
>
> --with-jdk-home="/cygdrive/c/Java64/jdk1.6.0_35"\
>
> --with-ant-home="/cygdrive/c/apache-ant-1.9.2" \
>
> --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dma
> ke-4.12.tar.bz2
> \
>
> --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz 
> \
>
> --disable-directx \
>
> --enable-dbgutil \
>
> --enable-pch \
>
> --disable-atl \
>
> --disable-activex \
>
> --disable-binfilter \
>
> --without-junit
>
> 3)  Bootstrap ran properly.
>
> 4)  dmake is failing to build "stlport" module with the error
> "File to Patch:"
>
>
> Options that I have tried:
>
> 1)  Resolving the conflicts by going to separate files like
> VC7.mak, _monetary.c, _num_put.c, _time_facets.c, _list.h.
>
> After resolving conflicts it gives error as below:
>
> .\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
> 'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
> *,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in 
> 'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'
>
> 2)  I tried moving from Visual Studio 2008 to Visual Studio 2010.
>
> It starts giving other error about a file named "exception" under 
> Visual Studio. I believe Visual Studio 2010 is not supported by 
> OpenOffice.
>
> 3)  I tried replacing module "stlport-4.5" with "stlport-5.2.1"
> and compiling  the module. (With Visual Studio 2008)
>
> But I am still facing the same issue.
>
> .\streambuf.cpp(43) : error C2511:
> 'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>::basic_streambuf(FILE
> *,FILE *)' : overloaded member function not found in 
> 'stlp_std::basic_streambuf<_CharT,_Traits>'
>
> It would be very helpful if someone can help me in resolving this 
> issue or if someone have faced the same issue earlier.
>
> I believe this is not an issue related to code but a configuration issue.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Ankur Singhal
>
> -
> 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 communications -- plans

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 18/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote:

The Release Notes are starting to look very nice.  It is worth
reviewing if you have not looked recently:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes


Indeed, they are nice. The part introducing the Sidebar is very good too.

Just a question: we will be promoting this Cwiki page, but:

1) I recall seeing that there was a "static" version available for each 
page, which was the recommended one for publishing links (and had a URL 
ending in .html). I can't see it now. What is the link we should publish?


2) May we get rid of the "Upgraded to 3.5.17. Upgrade to 5.1 delayed." 
notice in the page header? We've probably get used to it (it's about the 
Cwiki upgrade, nothing to do with OpenOffice) and we don't notice it any 
longer since it has been there for weeks, but a lot of people are likely 
to mistake it for a notice about the OpenOffice upgrades.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org