from:"Patricia Shanahan"


On 10/9/2016 8:56 PM, Don Lewis wrote:

On  9 Oct, Patricia Shanahan wrote:



On 10/9/2016 10:52 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

- Change the RC1 into the real release


This one takes a few seconds and is best done close to the release.


- Uploading to the Sourceforge mirrors


This one takes a few hours. I've already prepared a full svn export of
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ and I'll be
using it for uploading to SourceForge shortly - I've just verified all
hashes. So the rename above can happen at any time: I'll be using my
local copy and not SVN for the rsync to SourceForge.


Rename done.


I see the binaries under http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.3/
but not the source tarballs.


From my phone, I saw the source tarballs, but only some of the language 
subdirectories. From the computer I used to do the move, I see both.


I think we may be seeing a propagation issue, and should let things 
settle for a few hours.


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

Re: Post vote release actions




On 10/9/2016 10:52 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

- Change the RC1 into the real release


This one takes a few seconds and is best done close to the release.


- Uploading to the Sourceforge mirrors


This one takes a few hours. I've already prepared a full svn export of
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ and I'll be
using it for uploading to SourceForge shortly - I've just verified all
hashes. So the rename above can happen at any time: I'll be using my
local copy and not SVN for the rsync to SourceForge.


Rename done.



Just for information, the svn export from dist took hours. I expected it
to be much faster again, but we have to consider that it's still a huge
amount of data (dozens of GBytes).

Do we want the SourceForge files to be "staged"? This can be done after
the upload and will make Sourceforge files temporarily invisible to
visitors, even though most visitors will simply download from the
official site.

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: Post vote release actions


On 10/5/2016 8:26 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I plan to start the 4.1.3 vote today. This is a draft of the action list
assuming the vote passes. Please help by correcting, expanding, and
adding anything missing.


Just in case anyone missed it, the vote passed so it is time to execute 
the post vote actions.


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

Re: New AOO414 branch?


On 10/9/2016 5:13 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:37:38PM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Can we open the AOO414 branch? Everything seems to show that 4.1.3 will be
coming in a week or so and for sure there is no further code work to do on
it. So I'd like to have an AOO414 branch where (once they are approved) we
can start merging changes. OpenOffice 4.1.4 is not going to take another
year, so better start early.


If the "4.1.4 Release Manager?" thread ended with me as RM for 4.1.4,
I'll be branching aoo-4.1.4 on Tuesday (right now I'm on travel).


At some point we should formalize the process for selecting an RM. 
Currently, it seems to be someone volunteers, some more people express 
support, nobody opposes, and you are it. By that process, you are the 
4.1.4 RM.



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

Vote status

2016-10-08 Thread Patricia Shanahan

With about three hours to go on the vote, I've prepared a spreadsheet 
based on the [VOTE] thread.


The current situation is 10 votes, one [0], nine [+1]. Of the +1 votes, 
five are binding. The comments indicate a range of different approaches 
to testing, which is good.


Please check the attached spreadsheet, reply to this message if you see 
any errors. Post to the [VOTE] thread if you wish to change or add a vote.


vote_results.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet

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

Re: Signature verification for 4.1.3-RC1

2016-10-08 Thread Patricia Shanahan

I had to make a change in the key preferences to meet the release 
signing requirements. I uploaded to a couple of servers, including MIT, 
and waited a few days.


I didn't think we were supposed to update KEYS directly?

On 10/8/2016 6:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

This is not a blocker for the release (and moreover signature files are
explicitly allowed to be updated during the release vote if needed), but
I couldn't verify signatures in a straightforward way for source packages.

One of the signatures is mine; no problem with that, and that itself is
enough to prove integrity for release approval purposes.

Patricia's one, according to my GPG, is done with a key having a short
ID of 02703386; I couldn't find the public key in the usual places, so I
couldn't verify this one.

Again, this is not a blocker issue since one key is enough, but public
keys used for signing releases are expected to be found at:
http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/KEYS
or (secondary resource) at
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/

The former contains my key and another key by Patricia (short ID
A57935C5); the latter contains the same key by Patricia - it doesn't
contain mine since I never bothered uploading it again to enforce the
long IDs and I now see that someone decided to remove the keys that only
had a short ID, I'll fix it later today.

Where can I find the matching public key by Patricia? It should be added
in SVN to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/KEYS
which (I believe) maps to the first URL I listed. There is surely a way
to do it without a full checkout, but I didn't check details.

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: 4.1.3_release_blocker granted: [Issue 127045] Enforce Polygon API contracts at run-time

2016-10-07 Thread Patricia Shanahan




On 10/7/2016 4:06 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/07/2016 01:03 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

I would not have granted a release blocker request for this one, because
it was already fixed in source in the previous release, 4.1.2-patch1.
All 4.1.3 does for it is include it in a binary distribution, worth
indicating in the release notes, but not a reason to revive the bug.


sorry for doing this without your involvement. I thought we have seen
this also as blocker. I would like to have it in the BZ list of all
issues as it is an important part of the release.

So, should I delete the flag or can we keep it in there?


I would delete the flag and treat it as fixed in 4.1.2-patch1. Perhaps 
modify the comment about it to include a link to the bugzilla issue as 
well as the existing CVE link?


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

Re: Post vote release actions

2016-10-07 Thread Patricia Shanahan


On 10/7/2016 3:55 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/07/2016 12:43 AM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

...

Thanks. Would you like to be the point person working with Sally on the
press release? It would be smooth to coordinate themes between press
release and blog post.


I don't see a problem to create a press release and then to point to it
from every announcement regardless of the communication channel.
Therefore I see it more as convenient to have it in the same person's
hand. ;-)

OK, I'll speak with Sally.


I have already given her a heads-up on this, in the private thread 
"Available to help with any communications needs as you discuss future 
of AOO".


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

Re: 4.1.3_release_blocker granted: [Issue 127045] Enforce Polygon API contracts at run-time

2016-10-07 Thread Patricia Shanahan

I would not have granted a release blocker request for this one, because 
it was already fixed in source in the previous release, 4.1.2-patch1. 
All 4.1.3 does for it is include it in a binary distribution, worth 
indicating in the release notes, but not a reason to revive the bug.


On 10/7/2016 3:03 AM, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:

Marcus  has granted Marcus 's request for
4.1.3_release_blocker:
Issue 127045: Enforce Polygon API contracts at run-time
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127045



--- Comment #8 from Marcus  ---
Fixed

-
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: Post vote release actions

On 10/6/2016 5:42 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/05/2016 06:27 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

RM: Update
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3 to show
vote result etc.

The only important thing to update is that the release is available,
since the page stays archived.

RM: Edit
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes

release notes to delete "DRAFT" note. - RM

Someone will also have to call for translations and coordinate
translations.

RM: Use svn to move
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/4.1.3/. See
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b3416c973088efdf60056d2aae7f6cee0bd125be4370f3c0ff5324b@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E

for Ariel's tip on how to do this without a full checkout.

SVN moves by URL. So you never need a full checkout for the mv (Ariel
was addressing another issue, i.e., how to add a file to a directory
without a full checkout). For moving, this command will work from any
directory (one line):

$ svn mv https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/4.1.3

Someone with SourceForge access: Upload to SourceForge using rsync.

This does need a full checkout (a full export to be precise). I have
access, as several other PMC members; I can take care of this.

Modify OpenOffice web pages to reflect the new release.
Press release and announcement on apache.org home page.

I'll take care about the website updates ...

...and for the post on https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/ I have access, but
I thinks others do too, so I'd leave this to someone else - even though
it may be a simple copy/paste from the announcement.

... and could also do a blog post if nobody else want to do this.

Thanks. Would you like to be the point person working with Sally on the
press release? It would be smooth to coordinate themes between press
release and blog post.

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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote]


No problem. I won't close the vote early.

On 10/6/2016 2:45 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:

Hi,

I can only make some time for testing on the 8th Okt.  Is that okay if I
take my vote on this last moment?

Keith N. McKenna <keith.mcke...@comcast.net> schrieb am Do., 6. Okt. 2016,
19:48:


Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:10:40PM -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

Ariel;

In all the builds that I have been involved in with AOO we have

included

a link to a Bugzilla query for all bugs fixed by that release.My

concern

was 2 fold. One that it would give a wrong impression to anyone that
followed the link and the second was to try to keep Bugzilla up to

date.


If it is possible we should construct a query that excludes anything in
Product = Build Tools for the Release Notes.


I think calling out the important stuff directly in the release notes

but

providing a Bugzilla link that shows everything, including tools, is a
reasonable compromise. However, I am very open to suggestions for

improving

the release notes.


IMO yes, there should be a link to the bugzilla query, but it does not
make sense to mention those build-related bugs individually.


Regards


I agree there is no need to highlight those types of bugs individually.
I will remove the individual mention of them from the 4.1.3 Release Notes.

Keith

--


Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.



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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote] Summary

This thread has morphed a bit, and I think a summary may be useful at 
this time.


It started with Keith pointing out, correctly, that I was taking a short 
cut by starting the vote before all the relevant bugs had been marked 
"Fixed", although after I was sure they were all fixed in reality. That 
aspect was quickly resolved by Ariel updating the bugs in question. All 
4.1.3 release blocker bugs are now marked as fixed.


It then shifted into a discussion of what should be in the release 
notes. There are three classes of Bugzilla issues involved:


1. Fixes affecting the behavior of binaries. Listing these in the 
release notes is non-controversial.


2. Administrative changes, changing the release number in various places.

3. Fixes to the build systems. Because of the year time lapse since 
4.1.2, there was an accumulation of issues that affect building in 
various environments.


The question was how to handle the second and third classes. They are 
uninteresting, and in some cases incomprehensible, to the vast majority 
of AOO users. The plan is to only mention "interesting" bugs directly in 
the release notes, but include the URL for a Bugzilla query that shows 
all the fixes.



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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes




On 10/6/2016 5:29 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/05/2016 12:23 AM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update
as appropriate?


I've seen now all issues as "Resolved - Fixed" - or "Verified - Fixed".


Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue,
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now


IMHO this has changed in the meantime. I've added this also to the
release notes.


denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.


I hope you don't mind that I've deleted the 4.1.4 blocker request.


No problem. I only filed the request to make sure it did not get lost.
Fixed by choice of build environment is much better.

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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote]


On 10/6/2016 5:21 AM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/06/2016 01:52 PM, schrieb Marcus:

...

I'll take a look into the issue list, update the release notes with
interesting issues for the average user and keep the full details to the
link of BZ issues.


done.

I've also added a line for the BZ issue 126622 "Base 4.1.2 does not open
Tables and Queries in Mac OSX" that it is no longer occurring.


I hate marking things fixed when they mysteriously disappear, because 
anything that mysteriously disappears can reappear, probably at the 
least convenient possible time.


I think, based on Ariel's comment #28 on 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, that we no longer have 
a mysterious disappearance,  but an actual fix:


It is fixed by switching from building on Mac OS X El Capitan with Xcode 
7 to building on 4.1.3 on macOS Sierra with Xcode 8.


I am going to be offline for several hours starting in about an hour. 
Can you update the release notes to show this?


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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote]




On 10/5/2016 5:51 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 07:17:27PM -0400, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I believe, based on my tracking and testing, that the release blockers
are all fixed. I was hoping the people working on the bugs, especially
those who requested release_blocker, will update them ASAP.


I have no doubt that they have been fixed, but they need to be updated
as we link to a query for them from the Release Notes and what message
does it give to the world if the Release Notes show Release Blockers as
still open?


Most of these bugs don't make any sense in the release notes, they are
too aoo-build specific.


Regards


Ariel;

In all the builds that I have been involved in with AOO we have included
a link to a Bugzilla query for all bugs fixed by that release.My concern
was 2 fold. One that it would give a wrong impression to anyone that
followed the link and the second was to try to keep Bugzilla up to date.

If it is possible we should construct a query that excludes anything in
Product = Build Tools for the Release Notes.


I think calling out the important stuff directly in the release notes 
but providing a Bugzilla link that shows everything, including tools, is 
a reasonable compromise. However, I am very open to suggestions for 
improving the release notes.


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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote]


They are now marked as fixed.

On 10/5/2016 3:28 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

I believe, based on my tracking and testing, that the release blockers
are all fixed. I was hoping the people working on the bugs, especially
those who requested release_blocker, will update them ASAP.

On 10/5/2016 2:35 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Just a procedural Question. How can we be calling for a vote when there
are items in Bugzilla marked as release blockers that are not marked as
fixed?

Regards
Keith



-
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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


On 10/5/2016 2:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 04/10/2016 Mechtilde wrote:

Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.


Yes, this is important. As we did for 4.1.2, I would leave PMC members
free to vote and specify what they have done. Nobody will go to jail for
not building from source and "only" testing the binaries that we are
going to make available for download by one million users per week.

We will not be in the situation where we should count votes and, if
needed (and it happened in the past) a release vote can be canceled by
the Release Manager if a blocker bug is found.

So it is more helpful for us to receive an honest +1 from someone who
specifies he only tested binaries than total silence from the same
person because she understood that you can be useful to the project only
if you build from source. It is clear that we will satisfy the mandatory
requirements anyway and with no need for counting votes. So the more
feedback we get, the better.


+1

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

Re: {Dicuss] [Vote]

I believe, based on my tracking and testing, that the release blockers 
are all fixed. I was hoping the people working on the bugs, especially 
those who requested release_blocker, will update them ASAP.


On 10/5/2016 2:35 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

Just a procedural Question. How can we be calling for a vote when there
are items in Bugzilla marked as release blockers that are not marked as
fixed?

Regards
Keith



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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 RC1


+1 Binding

Source testing: Checked signature and hashes. Checked that the three 
source formats contain identical files. Built and tested en-US on 
Windows 8.1


Binary testing: Tested en-GB binary on Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Windows 
10, and Ubuntu 16.04. Also tested fr binary on Windows 8.1


On 10/5/2016 2:07 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:

The Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 source and binaries,
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/, contain
several bug fixes. See the draft release notes at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes


Please vote on releasing it as 4.1.3 by replying to this thread

[ ] +1 Approve, with description of any testing you have done
[ ] 0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation.

In addition, if you are a PMC member please indicate "Binding" if you
intend to cast a binding vote, which requires a build and test from source.

Please tag any discussion, rather than votes, with [DISCUSS][VOTE].

The vote will conclude no sooner than 10 p.m UTC on Saturday, October
8th, 2016.

-
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

[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 RC1

The Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3 source and binaries, 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/, contain 
several bug fixes. See the draft release notes at 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes


Please vote on releasing it as 4.1.3 by replying to this thread

[ ] +1 Approve, with description of any testing you have done
[ ] 0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation.

In addition, if you are a PMC member please indicate "Binding" if you 
intend to cast a binding vote, which requires a build and test from source.


Please tag any discussion, rather than votes, with [DISCUSS][VOTE].

The vote will conclude no sooner than 10 p.m UTC on Saturday, October 
8th, 2016.


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

Post vote release actions

I plan to start the 4.1.3 vote today. This is a draft of the action list 
assuming the vote passes. Please help by correcting, expanding, and 
adding anything missing.


RM: Update 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3 to show 
vote result etc.


RM: Edit 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes 
release notes to delete "DRAFT" note. - RM


RM: Use svn to move 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ to 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/4.1.3/. See 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0b3416c973088efdf60056d2aae7f6cee0bd125be4370f3c0ff5324b@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E 
for Ariel's tip on how to do this without a full checkout.


Someone with SourceForge access: Upload to SourceForge using rsync.

Modify OpenOffice web pages to reflect the new release.

Press release and announcement on apache.org home page.

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

Re: 4.1.3_release_blocker denied: [Issue 126622] Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX


On 10/5/2016 2:32 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:

On 2016-10-05, 12:48 AM Andrea Pescetti wrote:


Larry Gusaas wrote:

Is this approved or not approved as a release blocker???
I thought there was a fix for this.
It is essential that this is fixed for Mac users.


As I understand it, the reason is lack of testing and, as explained by
Ariel, system changes in the latest 2 versions of MacOS X that require
build changes for this to work. But testing is easy: just download a
4.1.3-RC1 build from
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3-rc1/ and give
your feedback in the issue. If this doesn't make it for 4.1.3, it is a
clear candidate for 4.1.4 (which is surely not going to take one year!).

Regards,
  Andrea.


Base works in 4.1.3-RC1. I worked in the build that Ariel posted on the
issue for this bug. Apparently it doesn't require build changes to work,
or have those changes been made. Or was Ariel referring to the bug that
means the legacy Java 6 is required for Java to work on AOO???


I tried to find out what was going on in the thread

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e96354facb4683435be70f428f8381636b2becaa89b34ab7b5f3ef0@%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E

Subject: Status of "Base 4.1.2 does not open Tables and Queries in Mac OSX"

I could not get a clear consensus that it has been fixed in 4.1.3, so I 
could not include it in the release notes as a fixed bug. There is still 
time to change that.



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

Ready to Vote on 4.1.3?

Please post only objections to calling a vote on 4.1.3 tomorrow. I will 
treat silence as consent.


As far as I can tell, we are ready to go.

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

Testing 4.1.3

I have done some basic testing for the following environments and 
language versions:


Windows 7 en_GB
Windows 8.1 en_GB, fr
Windows 10 en_GB
Ubuntu 16.04 en_GB

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - release notes

Could people working on the bugzilla entries check the status and update 
as appropriate?


Note that I did not include the Mac Tables and Queries issue, 
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126622, in the release notes 
because I did not see enough confirmation that it is fixed. I have now 
denied it 4.1.3 release blocker, but added a request for 4.1.4.


On 10/4/2016 2:47 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 10:31 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.3+Release+Notes



ah, thanks. I've updated some text (e.g., separated the sec issue into
an own paragraph) and updated the link for the BZ issue list as it still
points to 4.0.1.

I'm a bit worried about the many issues that are not fixed, resolved,
closed [1].

But besides this it's OK. So, we are also done here.

[1]
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=flagtypes.name=equals=Importance_format=advanced=4.1.3_release_blocker%2B


Marcus




On 10/4/2016 1:29 PM, Marcus wrote:

OK, binary and source code testing is on a good way.

What about the release notes. Are these somewhere reachable/readable
already?


-
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: Question about spell check




On 10/4/2016 1:15 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/04/2016 09:44 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

I downloaded and installed
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when
I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected
"colour" (English spelling).

I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile,
but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that
has never run any OpenOffice before.

It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but
I would have expected documents to also default to the installation
language.

What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?


it's the language from the underlying system.

The same values are set when it comes to other formattings. E.g., you
will see "US-Dollar" for the currency and not "British Pound".

However, the UI interface is the language from the installation file.

*IMHO* it's OK that not all settings are set to the language of the
installation file. However, for the default spell check it's
discuss-worthy.


I'll check that it is not a regression. If it isn't, we can put it aside 
for now. It does seem strange that I need to do more to get en-GB 
spelling after installing an en-GB AOO.



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

Question about spell check

I downloaded and installed 
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-GB.exe. To my distress, when 
I first started it, it accepted "color" (US spelling) and rejected 
"colour" (English spelling).


I thought perhaps it picked up my previous use of en-US from my profile, 
but I got the same effect installing on a new Windows 10 computer that 
has never run any OpenOffice before.


It is using English, not American, spellings in the user interface, but 
I would have expected documents to also default to the installation 
language.


What language is supposed to be used, by default, for user documents?

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds




On 10/4/2016 4:24 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Oct 3, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote:


On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.

A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's control. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
decide when to start a vote.


I've build today that branch with release options. Is this sufficient or
do I need to build from the [zip|gz|bzip] file?


I believe it does have to be from the zip etc. but I am not sure. The actual 
wording is:

"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all signed 
source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet all requirements of 
ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile 
as provided, and test the result on their own platform."



The release is the tarball/zip itself and not the "tag". So it (the
build) needs to be from the zip/tarball.


I have built and run from the zip. I have also decompressed and
extracted each of the tarballs, and used "diff -r" to confirm they are
each identical to the zip. I do plan to do the signature and hash checks
for each of the three files.

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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

On some of my Windows builds, I get a failure, but doing a new "build 
--all", without cleaning, works. That may be worth trying while you are 
waiting for more expert advice.


I think there may be problems in whatever is supposed to be enforcing 
dependency order, so that a module gets built too soon, while things on 
which it depends have not all been built.


On the comparisons between trees, "diff -r A B" does not take that long 
and gives full confirmation that A and B are paths to directory trees 
with the same files and identical file content.


On 10/4/2016 9:11 AM, Marcus wrote:



Am 04.10.2016 um 00:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?


I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413 still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).


For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz decompress
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar
files for further checks.


ah, great hint.

I've uncompressed all 3 files, diff'ed the .tar.bz2 and .tar.gz files,
and finally uncompressed all files until the actual dirs/files. All 3
dirs had the same total file size of 1,541,414,704 bytes. This has to
be enough when it comes to "you have to check all source files".

Tomorrow I'll build the release from a package file.


I've uncompressed the ZIP file and started a clean build. Unfortunately,
I get the following error:

[...]
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:
In function
`FmXGridControl::createPeer(com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&, com::sun::star::uno::Reference
const&)':
fmgridif.cxx:(.text+0x68b2): undefined reference to `non-virtual thunk
to WindowListenerMultiplexer::acquire()'
/usr/bin/ld:
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/CxxObject/svx/source/fmcomp/fmgridif.o:
relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol
`_ZThn48_N25WindowListenerMultiplexer7acquireEv' can not be used when
making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solenv/gbuild/LinkTarget.mk:259: recipe for
target
'/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so'
failed
make: ***
[/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/solver/413/unxlngx6.pro/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/libsvxcore.so]
Error 1
dmake:  Error code 2, while making 'all'

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

Reason(s):

ERROR: error 65280 occurred while making
/share/linux2/aoo-4.1.3/main/svx/prj

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

build --from svx


Marcus


-
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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds

Testing the reference builds is indeed extremely important, and should 
be most of the testing.


The significance of the builds from source is that a PMC member can only 
cast a binding +1 vote if they have done one, and we need at least three 
binding +1 votes to release. They also need to have a general opinion 
that the release should go out, and all the non-binding votes and 
testing reports may influence that.




On 10/3/2016 10:45 PM, Mechtilde wrote:

Hello,

for my understanding, beside doing a good build it is necessary to have
and totest defined reference builds.

The way I see it, it is not easy to do a good build if you didn't have
enough practice doing it.

I didn't myself any C/C++ build before. So IHMO I will waste time to
improve my build environment instead of testing a reference build

My results of testing belong to the reference builds published as RC1 at
dist.apache.org.

Apache OpenOffice is a project with a wide user base, who only use the
binaries. So it is important to release well defined and tested binaries.

Otherwise support becomes hell.

Kind regards

Am 04.10.2016 um 01:58 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 3:30 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:




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



Mechtilde Stehmann
--
## Apache OpenOffice.org
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## Key-ID 0x141AAD7F



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

Apache OpenOffice release notification

The Apache OpenOffice project is currently preparing and testing a 
release candidate, 4.1.3-rc1. The total size of the artifacts, including 
the binary files, exceeds a gigabyte, so the release policy calls for 
notifying Infrastructure.


I do not expect significant Infrastructure impact because AOO is 
normally downloaded from SourceForge, not ASF or its mirrors.


Please contact me or post to dev@openoffice.apache.org if you need more 
details.


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

Infra notification?

According to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#heads-up, 
infra needs to be notified in advance of releases of more than 1GB.


What is the total size of our binaries?

Do our releases really count for this, because most downloading will be 
from SourceForge, not ASF mirrors.


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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


On 10/3/2016 3:30 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 11:26 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?


I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413 still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).


For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz decompress
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar
files for further checks.


ah, great hint.

I've uncompressed all 3 files, diff'ed the .tar.bz2 and .tar.gz files,
and finally uncompressed all files until the actual dirs/files. All 3
dirs had the same total file size of 1,541,414,704 bytes. This has to be
enough when it comes to "you have to check all source files".

Tomorrow I'll build the release from a package file.

@Andrea:
Can you please check the
"apache-openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src.tar.gz.sha256" file? It's in
binary mode and not useable for checksum comparsion.


I am doing a build directly from the source distribution, but I've also 
done a "diff -r" between it and the svn, and only found the expected 
differences.



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

Re: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds


On 10/3/2016 2:02 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Marcus wrote:

wow, *all signed source code packages* ?


I assume that this does not literally mean that you must test the .bz2,
the .gz and the .zip. They are equivalent. This sentence is for when a
project makes a release composed of different parts. For the record,
trunk is already set to avoid duplication of packages, but AOO413 still
uses the old convention of 3 source packages. (If it helps, I've used
the .bz2 for my tests!).


For my testing, I'm assuming that it is enough to be sure a package is 
identical to one I've tested. In particular, the .bz2 and .gz decompress 
to the same .tar file, so I don't even plan to extract one of the tar 
files for further checks.



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

Re: Testing 4.1.3

There were German dictionary changes. Can you tell the difference 
between de, de_AT, and de_CH? If so, could you perhaps do a test in each 
of the other dialects?


On 10/3/2016 12:19 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:

Hello,

I installed and tested the german version (de) on:

 - Ubuntu 16.04.1 (64bit)
 - Xubuntu 16.04.1 (32bit)

Everything is working as expected.

regards

Matthias


Am 03.10.2016 um 13:29 schrieb Mechtilde:

Hello,

I did the same tests for Linux x86-64 deb de.

I did also some work with it without problems

Regards

Mechtilde

Am 03.10.2016 um 12:57 schrieb Marcus:

Am 09/25/2016 08:33 PM, schrieb Marcus:

Am 09/25/2016 04:33 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

I suggest that people start downloading and testing 4.1.3 as soon as
there are binaries they can run. I can't start the formal vote period
until we have a complete release candidate.

thanks for the pointer, I'll wait for the Linux 64-bit and Windows
builds.

I've done the following for testing:

Installation


Windows 10
--
Windows deOK
Windows de langpackOK
Windows en-USOK
Windows en-US langpackOK

Fedora 21 64-bit

Linux x86-64 rpm deOK
Linux x86-64 rpm de langpackOK
Linux x86-64 rpm en-USOK
Linux x86-64 rpm en-US langpackOK

Quick test
==
Starting, creating files, saving, copy & pasting and quittingOK

Release data

Version number, "About" dialogOK

Of course not a full QA test round. However, as the fixes are small,
this quick test should be good enough.

Marcus


-
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: Testing 4.1.3 - source builds



On 10/3/2016 12:45 PM, Marcus wrote:

Am 10/03/2016 09:40 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:

Testing seems to be going well, but there is a very specific requirement
for a release.

A PMC member, to cast a binding +1 vote approving a relese, needs to
have built the software from source and tested it on a machine under the
PMC member's control. See
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

PMC members please indicate when they have done that test, to help me
decide when to start a vote.


I've build today that branch with release options. Is this sufficient or
do I need to build from the [zip|gz|bzip] file?


I believe it does have to be from the zip etc. but I am not sure. The 
actual wording is:


"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download 
all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that 
they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, 
validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the 
result on their own platform."



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

Testing 4.1.3 - source builds