Re: Reminder: Time to update your entry in the Directory of Volunteers

[Николай Нинков]

Hello,

Because the translation of Bulgarian is almost ready, please do for me a dev
snapshot with the Bulgarian translation to carry out the necessary tests.
I do not want to promise but I will try to handle the tests so that you  turn
the Bulgarian translation in the new Release 4.0.1.
Wish me success.

Regards
Niki


2013/9/26 Rob Weir 

> We'll soon be releasing Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.  We want to give
> recognition to the many volunteers who contribute to the success of
> OpenOffice.  One way we give credit is in our Directory of Volunteers.
>  We link to this from the Help/About box of the product, as well as in
> blog posts and release announcements.
>
> If you have not already added yourself to the Directory, please do so.
>   Anyone can sign up for a wiki account.
>
> The Directory of Volunteers can be found here:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Directory+of+Volunteers
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Rob
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: New AOO 4.0 review article (PC World)

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048446/apache-openoffice-4-0-review-new-features-easier-to-use-still-free.html
> >
> > Title is "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 review: New features, easier to use,
> still
> > free"
> >
> > We get 4.5 of 5 stars.  The reviewer says AOO 4.0 is "smooth and
> > cohesive" and gives good coverage to the new sidebar.
> >
> > However we are dinged a little for the "documentation" (I think he
> > means the in-product help files) which is described as "sparse, and
> > not well-aimed at non-technical users".   I wonder if there is
> > something we can do to link in more of the tutorial/overview material
> > that exists?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> I'm sure there is. I took a look at what's available to guide one of our
> newest volunteers who might be interested in contributing to this. There is
> a 108 page document on the help files! I'm sure it's useful but probably
> VERY daunting when it's likely making changes to the help files isn't
> necessarily so.
>
> Also, given my own experience of late with the internal help files, I'm not
> happy with the results produced by the "Find", and wonder how we can get
> more hits for keywords that should yield some better results.
>
> Long story short, we do need to expend some effort in the near future (
> goal of mine anyway) to tutorials/guidelines on the help system -- how it
> works, how to add to it, etc. This is really an area of "documentation" in
> my mind, even though it is internal. Volunteers with some technical writing
> expertise would be very valuable in this area.
>
> --
>
> -
> MzK
>
> "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
>  to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
>  -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain
>

​I think it would help people if we have a more wiki-like navigation of the
documents as opposed to the old chm model.
Things like tag clouds, tutorials and better used of integrate it with a
knowledgebase​ like the FAQ engine that was generated on the wiki
documentation website.


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

Re: [RELEASE] finishing release notes

[Armin Le Grand]

Hi Ricardo,

well, I am not a natuar english speaker. I wanted to express that for e.g 
1600x1200 the size was limited to a scaled smaller one to not get in danger to 
use too much internal memory. For the expressed export case with given pixel 
size this limit is highly expanded now. There is still an internal limit to 
avoid mem crashes, though.

When some natural english speaker can express that in one sentence I will be 
happy to replace the sentence :-)

HTH!

--
ALG (iPad)

> Am 26.09.2013 um 00:21 schrieb Ricardo Berlasso :
> 
> 2013/9/25 Herbert Duerr 
> 
>> Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release
>>> notes for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>>> AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes
>>> 
>> 
>> Also having more translations is encouraged.
> 
> 
> Now that we are talking about translations :) I cannot understand this
> phrase
> 
> "When exporting a bitmap graphic with a given pixel size it is used up to
> very large values"
> 
> so I have no idea how to translate it into Spanish.
> 
> Regards,
> Ricardo
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the
>>> release notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been
>>> improved.
>>> 
>> 
>> Many users complained about the XLS file saving performance. For them the
>> considerable performance increase of 4.0.1 relative to 4.0.0 is quite
>> noteworthy. Whether such a change is a fix, a boost, an enhancement, an
>> improvement or just a task done is a point that could fill a whole
>> dissertation. Whether these distinct terms overlap or not or how much opens
>> another research topic for linguists. But I think we can agree that it is
>> noteworthy.
>> 
>> Herbert
>> 
>> 
>> --**--**-
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> dev-unsubscribe@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] finishing release notes

[Keith N. McKenna]

Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:

Hi,

our vote for releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 went well and we are about to
release this version.

Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release notes
for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes



I took an editing pass at the release notes, with many small changes.  Mainly:

1) Make 3rd party references correct, like "Microsoft Windows, or "Mac
OS X" or "Apple iWork"

2) Cleaned up the list of fixed issues.  Some of the descriptions
didn't make sense and would be hard to translate. Better to have
something simple and accurate.  We could link to the relevant BZ issue
of we wanted.

3) Small language corrections.

One thing I did not understand was the section that said "The QE team
has been tracking additional fixes as well. See their complete reports
at:"   Is that really useful for users?   If there are other fixes
shouldn't they already be in the Bugzilla query we link to?   I'd
recommend taking this section out of the Release Notes unless it is
adding something new.
That was a section added to the 3.4 release notes which I carried over 
into the template that I created from those. It appears that the QE 
folks are no longer using that wiki for the weekly reports and I planned 
to take it out of the 4.0.1 Release Notes as well as the template this 
evening .


Keith




Best regards, Oliver.

P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the release
notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been improved.



Is the claim (230% improvement) accurate?  If so we should state it.
But maybe list it as a bug fix?

Regards,

-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: New AOO 4.0 review article (PC World)

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048446/apache-openoffice-4-0-review-new-features-easier-to-use-still-free.html
>
> Title is "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 review: New features, easier to use, still
> free"
>
> We get 4.5 of 5 stars.  The reviewer says AOO 4.0 is "smooth and
> cohesive" and gives good coverage to the new sidebar.
>
> However we are dinged a little for the "documentation" (I think he
> means the in-product help files) which is described as "sparse, and
> not well-aimed at non-technical users".   I wonder if there is
> something we can do to link in more of the tutorial/overview material
> that exists?
>
> -Rob
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
I'm sure there is. I took a look at what's available to guide one of our
newest volunteers who might be interested in contributing to this. There is
a 108 page document on the help files! I'm sure it's useful but probably
VERY daunting when it's likely making changes to the help files isn't
necessarily so.

Also, given my own experience of late with the internal help files, I'm not
happy with the results produced by the "Find", and wonder how we can get
more hits for keywords that should yield some better results.

Long story short, we do need to expend some effort in the near future (
goal of mine anyway) to tutorials/guidelines on the help system -- how it
works, how to add to it, etc. This is really an area of "documentation" in
my mind, even though it is internal. Volunteers with some technical writing
expertise would be very valuable in this area.

-- 
-
MzK

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
 to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
 -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain

Re: Is there a legal problem if....

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM,
 wrote:
>
>
> Aloha,
>

Aloha Brien,

> I am a tech support teacher at Nanakuli High & Intermediate School in
> Hawaii.  We are located on the leeward coast of the island of Oahu.  I have
> a question that I hope you can answer.
>
> We will be receiving a bunch of new MacBook Airs in the next week or so.
> One branch of our Dept of Ed will create an image that will use to
> configure all of these Macs.  I had requested that Open Office me part of
> that image since the suite is free.  Here is the response I received.
>
> "It is free but to the best of my knowledge the GPL3 licensing agreement
> has restrictions on the manner in which it needs to be installed. You could
> contact the developers and get written clearance then you could your custom
> image"
>
>  Although I am a tech support person in the school, I am far from a trained
> computer technician, so I am unsure what I need from you so that the image
> can include Open Office.  Is there somet documentation you can provide
> that will allow us to legally include Open Office in the image?
>

Recent versions of OpenOffice, since version 3.4.1 have been under the
Apache License 2.0.  This includes our current version (4.0) as well
as the upcoming 4.0.1 version which we will release next week.

You can find a copy of the Apache License here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

The terms for redistribution are described in section 4.   If you are
merely pre-installing Apache OpenOffice, and not modifying the source
code, modifying or removing the files that OpenOffice installs, then
you should be in compliance with the license without any additional
effort.   In particular, the License and NOTICE that section 4
requires are text files that are installed to the OpenOffice directory
when you install the product.

In most cases no additional permission is required beyond the license.
 That is the intent of open source software, that the license
describes the full set of permissions that you (and anyone else) has
to use, modify and redistribute the software.  But if you need
something formal, in terms of letter from us, you can send a note to
our Project Management Committee (PMC) at
priv...@openoffice.apache.org.

Regards,

Rob Weir, Apache OpenOffice PMC

> Thank you,
>
> Brien Nakasone
> Technology Support
> Nanakuli High & Intermediate School
> Office: (808) 668-5823 ext.237
> Fax: (808) 668-5828

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

Is there a legal problem if....

[Brien_Nakasone/NANAKULIHI/HIDOE]

Aloha,

I am a tech support teacher at Nanakuli High & Intermediate School in
Hawaii.  We are located on the leeward coast of the island of Oahu.  I have
a question that I hope you can answer.

We will be receiving a bunch of new MacBook Airs in the next week or so.
One branch of our Dept of Ed will create an image that will use to
configure all of these Macs.  I had requested that Open Office me part of
that image since the suite is free.  Here is the response I received.

"It is free but to the best of my knowledge the GPL3 licensing agreement
has restrictions on the manner in which it needs to be installed. You could
contact the developers and get written clearance then you could your custom
image"

 Although I am a tech support person in the school, I am far from a trained
computer technician, so I am unsure what I need from you so that the image
can include Open Office.  Is there somet documentation you can provide
that will allow us to legally include Open Office in the image?

Thank you,

Brien Nakasone
Technology Support
Nanakuli High & Intermediate School
Office: (808) 668-5823 ext.237
Fax: (808) 668-5828

Re: [RELEASE] finishing release notes

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> our vote for releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 went well and we are about to
> release this version.
>
> Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release notes
> for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes
>

I took an editing pass at the release notes, with many small changes.  Mainly:

1) Make 3rd party references correct, like "Microsoft Windows, or "Mac
OS X" or "Apple iWork"

2) Cleaned up the list of fixed issues.  Some of the descriptions
didn't make sense and would be hard to translate. Better to have
something simple and accurate.  We could link to the relevant BZ issue
of we wanted.

3) Small language corrections.

One thing I did not understand was the section that said "The QE team
has been tracking additional fixes as well. See their complete reports
at:"   Is that really useful for users?   If there are other fixes
shouldn't they already be in the Bugzilla query we link to?   I'd
recommend taking this section out of the Release Notes unless it is
adding something new.

> Best regards, Oliver.
>
> P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the release
> notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been improved.
>

Is the claim (230% improvement) accurate?  If so we should state it.
But maybe list it as a bug fix?

Regards,

-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: [RELEASE] finishing release notes

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2013/9/25 Herbert Duerr 

> Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release
>> notes for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
>> AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes
>>
>
> Also having more translations is encouraged.


Now that we are talking about translations :) I cannot understand this
phrase

"When exporting a bitmap graphic with a given pixel size it is used up to
very large values"

so I have no idea how to translate it into Spanish.

Regards,
Ricardo



>
>
>  P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the
>> release notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been
>> improved.
>>
>
> Many users complained about the XLS file saving performance. For them the
> considerable performance increase of 4.0.1 relative to 4.0.0 is quite
> noteworthy. Whether such a change is a fix, a boost, an enhancement, an
> improvement or just a task done is a point that could fill a whole
> dissertation. Whether these distinct terms overlap or not or how much opens
> another research topic for linguists. But I think we can agree that it is
> noteworthy.
>
> Herbert
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Reminder: Time to update your entry in the Directory of Volunteers

[Rob Weir]

We'll soon be releasing Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.  We want to give
recognition to the many volunteers who contribute to the success of
OpenOffice.  One way we give credit is in our Directory of Volunteers.
 We link to this from the Help/About box of the product, as well as in
blog posts and release announcements.

If you have not already added yourself to the Directory, please do so.
  Anyone can sign up for a wiki account.

The Directory of Volunteers can be found here:

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

Thanks!

-Rob

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

New AOO 4.0 review article (PC World)

[Rob Weir]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048446/apache-openoffice-4-0-review-new-features-easier-to-use-still-free.html

Title is "Apache OpenOffice 4.0 review: New features, easier to use, still free"

We get 4.5 of 5 stars.  The reviewer says AOO 4.0 is "smooth and
cohesive" and gives good coverage to the new sidebar.

However we are dinged a little for the "documentation" (I think he
means the in-product help files) which is described as "sparse, and
not well-aimed at non-technical users".   I wonder if there is
something we can do to link in more of the tutorial/overview material
that exists?

-Rob

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

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Kay Schenk]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
>
>
> On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>
>> -1:
>>
>> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
>> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user experience
>> on Redhat 64bit installation.
>>
>> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
>> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
>> file
>> in AOO
>> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit
>>
>>
> I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
> introduced in AOO 4.0.0
>
> On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest release
> should be fixed in the next release.
> On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1
> release schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
> improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote for
> releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
> From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for our
> next release.
>

yes...+1

 A lot of us went through the release blocker list for 4.0.1 and these were
not on it. During my testing, I did do testing on Office docs but not this
particular situation. It's unfortunate these did not come to the fore.



> Regarding issue 123348:
> As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
> workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
>
> Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Yu Zhen
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:
>>
>>  this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
>>>
 Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
 Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
 some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
 Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
 key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
 [...]

 The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!

 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
 [...]

  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


>>> +1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
>>>
>>> Herbert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --**
>>> --**-
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.org
>>> 
>>> >
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
MzK

"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
 to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't."
 -- "Following the Equator", Mark Twain

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
>
>
> On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>>
>> -1:
>>
>> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
>> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user experience
>> on Redhat 64bit installation.
>>
>> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
>> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
>> file
>> in AOO
>> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit
>>
>
> I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
> introduced in AOO 4.0.0
>

So these are not new defects in 4.0.1?

> On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest release
> should be fixed in the next release.
> On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1 release
> schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
> improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote for
> releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
> From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for our
> next release.
>

It is important that we understand the different role of a minor x.y.1 release.

When we have a major release, like 4.0.0, we're making tons of code
changes, adding new features, and potentially (and very likely
actually) introducing many regressions.   So the QA effort for a major
release has many aims:

-- test new features
-- verify new fixes
-- identify the regressions introduced in the code

We can never test 100% of a product.  Maybe computer-based proofs of
correctness have been done in some chip designs, but generally
complete coverage is never possible.  So we focus on the most-commonly
used features of the product, across a large matrix of platforms and
applications.

The goal, if you think about it is:  to increase the confidence that
we are *not* releasing a product that has a bug in it that will make
it unusable for our users.

We can never guarantee this.  We can only increase our confidence in
this.  At whatever finite point we stop our testing it is always
possible that the next test would have found a killer defect.   So the
challenge in designing a test plan is to identify what tests can be
performed in a reasonable finite test pass (or passes) that will
reduce the chances of a killer defect still being in the code.  I
think Yuzhen did a great job at designing the test plans for the
releases.

The quality approach in a minor maintenance release like 4.0.1 is
different.  We don't make tons of code changes.  In fact we are very
restrictive.  We only fixed showstopper bugs that were proposed on the
mailing list, discussed and approved by the Release Manager.  The goal
is have no new regressions introduced.  The goal is to fix targeted
bugs, and get those fixes out to users quickly.  If we didn't think
that speed of release was an important thing here then we would all be
working on 4.1.0, not 4.0.1.  So the fact that we are working on 4.0.1
at all shows that there is some urgency to get bug fixes released.

In any case, if new bugs are found in 4.0.1 testing, I don't think it
matters whether they were found in RC1, RC2, RC3, during the vote or
the day after the vote.  It doesn't matter who discovered the bug or
when they discovered it.  The question is:  How severe is the defect?
Is it a showstopper?  Is it something we hold back 4.0.1 for?  Or
something less severe that we put in 4.1.0?


> Regarding issue 123348:
> As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
> workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
>
> Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
>

I don't think we should ask anyone to change their votes.  A release
is approved by majority vote.  It does not need to be unanimous.  We
should not be afraid to have a dissenting vote.  But I do hope we can
develop a shared view of the true value of QA and its role in the
project.  It is not just the defects found and reported.  The true
value is that the tests were completed and that *nothing worse than
these three bugs was found*.  That is the information we needed to
know.  That is what gives us increased confidence that 4.0.1 is ready
to release.   It also helps ensure that 4.1.0 (or even 4.0.2, if
needed) will be even better.

Regards,

-Rob

>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yu Zhen
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:
>>
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as

 Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
 Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
 some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
 Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
 key m

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM, janI  wrote:
> On 25 September 2013 17:35, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
>
>> 2013/9/25 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
>> >
>> >
>> > On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>> >
>> >> -1:
>> >>
>> >> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
>> >> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user
>> experience
>> >> on Redhat 64bit installation.
>> >>
>> >> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
>> >> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
>> >> file
>> >> in AOO
>> >> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4
>> 64bit
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
>> > introduced in AOO 4.0.0
>> >
>> > On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest release
>> > should be fixed in the next release.
>> > On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1
>> > release schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
>> > improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote for
>> > releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
>> > From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for our
>> > next release.
>> >
>> > Regarding issue 123348:
>> > As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
>> > workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
>> >
>> > Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards, Oliver.
>> >
>>
>> IMO, if we have quick solution for 123345 and 123346, and the impact is
>> limited, I'd rather to wait for 3~4 more days a RC4. And the testing and
>> voting for RC3 can be inherited. For a quality release, ideally our target
>> should be no regression.
>> If it is difficult to give a save fix quickly and the issues are only about
>> special samples, we can consider to defer them to next release.
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>
> I agree with the above.
>
> I find it disturbing that, 4.0 was postponed due to QA issues, and we even
> made a blog about it. 4.0.1 goes out despite a public rejection from QA. I
> am sure some of the press will pick this up.
>

I'm sure they will quote you, Jan, if you post inflammatory comments.
That's what the press does.  No doubt about that.  But the real
question is this:  how does the community decide these questions?

> To be consistent we  should make a blog telling that we ignore QA just to
> make a fast release. I know this will not (and should not happen), but I am
> afraid we might be reading it in the press.
>

Say it a few more times and your prediction will surely come true.

> I would like to, for the future, have a discussion of the QA role. Are QA
> statements merely a polite advice to the release manager (status today), or
> can we make a rule stating that we do NOT release if QA reject the
> candidate.
>

The process on this is quite clear:

"Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
approval -- i.e. at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes.
Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will cancel the
release vote if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases
the ultimate decision, lies with the individual serving as release
manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to
project, but the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule is
universal."

See:  http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

In this case three issues were identified late in the voting process.
That is not a failure of the voting process.  If you recall with 4.0.0
we also had late information and we set aside a RC even though it has
a successful vote.   Every defect report and every defect is unique
and trying to paint them as equivalent is not a very good approach.
Just because a bug is reported late does not make it a show stopper.

IMHO the responsible thing is comment on the actual defects that were
reported and make the argument, if you can, that any or all of them
justify delaying the delivery of the more severe (IMHO) defects that
are already fixed in 4.0.1 RC3.   If you are concerned about quality
than surely you should be concerned that these fixes are not yet in
the hands of 4.0.0 users.

Observant project members will recall seeing this same argument made
before the release of every release we've ever had.  You can always
spend more time finding and fixing more bugs.  It does not require a
great open source project to not release but just to endlessly refine.
 The skill comes from *prioritizing* and knowing when it is time to
ship.  There is no one answer here.  Sometimes it makes sense to
delay.  But sometimes is does not.  The decision is a community
decision, not a decision reserved for QA alone.  And they way 

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[janI]

On 25 September 2013 17:35, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:

> 2013/9/25 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
> >
> >
> > On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> >
> >> -1:
> >>
> >> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
> >> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user
> experience
> >> on Redhat 64bit installation.
> >>
> >> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
> >> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
> >> file
> >> in AOO
> >> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4
> 64bit
> >>
> >>
> > I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
> > introduced in AOO 4.0.0
> >
> > On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest release
> > should be fixed in the next release.
> > On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1
> > release schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
> > improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote for
> > releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
> > From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for our
> > next release.
> >
> > Regarding issue 123348:
> > As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
> > workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
> >
> > Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
> >
> >
> > Best regards, Oliver.
> >
>
> IMO, if we have quick solution for 123345 and 123346, and the impact is
> limited, I'd rather to wait for 3~4 more days a RC4. And the testing and
> voting for RC3 can be inherited. For a quality release, ideally our target
> should be no regression.
> If it is difficult to give a save fix quickly and the issues are only about
> special samples, we can consider to defer them to next release.
> Just my $0.02.
>

I agree with the above.

I find it disturbing that, 4.0 was postponed due to QA issues, and we even
made a blog about it. 4.0.1 goes out despite a public rejection from QA. I
am sure some of the press will pick this up.

To be consistent we  should make a blog telling that we ignore QA just to
make a fast release. I know this will not (and should not happen), but I am
afraid we might be reading it in the press.

I would like to, for the future, have a discussion of the QA role. Are QA
statements merely a polite advice to the release manager (status today), or
can we make a rule stating that we do NOT release if QA reject the
candidate.

rgds
jan I.


>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Yu Zhen
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:
> >>
> >>  this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
> >>>
>  Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
>  Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
>  some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian
> Cyrillic,
>  Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
>  key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>  [...]
> 
>  The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!
> 
>  Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
>  [...]
> 
>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
> 
> >>> +1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
> >>>
> >>> Herbert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --**
> >>> --**-
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.org<
> http://apache.org>
> >>>  dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> >>> >
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --**--**-
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org>
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Shenfeng Liu]

2013/9/25 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 

> Hi,
>
> resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
>
>
> On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
>
>> -1:
>>
>> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
>> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user experience
>> on Redhat 64bit installation.
>>
>> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
>> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
>> file
>> in AOO
>> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit
>>
>>
> I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
> introduced in AOO 4.0.0
>
> On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest release
> should be fixed in the next release.
> On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1
> release schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
> improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote for
> releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
> From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for our
> next release.
>
> Regarding issue 123348:
> As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
> workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
>
> Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
>
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>

IMO, if we have quick solution for 123345 and 123346, and the impact is
limited, I'd rather to wait for 3~4 more days a RC4. And the testing and
voting for RC3 can be inherited. For a quality release, ideally our target
should be no regression.
If it is difficult to give a save fix quickly and the issues are only about
special samples, we can consider to defer them to next release.
Just my $0.02.

- Shenfeng (Simon)



>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Yu Zhen
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:
>>
>>  this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
>>>
 Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
 Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
 some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
 Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
 key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
 [...]

 The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!

 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
 [...]

  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


>>> +1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
>>>
>>> Herbert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --**
>>> --**-
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.org
>>> 
>>> >
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE] finishing release notes

[Herbert Duerr]

Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release
notes for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes


Also having more translations is encouraged.


P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the
release notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been
improved.


Many users complained about the XLS file saving performance. For them 
the considerable performance increase of 4.0.1 relative to 4.0.0 is 
quite noteworthy. Whether such a change is a fix, a boost, an 
enhancement, an improvement or just a task done is a point that could 
fill a whole dissertation. Whether these distinct terms overlap or not 
or how much opens another research topic for linguists. But I think we 
can agree that it is noteworthy.


Herbert

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

[RELEASE] finishing release notes

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

our vote for releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 went well and we are about 
to release this version.


Hereby I request everybody to have a look at the current draft release 
notes for AOO 4.0.1 [1] in order to complete and 'tuned' them.


[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0.1+Release+Notes


Best regards, Oliver.

P.S.: Personally, I am currently not sure about mentioning in the 
release notes that the performance of the saving .xls files had been 
improved.


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

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Herbert Duerr]

Tallying the answers to the release vote [1] resulted in ten binding +1, 
four non-binding +1 and one non-binding -1 votes. No other votes were cast.


[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201309.mbox/%3C523EA4EB.8080608%40gmail.com%3E


The one negative vote has a lot of merit, especially as the issues 
mentioned were brought to our attention by our very experienced and 
highly respected community member Yu Zhen. On the other hand the 
problems raised were already in AOO 4.0.0 and didn't block the release 
then. They were also not reported, suggested or discussed as release 
blockers ever since until today. They deserve attention but the vote 
result indicates that they shouldn't block the release of Apache 
OpenOffice 4.0.1.


So the vote result is: Apache OpenOffice r1524958 shall be released as 
Apache OpenOffice.


Here is the detailed vote tally, sorted by voter choice and name.

-1:

Yuzhen Fan

+1:

Andrea Pescetti (binding)
Armin Le Grand (binding)
Bonnie Kim
Dirk Groskamp
Herbert Dürr (binding)
Jan Iverson (binding)
Kay Schenk (binding)
Kazunari Hirano (binding)
Marcus Lange (binding)
Michal Hriň
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (binding)
Regina Henschel (binding)
Ricardo Berlasso (binding)
Vladislav Stevanovic

I'll create the AOO401 revision tag from revision 1524958. The official 
release announcement will follow in the near future.


Herbert

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

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o

On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:

-1:

I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user experience
on Redhat 64bit installation.

Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx file
in AOO
Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit



I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been 
introduced in AOO 4.0.0


On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest 
release should be fixed in the next release.
On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1 
release schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and 
improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote 
for releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for 
our next release.


Regarding issue 123348:
As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a 
workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.


Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?


Best regards, Oliver.




Regards,
Yu Zhen


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:


this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as

Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
[...]

The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
[...]

 [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
 [ ]  0 Don't care
 [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...



+1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1

Herbert



--**--**-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
dev-unsubscribe@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: bug 107063 (needs update)

[Regina Henschel]

Hi,

bugreporte...@hushmail.com schrieb:

Stop! Don't invoke the bugzilla guru.
Looks like I made it. Will invastigate farther.
That's what I use now:
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/vk57.png/

Are there other assignees we should exclude?



You can use the criterion "Time Since Assignee Touched" "is greater 
than" "900d".


Exclude assignee secur...@openoffice.apache.org from search.

Have you count, how many issues are affected? For example, with >900d I 
get 322 bugs. With >360d and restriction to 9900070 bugs, which is 7%. So expand to more than 12 issues gives perhaps 
about 8000 matches. Other complex queries I have tried need so long, 
that I have not wait. I guess, that a direct SQL search in the data base 
can use more efficient search statements than using the UI.


I like, that former, inactive assignees are reset to the new default. 
But such bulk change needs, that the general notifications are 
suppressed. I don't know, whether it is possible to only inform the 
assignees. So please wait till it is morning for Rob and he has a change 
to read this.


Kind regards
Regina



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

Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website

[Andrea Pescetti]

Pedro Araújo wrote:

I can doanload templates, extensiosn,... but not the latest OpenOffice.
Where is the link to download it?


It's a browser problem. Download directly from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/4.0.0/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.0.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe/download

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

On 25.09.2013 13:02, Pedro Araújo wrote:

Hi,

When i click the button to upgrade the OpenOffice it send me to this link:
http://www.openoffice.org/download/?utm_source=AOO3_4_1_en-US&utm_medium=Client&utm_campaign=Upgrade



It looks like that the Java script on our download site 
http://www.openoffice.org/download/ does not work correctly in your 
environment (browser, browser version, operating system, ...).


Please visit http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html
Here you will find all available packages for different languages.

Best regards, Oliver.


I can doanload templates, extensiosn,... but not the latest OpenOffice.
Where is the link to download it?

Thanks



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

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 22/09/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. ...
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
[ ]  0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


+1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1

Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Complete Testing for OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC) on 09/25 and Reject RC3

[Yuzhen Fan]

Hi, we have completed planned testing then *reject *the RC3, please see
details as following:

Summary: Reject because of these 3 issues:

Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx file
in AOO
Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit

Detail result:

1. Bug(showstopper)verification and impacted area testing - Complete for
function bugs, all verified fixed or inreproducible

122885 - Cannot reproduce it in problematic build (4.0.0), thus does not
know if it is fixed in 4.0.1, add comment in Bugzilla

2. General testing for Calc, Writer, Impress on Windows, Linux and Mac -
Complete, please see details as below:

Windows: Complete

Prachi is for Writer - test on RC2 and couldn't find any bugs on Windows 7
Akriti is for Calc - test on RC2 and find 10 issues(6 confirmed, no
critical problems for showstopper) on windows 8
Dick is for Impress - test on RC1 and all seems well and no critical bugs
were found on Windows 7

Linux: Complete

Kay is for Writer - test on RC3 and no issues are found on OpenSuse 12.3
Alexandro is for Calc - test on RC3  and find issues on name range and data
validity on Mandriva Linux 2012 - Kernel 2.6.39
Edwin is for Impress - test on Rev. 1525015 and find issues mainly on
table, header and footer, hyperlink on Debian 64

Mac: Complete
Liu Ping is for Writer - failed on RC3, 2 function regression issues found
Yu Zhen is for Calc -passed on RC3 with 1 issue on data validity
Liu Ping is for Impress - passed on RC2


3. Build verification test on RC3 - Complete

Build installation on Redhat 32bit /Ubuntu 32bit /Ubuntu 64bit / Mac /
Windows 7 / Windows 8 - passed, on Redhat 64bit - failed, find 1 bad user
experience issue.
Open three apps(Calc, Writer, Impress) successfully

4. GUI PVT on RC1 compared with 4.0.0 Gold - Complete, no obvious
reproducible performance downgrade on RC3

Thanks all for your time and effort on testing, we cannot complete the
testing on time without your great support!

Regards,
Yu Zhen

Reporting a problem with the OpenOffice website

[Pedro Araújo]

Hi,

When i click the button to upgrade the OpenOffice it send me to this 
link:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/?utm_source=AOO3_4_1_en-US&utm_medium=Client&utm_campaign=Upgrade
I can doanload templates, extensiosn,... but not the latest OpenOffice. 
Where is the link to download it?


Thanks

--
Have a FUNtastic day!

Cumprimentos - Saludos - Best regards

Pedro Araújo



SEX4FUN, LDA.
Parque Industrial de Celeirós
Rua Encosta de Gaião Lote 10 Superior
4705-828, Vimieiro Braga
Portugal

TEL: (+351) 253 287 481
FAX: (+351) 253 287 481
MOB: (+351) 915 288 801
E-MAIL: pedro.ara...@sex4funwholesale.com
PT: www.sex4fun.pt
ES: www.sex4fun.es
EN: www.sex4funwholesale.com
UK: www.sex4funwholesale.co.uk

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

Re: bug 107063 (needs update)

[bugreporter99]

FALL,

I just tried to exclude some assignees like "ooo" but it does not work for me.

When I try to search just for bugs with "ooo" as the assignee I get no bugs.
But there are bugs with this assignee like: 
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=117726

I tried in "Custom Search" to select "Assignee" and  choose "is equal to" and 
then setting the value to ooo
but it does not work. Using "is equal to any of the strings" instead of "is 
equal to" doesn not work as well -> ?





On 25.09.2013 at 12:24 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>
>On Sep 25, 2013 11:28 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> Stop! Don't invoke the bugzilla guru.
>> Looks like I made it. Will invastigate farther.
>> That's what I use now:
>> http://img18.imageshack.us/i/vk57.png/
>>
>> Are there other assignees we should exclude?
>
>congrats that looks very correct and complete to me. Then its just 
>manual
>work to unassign.
>
>rgds
>jan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25.09.2013 at 10:58 AM, bugreporte...@hushmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>...Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru
>> >Can you tell me how to invoke a bugzilla guru? Or is he already
>> >seeing this and just has too much work to do?
>> >
>> >>I think you need to use "search by change history".
>> >But in "search by change history" one only can search for 
>changes
>> >(at least that's what I was thinking).
>> >But I want those issues with no changes.
>> >
>> >
>> >On 24.09.2013 at 7:06 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>On 24 September 2013 16:37,  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> >last modified older and a year and assigned to a person)
>> >>> ...
>> >>> >...if you did the unassignment,
>> >>>
>> >>> Well I can not promise to do this but at least I could try.
>> >>> So trying to achieve this behaviour I tried the Advanced 
>Search
>> >>on
>> >>> bugzilla and it did not work.
>> >>> How to get the "was modified" in the search and what does 
>that
>> >>exactly
>> >>> mean? -> new comment, change of the statusj???
>> >>> this is my attempt (bugzilla using the advanced search 
>without
>> >>beeing
>> >>> logged in):
>> >>> http://img850.imageshack.us/i/a5vl.png/
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru, I am just a user, so he can
>> >>hopefully
>> >>give you more precise ideas.
>> >>
>> >>"was modified" is in my opinion is new comment and/or status.
>> >>Without
>> >>actually having tried it, I think you need to use "search by
>> >change
>> >>history".
>> >>
>> >>rgds
>> >>jan I.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 24.09.2013 at 1:14 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On 24 September 2013 12:36,  
>wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Thanks.
>> >>> >> Haven't seen that.
>> >>> >> Can you tell me what "...for issues that had not been 
>worked
>> >>on
>> >>> >for 6
>> >>> >> month..." means?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Sorry I wrote 6 month it is actually 1year (as written in 
>the
>> >>> >comments)
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Cause for example the bug
>> >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20525 was
>> >>reported
>> >>> >> 2003-10-01 01:18 UTC by ulim and the last post/comment was
>> >>from
>> >>> >"mkca
>> >>> >> 2007-05-03 12:24:50 UTC" and it was still assigned to 
>Oliver
>> >>> >Specht on
>> >>> >> ??.??.2013. (Now, thanks to some friendly people, it is
>> >marked
>> >>> >as a
>> >>> >> duplicate and there is a "duplicate comment")
>> >>> >> Does the mechanism only work for new bugs or is there
>> >>something
>> >>> >I missed?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >It is not a mechanism, but a simply filter (last modified 
>and
>> >>> >assigned).
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Those issues hit by the filter (last modified older and a 
>year
>> >>and
>> >>> >assigned
>> >>> >to a person), should manually be unassigned without asking. 
>The
>> >>> >assigned
>> >>> >person automatically gets a mail about the change.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >The idea is/was to do this every now and then to "release"
>> >>issues
>> >>> >assigned
>> >>> >to a person that does not work on it anymore, so we all know
>> >it
>> >>is
>> >>> >free to
>> >>> >be worked on.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >It would be cool if you did the unassignment, so we can get 
>an
>> >>> >overview of
>> >>> >how many issues are actually being worked on.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >rgds
>> >>> >jan I.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 23.09.2013 at 7:46 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Please have a look at
>> >>> >> >https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122035that 
>bug
>> >>> >deals
>> >>> >> >with this specific issue.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >rgds
>> >>> >> >jan I.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >On 23 September 2013 18:54, janI  wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On 23 September 2013 16:19, Raphael Bircher
>> >>
>> >>> >> >wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>> Hello bugreporter
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>> Am 23.09.13 12:45, schrieb bugreporte...@hushmail.com:
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>>  That's awesome Andrea, many thanks.
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >>  Can someone tell me if it's a good idea t

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Yuzhen Fan]

-1:

I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are function
regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user experience
on Redhat 64bit installation.

Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx file
in AOO
Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit


Regards,
Yu Zhen


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:

> this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
>> some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
>> Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
>> key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
>> [...]
>>
>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
>> [...]
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
>> [ ]  0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>
> +1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
>
> Herbert
>
>
>
> --**--**-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: bug 107063 (needs update)

[janI]

On Sep 25, 2013 11:28 AM,  wrote:
>
> Stop! Don't invoke the bugzilla guru.
> Looks like I made it. Will invastigate farther.
> That's what I use now:
> http://img18.imageshack.us/i/vk57.png/
>
> Are there other assignees we should exclude?

congrats that looks very correct and complete to me. Then its just manual
work to unassign.

rgds
jan
>
>
>
> On 25.09.2013 at 10:58 AM, bugreporte...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>...Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru
> >Can you tell me how to invoke a bugzilla guru? Or is he already
> >seeing this and just has too much work to do?
> >
> >>I think you need to use "search by change history".
> >But in "search by change history" one only can search for changes
> >(at least that's what I was thinking).
> >But I want those issues with no changes.
> >
> >
> >On 24.09.2013 at 7:06 PM, "janI"  wrote:
> >>
> >>On 24 September 2013 16:37,  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >last modified older and a year and assigned to a person)
> >>> ...
> >>> >...if you did the unassignment,
> >>>
> >>> Well I can not promise to do this but at least I could try.
> >>> So trying to achieve this behaviour I tried the Advanced Search
> >>on
> >>> bugzilla and it did not work.
> >>> How to get the "was modified" in the search and what does that
> >>exactly
> >>> mean? -> new comment, change of the statusj???
> >>> this is my attempt (bugzilla using the advanced search without
> >>beeing
> >>> logged in):
> >>> http://img850.imageshack.us/i/a5vl.png/
> >>>
> >>
> >>Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru, I am just a user, so he can
> >>hopefully
> >>give you more precise ideas.
> >>
> >>"was modified" is in my opinion is new comment and/or status.
> >>Without
> >>actually having tried it, I think you need to use "search by
> >change
> >>history".
> >>
> >>rgds
> >>jan I.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 24.09.2013 at 1:14 PM, "janI"  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >On 24 September 2013 12:36,  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Thanks.
> >>> >> Haven't seen that.
> >>> >> Can you tell me what "...for issues that had not been worked
> >>on
> >>> >for 6
> >>> >> month..." means?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >Sorry I wrote 6 month it is actually 1year (as written in the
> >>> >comments)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Cause for example the bug
> >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20525 was
> >>reported
> >>> >> 2003-10-01 01:18 UTC by ulim and the last post/comment was
> >>from
> >>> >"mkca
> >>> >> 2007-05-03 12:24:50 UTC" and it was still assigned to Oliver
> >>> >Specht on
> >>> >> ??.??.2013. (Now, thanks to some friendly people, it is
> >marked
> >>> >as a
> >>> >> duplicate and there is a "duplicate comment")
> >>> >> Does the mechanism only work for new bugs or is there
> >>something
> >>> >I missed?
> >>> >>
> >>> >It is not a mechanism, but a simply filter (last modified and
> >>> >assigned).
> >>> >
> >>> >Those issues hit by the filter (last modified older and a year
> >>and
> >>> >assigned
> >>> >to a person), should manually be unassigned without asking. The
> >>> >assigned
> >>> >person automatically gets a mail about the change.
> >>> >
> >>> >The idea is/was to do this every now and then to "release"
> >>issues
> >>> >assigned
> >>> >to a person that does not work on it anymore, so we all know
> >it
> >>is
> >>> >free to
> >>> >be worked on.
> >>> >
> >>> >It would be cool if you did the unassignment, so we can get an
> >>> >overview of
> >>> >how many issues are actually being worked on.
> >>> >
> >>> >rgds
> >>> >jan I.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 23.09.2013 at 7:46 PM, "janI"  wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Please have a look at
> >>> >> >https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122035that bug
> >>> >deals
> >>> >> >with this specific issue.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >rgds
> >>> >> >jan I.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >On 23 September 2013 18:54, janI  wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On 23 September 2013 16:19, Raphael Bircher
> >>
> >>> >> >wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>> Hello bugreporter
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Am 23.09.13 12:45, schrieb bugreporte...@hushmail.com:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>  That's awesome Andrea, many thanks.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >>  Can someone tell me if it's a good idea to find out
> >which
> >>> >devs
> >>> >> >do not
> >>> >>  work on AOO and are still assigned to bugs, and remove
> >>them
> >>> >> >from the bugs
> >>> >>  "Assigned To:"
> >>> >>  field?
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> >>> This is a good idea.
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>  I was thinking of something like this:
> >>> >>  #1 get all emailaddresses from the devs which are
> >>assigned
> >>> >to
> >>> >> >bugs from
> >>> >>  the bugzilla data base
> >>> >>  #2 compare the list with the people/emailadresses which
> >>are
> >>> >> >subscribed
> >>> >>  to the dev mailing list
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> >>> This is not so a good idea. Same people has different e-
> >>mail
> >>> >> >adress on
> >>> >> >>> bugzilla. I use the apache adress at bugzilla 

Re: bug 107063 (needs update)

[bugreporter99]

Stop! Don't invoke the bugzilla guru.
Looks like I made it. Will invastigate farther.
That's what I use now:
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/vk57.png/

Are there other assignees we should exclude?



On 25.09.2013 at 10:58 AM, bugreporte...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
>>...Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru
>Can you tell me how to invoke a bugzilla guru? Or is he already 
>seeing this and just has too much work to do?
>
>>I think you need to use "search by change history".
>But in "search by change history" one only can search for changes 
>(at least that's what I was thinking).
>But I want those issues with no changes.
>
>
>On 24.09.2013 at 7:06 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>>
>>On 24 September 2013 16:37,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >last modified older and a year and assigned to a person)
>>> ...
>>> >...if you did the unassignment,
>>>
>>> Well I can not promise to do this but at least I could try.
>>> So trying to achieve this behaviour I tried the Advanced Search 
>>on
>>> bugzilla and it did not work.
>>> How to get the "was modified" in the search and what does that 
>>exactly
>>> mean? -> new comment, change of the statusj???
>>> this is my attempt (bugzilla using the advanced search without 
>>beeing
>>> logged in):
>>> http://img850.imageshack.us/i/a5vl.png/
>>>
>>
>>Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru, I am just a user, so he can 
>>hopefully
>>give you more precise ideas.
>>
>>"was modified" is in my opinion is new comment and/or status. 
>>Without
>>actually having tried it, I think you need to use "search by 
>change
>>history".
>>
>>rgds
>>jan I.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24.09.2013 at 1:14 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >On 24 September 2013 12:36,  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks.
>>> >> Haven't seen that.
>>> >> Can you tell me what "...for issues that had not been worked 
>>on
>>> >for 6
>>> >> month..." means?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Sorry I wrote 6 month it is actually 1year (as written in the
>>> >comments)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Cause for example the bug
>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20525 was 
>>reported
>>> >> 2003-10-01 01:18 UTC by ulim and the last post/comment was 
>>from
>>> >"mkca
>>> >> 2007-05-03 12:24:50 UTC" and it was still assigned to Oliver
>>> >Specht on
>>> >> ??.??.2013. (Now, thanks to some friendly people, it is 
>marked
>>> >as a
>>> >> duplicate and there is a "duplicate comment")
>>> >> Does the mechanism only work for new bugs or is there 
>>something
>>> >I missed?
>>> >>
>>> >It is not a mechanism, but a simply filter (last modified and
>>> >assigned).
>>> >
>>> >Those issues hit by the filter (last modified older and a year 
>>and
>>> >assigned
>>> >to a person), should manually be unassigned without asking. The
>>> >assigned
>>> >person automatically gets a mail about the change.
>>> >
>>> >The idea is/was to do this every now and then to "release" 
>>issues
>>> >assigned
>>> >to a person that does not work on it anymore, so we all know 
>it 
>>is
>>> >free to
>>> >be worked on.
>>> >
>>> >It would be cool if you did the unassignment, so we can get an
>>> >overview of
>>> >how many issues are actually being worked on.
>>> >
>>> >rgds
>>> >jan I.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 23.09.2013 at 7:46 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Please have a look at
>>> >> >https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122035that bug
>>> >deals
>>> >> >with this specific issue.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >rgds
>>> >> >jan I.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >On 23 September 2013 18:54, janI  wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 23 September 2013 16:19, Raphael Bircher 
>>
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Hello bugreporter
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Am 23.09.13 12:45, schrieb bugreporte...@hushmail.com:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>  That's awesome Andrea, many thanks.
>>> >> 
>>> >>  Can someone tell me if it's a good idea to find out 
>which
>>> >devs
>>> >> >do not
>>> >>  work on AOO and are still assigned to bugs, and remove 
>>them
>>> >> >from the bugs
>>> >>  "Assigned To:"
>>> >>  field?
>>> >> 
>>> >> >>> This is a good idea.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>  I was thinking of something like this:
>>> >>  #1 get all emailaddresses from the devs which are 
>>assigned
>>> >to
>>> >> >bugs from
>>> >>  the bugzilla data base
>>> >>  #2 compare the list with the people/emailadresses which 
>>are
>>> >> >subscribed
>>> >>  to the dev mailing list
>>> >> 
>>> >> >>> This is not so a good idea. Same people has different e-
>>mail
>>> >> >adress on
>>> >> >>> bugzilla. I use the apache adress at bugzilla and my 
>>private
>>> >at
>>> >> >the mailing
>>> >> >>> list.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> There are a load people assinged to formar Oracle/SUN
>>> >employee.
>>> >> >If you
>>> >> >>> are not sure about a name you can ask him/her.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> We discussed this theme about 3 month ago, and agreed to 
>>reset
>>> >> >"assigned
>>> >> >> to" for issues that had not been worked on for 6 month. 
>Rob
>>> >> >talked about
>>> >> >> doing it at that

Re: bug 107063 (needs update)

[bugreporter99]

>...Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru
Can you tell me how to invoke a bugzilla guru? Or is he already seeing this and 
just has too much work to do?

>I think you need to use "search by change history".
But in "search by change history" one only can search for changes (at least 
that's what I was thinking).
But I want those issues with no changes.


On 24.09.2013 at 7:06 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>
>On 24 September 2013 16:37,  wrote:
>
>>
>> >last modified older and a year and assigned to a person)
>> ...
>> >...if you did the unassignment,
>>
>> Well I can not promise to do this but at least I could try.
>> So trying to achieve this behaviour I tried the Advanced Search 
>on
>> bugzilla and it did not work.
>> How to get the "was modified" in the search and what does that 
>exactly
>> mean? -> new comment, change of the statusj???
>> this is my attempt (bugzilla using the advanced search without 
>beeing
>> logged in):
>> http://img850.imageshack.us/i/a5vl.png/
>>
>
>Rob weir is the real bugzilla guru, I am just a user, so he can 
>hopefully
>give you more precise ideas.
>
>"was modified" is in my opinion is new comment and/or status. 
>Without
>actually having tried it, I think you need to use "search by change
>history".
>
>rgds
>jan I.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 24.09.2013 at 1:14 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>> >
>> >On 24 September 2013 12:36,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks.
>> >> Haven't seen that.
>> >> Can you tell me what "...for issues that had not been worked 
>on
>> >for 6
>> >> month..." means?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Sorry I wrote 6 month it is actually 1year (as written in the
>> >comments)
>> >
>> >
>> >> Cause for example the bug
>> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20525 was 
>reported
>> >> 2003-10-01 01:18 UTC by ulim and the last post/comment was 
>from
>> >"mkca
>> >> 2007-05-03 12:24:50 UTC" and it was still assigned to Oliver
>> >Specht on
>> >> ??.??.2013. (Now, thanks to some friendly people, it is marked
>> >as a
>> >> duplicate and there is a "duplicate comment")
>> >> Does the mechanism only work for new bugs or is there 
>something
>> >I missed?
>> >>
>> >It is not a mechanism, but a simply filter (last modified and
>> >assigned).
>> >
>> >Those issues hit by the filter (last modified older and a year 
>and
>> >assigned
>> >to a person), should manually be unassigned without asking. The
>> >assigned
>> >person automatically gets a mail about the change.
>> >
>> >The idea is/was to do this every now and then to "release" 
>issues
>> >assigned
>> >to a person that does not work on it anymore, so we all know it 
>is
>> >free to
>> >be worked on.
>> >
>> >It would be cool if you did the unassignment, so we can get an
>> >overview of
>> >how many issues are actually being worked on.
>> >
>> >rgds
>> >jan I.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23.09.2013 at 7:46 PM, "janI"  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Please have a look at
>> >> >https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122035that bug
>> >deals
>> >> >with this specific issue.
>> >> >
>> >> >rgds
>> >> >jan I.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On 23 September 2013 18:54, janI  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 23 September 2013 16:19, Raphael Bircher 
>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hello bugreporter
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Am 23.09.13 12:45, schrieb bugreporte...@hushmail.com:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>  That's awesome Andrea, many thanks.
>> >> 
>> >>  Can someone tell me if it's a good idea to find out which
>> >devs
>> >> >do not
>> >>  work on AOO and are still assigned to bugs, and remove 
>them
>> >> >from the bugs
>> >>  "Assigned To:"
>> >>  field?
>> >> 
>> >> >>> This is a good idea.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>  I was thinking of something like this:
>> >>  #1 get all emailaddresses from the devs which are 
>assigned
>> >to
>> >> >bugs from
>> >>  the bugzilla data base
>> >>  #2 compare the list with the people/emailadresses which 
>are
>> >> >subscribed
>> >>  to the dev mailing list
>> >> 
>> >> >>> This is not so a good idea. Same people has different e-
>mail
>> >> >adress on
>> >> >>> bugzilla. I use the apache adress at bugzilla and my 
>private
>> >at
>> >> >the mailing
>> >> >>> list.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> There are a load people assinged to formar Oracle/SUN
>> >employee.
>> >> >If you
>> >> >>> are not sure about a name you can ask him/her.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We discussed this theme about 3 month ago, and agreed to 
>reset
>> >> >"assigned
>> >> >> to" for issues that had not been worked on for 6 month. Rob
>> >> >talked about
>> >> >> doing it at that time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think it is better to have a generic reset mechanism, 
>than
>> >to
>> >> >look after
>> >> >> the individual names.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But thanks for suggesting the work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> rgds
>> >> >> jan I.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks for the work
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Greetings Raphael
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --**--
>---
>> >-
>> 

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)

[Herbert Duerr]

this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release for
Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to introduce
some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian Cyrillic,
Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a further
key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
[...]
The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
[...]
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
[ ]  0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


+1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1

Herbert


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