subject:"Time for our first 4.2.0 beta\?"

Am 27.03.19 um 17:46 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Am 27.03.19 um 17:37 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> Are we going to move this to /repos/dist/release/? That’s what they want 
>>> the heads up about, correct? That way they can prevent thrashing between 
>>> dist.a.o and archive.a.o
>> That said, we are not going to *release* a Developer Build but we are
>> going to make it available... ;-)
>>
>> Uploads will go to the /dev area.
> Always good to check ;-)

Definitely!

However, the tag ends up as a "release" on GitHub [1]. But Infra is
aware of that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-438

[1] https://github.com/apache/openoffice/releases

>
 On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

 Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?

> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>  wrote:
>
> I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
> before tomorrow evening...
>
> Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>
> Regards,
>
>  Matthias
>
> Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
>>
>>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
>>
>> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag 
>> as we speak.
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-27 Thread Dave Fisher




> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:44 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Am 27.03.19 um 17:37 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Are we going to move this to /repos/dist/release/? That’s what they want the 
>> heads up about, correct? That way they can prevent thrashing between 
>> dist.a.o and archive.a.o
> 
> That said, we are not going to *release* a Developer Build but we are
> going to make it available... ;-)
> 
> Uploads will go to the /dev area.

Always good to check ;-)

> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?
>>> 
 On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:
 
 I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
 before tomorrow evening...
 
 Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
 
 Regards,
 
  Matthias
 
 Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
> 
>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
> 
> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag 
> as we speak.
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 


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

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

Hi Dave,

Am 27.03.19 um 17:37 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Are we going to move this to /repos/dist/release/? That’s what they want the 
> heads up about, correct? That way they can prevent thrashing between dist.a.o 
> and archive.a.o

That said, we are not going to *release* a Developer Build but we are
going to make it available... ;-)

Uploads will go to the /dev area.

>
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
>>> before tomorrow evening...
>>>
>>> Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>   Matthias
>>>
>>> Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:

   https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1

 I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag 
 as we speak.
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

Am 27.03.19 um 17:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?

The procedure is the same like for Release Candidates...

And even for releases: Infra said they don't need to be informed
(because AOO isn't mirrored anymore?)
See: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.6

>
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
>> before tomorrow evening...
>>
>> Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
>> Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
>>>
>>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
>>>
>>> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as 
>>> we speak.
>>> -
>>> 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
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-27 Thread Dave Fisher

Are we going to move this to /repos/dist/release/? That’s what they want the 
heads up about, correct? That way they can prevent thrashing between dist.a.o 
and archive.a.o

> On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?
> 
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
>> before tomorrow evening...
>> 
>> Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>   Matthias
>> 
>> Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
>>> 
>>>   https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
>>> 
>>> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as 
>>> we speak.
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


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

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-27 Thread Jim Jagielski

Is Infra aware of this upcoming "developer's" release?

> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
> before tomorrow evening...
> 
> Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
> Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
>> 
>>https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
>> 
>> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as 
>> we speak.
>> -
>> 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: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

I will start immediately with my Windows builds. Don't expect them
before tomorrow evening...

Upload directories exists here, rename if you like:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/

Regards,

   Matthias

Am 27.03.19 um 12:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1
>
> I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as 
> we speak.
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-27 Thread Jim Jagielski

> On Mar 26, 2019, at 9:48 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Did you enjoy the Apache Roadshow yesterday? ;-)
> 

I did actually... it's nice seeing smaller, more intimate events, esp
located at colleges and universities.

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

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-27 Thread Jim Jagielski

The TAG for the developer preview is now applied:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO420-Dev-m1

I have started building Linux 64&32 and macOS previews based on that tag as we 
speak.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 26.03.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I'll be creating a tag today around 3pm EDT, unless I hear otherwise ;)

Great!

Did you enjoy the Apache Roadshow yesterday? ;-)

Matthias

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Jim Jagielski

I'll be creating a tag today around 3pm EDT, unless I hear otherwise ;)

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

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Jim Jagielski

+1... kudos all around!

> On Mar 26, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mechtilde,
> 
> Am 26.03.19 um 10:51 schrieb Stehmann:
>> +1
>> And thanks to Matthias for his work.
> 
> Without your work on the Pootle synchronization this wouldn't have been
> possible. ;-)
> 
> Matthias
> 
>> 
>> Mechtilde 
>> 
>> Am 26. März 2019 10:44:01 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
>> :
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I think it is time to move on and tag a Developer Snapshot (Dev1).
>>> People need something "official" to test. Our buildbots do not produce
>>> release quality (for various reasons) and we still miss macOS there.
>>> 
>>> As soon as the Release Manager creates a tag I can begin to build for
>>> Windows. (Remember, it takes about 15 hours for a complete build incl.
>>> all languages, SDK and Language Packs). Revision 1856225 would be OK
>>> for me.
>>> 
>>> Dev1 will still contain many things to be fixed. But it can be a common
>>> base to discuss about. And of course more Developer Builds are likely
>>> to
>>> follow until we reach the level for a (public) Beta.
>>> 
>>> Does that sound like a way to go?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>Matthias
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 16:39 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Am 24.03.19 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>>> 
>>> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is
>>> in
>>> the scope, and what is not.
>> Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
> We want to write a blog post for developers?
 We want to release a *developer build* right now and that is what we
 should announce (when it is ready):
 What it is intended for, what known bugs are still in it and need to
>>> be
 fixed, how the translation process is proceeding.
 Call for testing, etc...
 
 This can be announced on dev@, dev-de@, l10n@ and the forum. Also
>>> this
 should be linked on our homepage to give the average user an
>>> impression
 about our latest development activities.
 
 Regards,
 
Matthias
 
 P.S.: Of course we can (and should) do much more blogposts in
>>> general. ;-)
>>> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until
>>> beta,
>>> how many are optional.
>>> 
>>> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and
>>> finish
>>> with the release criteria.
>> Beta has no state at the moment.
> Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which
>>> conditions
> have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
> interesting.
>>> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for
>>> the
>>> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>>> 
>>> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
>> I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together
>>> on
>> the blogpost...
>> 
>> Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
> No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
> should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview
>>> level
> and then post.
>> Matthias
>> 
>>> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound
>>> right, or
> should there be more?
 I am not sure...
 
 But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them!
>>> ;-)
 Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a
>>> release...
> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>> 
>>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available
>>> and which
>>> have Issues?
>> Mechtilde knows best.
>> 
>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not
>>> at 100%
>> in Dev1.
>> 
>> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>> 
>> Matthias
>> 
>>> All the Best
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated.
>>> Some are
 still missing due to technical problems but as translation is
>>> a work in
 progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
 
 I also created an empty directory structure on our dist
>>> server [1].
 Regards,
 
Matthias
 
 [1]
>>>

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Mechtilde,

Am 26.03.19 um 10:51 schrieb Stehmann:
> +1
> And thanks to Matthias for his work.

Without your work on the Pootle synchronization this wouldn't have been
possible. ;-)

Matthias

>
> Mechtilde 
>
> Am 26. März 2019 10:44:01 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
> :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think it is time to move on and tag a Developer Snapshot (Dev1).
>> People need something "official" to test. Our buildbots do not produce
>> release quality (for various reasons) and we still miss macOS there.
>>
>> As soon as the Release Manager creates a tag I can begin to build for
>> Windows. (Remember, it takes about 15 hours for a complete build incl.
>> all languages, SDK and Language Packs). Revision 1856225 would be OK
>> for me.
>>
>> Dev1 will still contain many things to be fixed. But it can be a common
>> base to discuss about. And of course more Developer Builds are likely
>> to
>> follow until we reach the level for a (public) Beta.
>>
>> Does that sound like a way to go?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 24.03.19 um 16:39 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Hi Matthias,

 On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>>
>> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is
>> in
>> the scope, and what is not.
> Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
 We want to write a blog post for developers?
>>> We want to release a *developer build* right now and that is what we
>>> should announce (when it is ready):
>>> What it is intended for, what known bugs are still in it and need to
>> be
>>> fixed, how the translation process is proceeding.
>>> Call for testing, etc...
>>>
>>> This can be announced on dev@, dev-de@, l10n@ and the forum. Also
>> this
>>> should be linked on our homepage to give the average user an
>> impression
>>> about our latest development activities.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> P.S.: Of course we can (and should) do much more blogposts in
>> general. ;-)
>> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until
>> beta,
>> how many are optional.
>>
>> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and
>> finish
>> with the release criteria.
> Beta has no state at the moment.
 Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which
>> conditions
 have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
 interesting.
>> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for
>> the
>> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>>
>> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
> I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together
>> on
> the blogpost...
>
> Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
 No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
 should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview
>> level
 and then post.
> Matthias
>
>> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound
>> right, or
 should there be more?
>>> I am not sure...
>>>
>>> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them!
>> ;-)
>>> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a
>> release...
 On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available
>> and which
>> have Issues?
> Mechtilde knows best.
>
> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not
>> at 100%
> in Dev1.
>
> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>
> Matthias
>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated.
>> Some are
>>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is
>> a work in
>>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>>
>>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist
>> server [1].
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> [1]
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.

 On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> +1
>

Re: Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Stehmann

+1
And thanks to Matthias for his work.

Mechtilde 

Am 26. März 2019 10:44:01 MEZ schrieb Matthias Seidel 
:
>Hi all,
>
>I think it is time to move on and tag a Developer Snapshot (Dev1).
>People need something "official" to test. Our buildbots do not produce
>release quality (for various reasons) and we still miss macOS there.
>
>As soon as the Release Manager creates a tag I can begin to build for
>Windows. (Remember, it takes about 15 hours for a complete build incl.
>all languages, SDK and Language Packs). Revision 1856225 would be OK
>for me.
>
>Dev1 will still contain many things to be fixed. But it can be a common
>base to discuss about. And of course more Developer Builds are likely
>to
>follow until we reach the level for a (public) Beta.
>
>Does that sound like a way to go?
>
>Regards,
>
>   Matthias
>
>
>Am 24.03.19 um 16:39 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 24.03.19 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>
> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is
>in
> the scope, and what is not.
 Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
>>> We want to write a blog post for developers?
>> We want to release a *developer build* right now and that is what we
>> should announce (when it is ready):
>> What it is intended for, what known bugs are still in it and need to
>be
>> fixed, how the translation process is proceeding.
>> Call for testing, etc...
>>
>> This can be announced on dev@, dev-de@, l10n@ and the forum. Also
>this
>> should be linked on our homepage to give the average user an
>impression
>> about our latest development activities.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> P.S.: Of course we can (and should) do much more blogposts in
>general. ;-)
>>
> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until
>beta,
> how many are optional.
>
> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and
>finish
> with the release criteria.
 Beta has no state at the moment.
>>> Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which
>conditions
>>> have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
>>> interesting.
> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for
>the
> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>
> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
 I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together
>on
 the blogpost...

 Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
>>> No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
>>> should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview
>level
>>> and then post.
 Matthias

> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound
>right, or
>>> should there be more?
>> I am not sure...
>>
>> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them!
>;-)
>>
>> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a
>release...
>>
>>> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available
>and which
> have Issues?
 Mechtilde knows best.

 But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not
>at 100%
 in Dev1.

 Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)

 Matthias

> All the Best
>
> Peter
>
> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated.
>Some are
>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is
>a work in
>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>
>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist
>server [1].
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> [1]
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>>
>>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>
 Hi Peter,

 +1

 How about crating the draft somewhere here:

>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0

 Regards,

    Matthias

 Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>

Create tag for 4.2.0 Developer Build 1? (was: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?)

2019-03-26 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi all,

I think it is time to move on and tag a Developer Snapshot (Dev1).
People need something "official" to test. Our buildbots do not produce
release quality (for various reasons) and we still miss macOS there.

As soon as the Release Manager creates a tag I can begin to build for
Windows. (Remember, it takes about 15 hours for a complete build incl.
all languages, SDK and Language Packs). Revision 1856225 would be OK for me.

Dev1 will still contain many things to be fixed. But it can be a common
base to discuss about. And of course more Developer Builds are likely to
follow until we reach the level for a (public) Beta.

Does that sound like a way to go?

Regards,

   Matthias


Am 24.03.19 um 16:39 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 24.03.19 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.

 So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is in
 the scope, and what is not.
>>> Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
>> We want to write a blog post for developers?
> We want to release a *developer build* right now and that is what we
> should announce (when it is ready):
> What it is intended for, what known bugs are still in it and need to be
> fixed, how the translation process is proceeding.
> Call for testing, etc...
>
> This can be announced on dev@, dev-de@, l10n@ and the forum. Also this
> should be linked on our homepage to give the average user an impression
> about our latest development activities.
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> P.S.: Of course we can (and should) do much more blogposts in general. ;-)
>
 And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until beta,
 how many are optional.

 We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and finish
 with the release criteria.
>>> Beta has no state at the moment.
>> Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which conditions
>> have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
>> interesting.
 That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for the
 4.2.0 development line and to write about.

 Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
>>> I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together on
>>> the blogpost...
>>>
>>> Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
>> No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
>> should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview level
>> and then post.
>>> Matthias
>>>
 On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
>> should there be more?
> I am not sure...
>
> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)
>
> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...
>
>> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Hi Matthias,

 Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
 have Issues?
>>> Mechtilde knows best.
>>>
>>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
>>> in Dev1.
>>>
>>> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
 All the Best

 Peter

 On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work 
> in
> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>
> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>
>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And 
 then
 we can add stuff.

 Okay?

 On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If no one will, I will

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Am 24.03.19 um 14:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>>>
>>> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is in
>>> the scope, and what is not.
>> Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
> We want to write a blog post for developers?

We want to release a *developer build* right now and that is what we
should announce (when it is ready):
What it is intended for, what known bugs are still in it and need to be
fixed, how the translation process is proceeding.
Call for testing, etc...

This can be announced on dev@, dev-de@, l10n@ and the forum. Also this
should be linked on our homepage to give the average user an impression
about our latest development activities.

Regards,

   Matthias

P.S.: Of course we can (and should) do much more blogposts in general. ;-)

>>> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until beta,
>>> how many are optional.
>>>
>>> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and finish
>>> with the release criteria.
>> Beta has no state at the moment.
> Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which conditions
> have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
> interesting.
>>> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for the
>>> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>>>
>>> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
>> I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together on
>> the blogpost...
>>
>> Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
> No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
> should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview level
> and then post.
>> Matthias
>>
>>> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
> should there be more?
 I am not sure...

 But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)

 Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...

> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
>>> have Issues?
>> Mechtilde knows best.
>>
>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
>> in Dev1.
>>
>> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>> All the Best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi all,

 Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
 still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
 progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.

 I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].

 Regards,

    Matthias

 [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/


 Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>
> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And 
>>> then
>>> we can add stuff.
>>>
>>> Okay?
>>>
>>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 If no one will, I will

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>  wrote:
>
> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>
>> -
>> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Matthias,

On 24.03.19 13:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>>
>> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is in
>> the scope, and what is not.
> Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
We want to write a blog post for developers?
>> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until beta,
>> how many are optional.
>>
>> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and finish
>> with the release criteria.
> Beta has no state at the moment.
Sorry, was not good at expressing. I mean we should say which conditions
have to be met in order to start into Beta Phase, and to whom it is
interesting.
>>
>> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for the
>> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>>
>> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?
> I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together on
> the blogpost...
>
> Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)
No I just think we have a total different idea what this blog post
should contain. Okay, I will reduce my writings to amore overview level
and then post.
>
> Matthias
>
>>
>> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
 should there be more?
>>> I am not sure...
>>>
>>> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)
>>>
>>> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...
>>>
 On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
>> have Issues?
> Mechtilde knows best.
>
> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
> in Dev1.
>
> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>
> Matthias
>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
>>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
>>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>>
>>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.

 On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> +1
>
> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And 
>> then
>> we can add stuff.
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> If no one will, I will
>>>
 On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
  wrote:

 Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
 Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)

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


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Peter,

Am 24.03.19 um 13:37 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.
>
> So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is in
> the scope, and what is not.
Users should not expect anything, this is for developers.
>
> And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until beta,
> how many are optional.
>
> We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and finish
> with the release criteria.
Beta has no state at the moment.
>
>
> That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for the
> 4.2.0 development line and to write about.
>
> Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?

I would be happy if we only had a page (in CWiki?) to work together on
the blogpost...

Or did you want to do it all alone? ;-)

Matthias

>
>
> On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
>>> should there be more?
>> I am not sure...
>>
>> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)
>>
>> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...
>>
>>> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi Peter,

 Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
> have Issues?
 Mechtilde knows best.

 But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
 in Dev1.

 Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)

 Matthias

> All the Best
>
> Peter
>
> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>
>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>>
>>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>
 Hi Peter,

 +1

 How about crating the draft somewhere here:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0

 Regards,

    Matthias

 Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
> we can add stuff.
>
> Okay?
>
> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If no one will, I will
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
 ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

yes but we want to write a blog post on the Development Version.

So I would like to write what the user can expect of 4.2.0 what is in
the scope, and what is not.

And then we need to describe how much bug fixes are in scope until beta,
how many are optional.

We should the describe the beta state, which we want to make and finish
with the release criteria.


That would make it for me worthwhile to give people a frame for the
4.2.0 development line and to write about.

Right? Or what do you believe we should write in the Blog post?


On 24.03.19 13:09, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
>> should there be more?
> I am not sure...
>
> But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)
>
> Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...
>
>>
>> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Hi Matthias,

 Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
 have Issues?
>>> Mechtilde knows best.
>>>
>>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
>>> in Dev1.
>>>
>>> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
 All the Best

 Peter

 On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>
> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>
>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
 we can add stuff.

 Okay?

 On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If no one will, I will
>
>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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

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


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Am 24.03.19 um 13:04 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
> should there be more?

I am not sure...

But I am more interested in the open issues. And who fixes them! ;-)

Remember, this is a developer build, not a Beta or even a release...

>
>
> On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
>>> have Issues?
>> Mechtilde knows best.
>>
>> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
>> in Dev1.
>>
>> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>> All the Best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Hi all,

 Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
 still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
 progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.

 I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].

 Regards,

    Matthias

 [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/


 Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>
> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
>>> we can add stuff.
>>>
>>> Okay?
>>>
>>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 If no one will, I will

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>  wrote:
>
> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

yes I am on it. I found 106 closed issues. Does this sound right, or
should there be more?


On 24.03.19 12:47, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
>> have Issues?
> Mechtilde knows best.
>
> But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
> in Dev1.
>
> Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)
>
> Matthias
>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
>>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
>>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>>
>>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.

 On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> +1
>
> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
>> we can add stuff.
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> If no one will, I will
>>>
 On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
  wrote:

 Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
 Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)

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


>> -
>> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Peter,

Am 24.03.19 um 12:41 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
> have Issues?

Mechtilde knows best.

But we should inform l10n@ about the languages where UI are not at 100%
in Dev1.

Let's start on the blogpost! ;-)

Matthias

>
> All the Best
>
> Peter
>
> On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
>> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
>> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>>
>> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>>
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>>
>>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>>
 Hi Peter,

 +1

 How about crating the draft somewhere here:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0

 Regards,

    Matthias

 Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
> we can add stuff.
>
> Okay?
>
> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If no one will, I will
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
 ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Matthias,

Is there an overview on the Languages we have now available and which
have Issues?

All the Best

Peter

On 24.03.19 10:41, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
> still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
> progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.
>
> I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/
>
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>>
>> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
 Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
 we can add stuff.

 Okay?

 On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If no one will, I will
>
>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi all,

Most of the translations for trunk and 42X are now updated. Some are
still missing due to technical problems but as translation is a work in
progress I think this will be sufficient for Dev1.

I also created an empty directory structure on our dist server [1].

Regards,

   Matthias

[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.2.0-Dev1/


Am 21.03.19 um 21:10 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> +1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.
>
> On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> +1
>>
>> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
>>
>> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
>>> we can add stuff.
>>>
>>> Okay?
>>>
>>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 If no one will, I will

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
>
> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-21 Thread Peter Kovacs

+1, I will create a subspapge and Link it.

On 21.03.19 16:19, Matthias Seidel wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> +1
>
> How about crating the draft somewhere here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
>> we can add stuff.
>>
>> Okay?
>>
>> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> If no one will, I will
>>>
 On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
 Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)

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

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-21 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Peter,

+1

How about crating the draft somewhere here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Apache+OpenOffice+4.2.0

Regards,

   Matthias

Am 21.03.19 um 07:56 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
> we can add stuff.
>
> Okay?
>
> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If no one will, I will
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
 ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>>
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-21 Thread Jim Jagielski

+1!

> On Mar 21, 2019, at 2:56 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
> we can add stuff.
> 
> Okay?
> 
> On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If no one will, I will
>> 
>>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
 ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>> 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-21 Thread Peter Kovacs

Lets do this together, I write a first daraft on the weekend. And then
we can add stuff.

Okay?

On 20.03.19 12:42, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If no one will, I will
>
>> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
>> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-20 Thread Jim Jagielski

If no one will, I will

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
>> ready for a tag and build of Dev1
> 
> Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)
> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-19 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 19.03.19 um 19:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
> ready for a tag and build of Dev1

Do we have volunteers to write a blog post? ;-)

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-19 Thread Jim Jagielski

I agree that once we update the xlation files, we could be
ready for a tag and build of Dev1

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-19 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 19.03.19 um 14:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I'm starting another macOS build. :)

Great!

If everything works as expected I plan to update the translation files
(SDF) together with Mechtilde this week.
Then we could tag/build Dev1 next weekend?

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 17.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in 
>>> naming to our Beta.
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1855711 looks good
>> to me.
>>
>> Windows binaries:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
 On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Hi Jim,

 Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-dev builds to:
>
>http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
> 
>
> Attached are screen shots. BTW, the name of the app is AOO-Developer-Build
 That said, I am not happy with the different naming...

 I'm not sure if this Developer build has ever been used or tested before, 
 but now would be the perfect moment to unify it according to the other 
 builds.

 BTW: I have uploaded some Windows Dev Builds here:
 https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/ 
 
 Regards,

   Matthias

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-19 Thread Jim Jagielski

I'm starting another macOS build. :)

> On Mar 18, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Am 17.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming 
>> to our Beta.
> 
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1855711 looks good
> to me.
> 
> Windows binaries:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 
>>> Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-dev builds to:
 
http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
 
 
 Attached are screen shots. BTW, the name of the app is AOO-Developer-Build
>>> That said, I am not happy with the different naming...
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if this Developer build has ever been used or tested before, 
>>> but now would be the perfect moment to unify it according to the other 
>>> builds.
>>> 
>>> BTW: I have uploaded some Windows Dev Builds here:
>>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/ 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>   Matthias
>>> 
 
 
 
>> 
> 


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-18 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 17.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming 
> to our Beta.

https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1855711 looks good
to me.

Windows binaries:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-dev builds to:
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>>> 
>>>
>>> Attached are screen shots. BTW, the name of the app is AOO-Developer-Build
>> That said, I am not happy with the different naming...
>>
>> I'm not sure if this Developer build has ever been used or tested before, 
>> but now would be the perfect moment to unify it according to the other 
>> builds.
>>
>> BTW: I have uploaded some Windows Dev Builds here:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/ 
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-17 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 17.03.19 um 15:18 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming 
> to our Beta.

I am already preparing a commit that should fix it. ;-)

In the future I would want to do Developer Builds much more often.
The builds from our buildbots are too far away from what we would
release (even on Windows). And we still have no buildbot for macOS.

Regular Developer Builds would give people the opportunity to follow our
development progress more closely.

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-dev builds to:
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>>> 
>>>
>>> Attached are screen shots. BTW, the name of the app is AOO-Developer-Build
>> That said, I am not happy with the different naming...
>>
>> I'm not sure if this Developer build has ever been used or tested before, 
>> but now would be the perfect moment to unify it according to the other 
>> builds.
>>
>> BTW: I have uploaded some Windows Dev Builds here:
>> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/ 
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-17 Thread Jim Jagielski

I would agree that my pref would be for it to be much more similar in naming to 
our Beta.

> On Mar 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Am 15.03.19 um 12:01 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I've upload just a couple of the macOS AOO-4.2.0-dev builds to:
>> 
>> http://home.apache.org/~jim/AOO-builds/ 
>> 
>> 
>> Attached are screen shots. BTW, the name of the app is AOO-Developer-Build
> That said, I am not happy with the different naming...
> 
> I'm not sure if this Developer build has ever been used or tested before, but 
> now would be the perfect moment to unify it according to the other builds.
> 
> BTW: I have uploaded some Windows Dev Builds here:
> https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Dev/ 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-14 Thread Jim Jagielski

firing macOS up as we speak...

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Am 13.03.19 um 14:35 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Let me know when you're done and I can fire up the "official" developer's 
>> builds :)
> I just added the "Developer Snapshot" graphics for the Start Center. [1]
> My Windows test builds look good so far.
> 
> BUT:
> Only recently I found out that on Windows file associations are not set
> for a Developer Build (works for a Beta).
> That means that you cannot open a .odt or .doc file by double clicking.
> I am pretty sure this is Windows only (probably Windows installer) but
> this must be fixed before we do anything official.
> 
> Maybe you can do personal dev builds for Linux and macOS to see if
> everything works there?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1855525
> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Very cool.
>>> 
 On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:

 Hi Jim and all,

 Am 07.03.19 um 15:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> ++1
 FYI:

 I just added a graphic for the about dialog which is now used when you
 build a Developer Snapshot:
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/about.png

 Additionally I will try to make a special graphic for the Start Center
 (similar to a Beta build)

 Regards,

  Matthias

>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jim and all,
>> 
>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>> (public) beta.
>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>> 
>> So here is my proposal:
>> 
>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>> developer snapshot.
>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>> 
>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>> 
>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
>> we create the tag.
>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
>> dictionary.
>> 
>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>> 
>> Opinions?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Matthias
>> 
>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>> 
 On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  
 wrote:

 Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
 understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
 time.

 My own release checklist would include:
 1. Library audit.
 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything 
 and
 then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
 possible.
 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
 modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
 back
 then.
 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 
 and
 4.2.0?
 2. Base:
 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
 SDBC-JDBC
 bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, 
 fix any
 differences.
 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, 
 groups,
 etc.
 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base 
 UI
 forms (like MySQL already is).
 3. Crashreporter
 3.1 Get it working again.
 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
 server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
 4. Testing
 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
 tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
 regressions.

 Damjan

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 

 wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
> 
> We should at least fix issue

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-14 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 13.03.19 um 14:35 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Let me know when you're done and I can fire up the "official" developer's 
> builds :)
I just added the "Developer Snapshot" graphics for the Start Center. [1]
My Windows test builds look good so far.

BUT:
Only recently I found out that on Windows file associations are not set
for a Developer Build (works for a Beta).
That means that you cannot open a .odt or .doc file by double clicking.
I am pretty sure this is Windows only (probably Windows installer) but
this must be fixed before we do anything official.

Maybe you can do personal dev builds for Linux and macOS to see if
everything works there?

Regards,

   Matthias

[1] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1855525

>
>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:13 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> Very cool.
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim and all,
>>>
>>> Am 07.03.19 um 15:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 ++1
>>> FYI:
>>>
>>> I just added a graphic for the about dialog which is now used when you
>>> build a Developer Snapshot:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/about.png
>>>
>>> Additionally I will try to make a special graphic for the Start Center
>>> (similar to a Beta build)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>   Matthias
>>>
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel 
>  wrote:
>
> Hi Jim and all,
>
> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
> (public) beta.
> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>
> So here is my proposal:
>
> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
> developer snapshot.
> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>
> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>
> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
> we create the tag.
> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
> dictionary.
>
> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
> hashes and PGP signatures.
> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
>  Matthias
>
> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>>>
>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>>> time.
>>>
>>> My own release checklist would include:
>>> 1. Library audit.
>>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything 
>>> and
>>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>>> possible.
>>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
>>> back
>>> then.
>>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 
>>> and
>>> 4.2.0?
>>> 2. Base:
>>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
>>> SDBC-JDBC
>>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
>>> any
>>> differences.
>>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>>> etc.
>>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base 
>>> UI
>>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>>> 3. Crashreporter
>>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>>> 4. Testing
>>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>>> regressions.
>>>
>>> Damjan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Jim,

 IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.

 We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
 beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...

 Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
 the latest translations from Pootle.
 At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-11 Thread Jim Jagielski

Very cool.

> On Mar 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim and all,
> 
> Am 07.03.19 um 15:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> ++1
> 
> FYI:
> 
> I just added a graphic for the about dialog which is now used when you
> build a Developer Snapshot:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/about.png
> 
> Additionally I will try to make a special graphic for the Start Center
> (similar to a Beta build)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Jim and all,
>>> 
>>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>>> (public) beta.
>>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>>> 
>>> So here is my proposal:
>>> 
>>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>>> developer snapshot.
>>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>>> 
>>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>>> 
>>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
>>> we create the tag.
>>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
>>> dictionary.
>>> 
>>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>>> 
>>> Opinions?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>   Matthias
>>> 
>>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
 
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> 
> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> time.
> 
> My own release checklist would include:
> 1. Library audit.
> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
> possible.
> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
> back
> then.
> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
> 4.2.0?
> 2. Base:
> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
> SDBC-JDBC
> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
> any
> differences.
> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
> etc.
> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
> forms (like MySQL already is).
> 3. Crashreporter
> 3.1 Get it working again.
> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
> 4. Testing
> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
> regressions.
> 
> Damjan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>> 
>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>> 
>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>> need to be updated in source.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Matthias
>> 
>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>> 
>> 
>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-10 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim and all,

Am 07.03.19 um 15:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> ++1

FYI:

I just added a graphic for the about dialog which is now used when you
build a Developer Snapshot:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/about.png

Additionally I will try to make a special graphic for the Start Center
(similar to a Beta build)

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim and all,
>>
>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>> (public) beta.
>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>>
>> So here is my proposal:
>>
>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>> developer snapshot.
>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>>
>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>>
>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
>> we create the tag.
>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
>> dictionary.
>>
>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>>
 On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

 Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
 understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
 time.

 My own release checklist would include:
 1. Library audit.
 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
 then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
 possible.
 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
 modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
 then.
 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
 4.2.0?
 2. Base:
 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
 bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
 differences.
 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
 etc.
 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
 forms (like MySQL already is).
 3. Crashreporter
 3.1 Get it working again.
 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
 server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
 4. Testing
 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
 tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
 regressions.

 Damjan

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 

 wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>
> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>
> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
> the latest translations from Pootle.
> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
> need to be updated in source.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Matthias
>
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>
>
> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-08 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Marcus,

Am 08.03.19 um 18:31 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 08.03.19 um 17:01 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
> ++1
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
>>  wrote:
>>
>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>> (public) beta.
>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>>
>> So here is my proposal:
>>
>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>> developer snapshot.
>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>>
>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged
>> before
>> we create the tag.
>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated
>> English
>> dictionary.
>>
>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>>
>> Opinions?

 Would we limit the distribution as follows?
 We would not distribute to SourceForge.
 We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
>>>
>>> and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list
>>> of links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what
>>> we have available now. ;-)
>>
>> Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-)
>> The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates.
>
> ah, OK. When have we changed from Beta to Dev Snapshot? Sorry, I think
> I've missed this point of time.

Some lines above... ;-)

It is only a proposal, but Dave's response was related to a Developer
Snapshot.

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
 We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but
 not allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure
 with Infra first)
 We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to
 all of our openoffice.apache.org 
 mailing lists.
 We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a
 way to solve user issues.

 (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this
 version from www.apache.org/dist/ .)

>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>>
 On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic 
 wrote:

 Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
 understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when
 I have
 time.

 My own release checklist would include:
 1. Library audit.
 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since
 the
 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting
 everything and
 then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's
 very
 possible.
 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older
 gbuild
 modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map
 files back
 then.
 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both
 4.1.0 and
 4.2.0?
 2. Base:
 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new
 SDBC-JDBC
 bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++
 one, fix any
 differences.
 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users,
 groups,
 etc.
 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the
 Base UI
 forms (like MySQL already is).
 3. Crashreporter
 3.1 Get it working again.
 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now
 obsolete
 server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
 4. Testing
 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module
 integration
 tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
 regressions.

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel

 wrote:

> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>
> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-08 Thread Marcus

Am 08.03.19 um 17:01 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus:

Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:

On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

++1

On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
wrote:

As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
(public) beta.
But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
"official" we can base our discussions on.

So here is my proposal:

We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
developer snapshot.
This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.

We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png

I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged
before
we create the tag.
March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated
English
dictionary.

The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
hashes and PGP signatures.
It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.

Opinions?

Would we limit the distribution as follows?
We would not distribute to SourceForge.
We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.

and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list
of links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what
we have available now. ;-)

Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-)
The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates.

ah, OK. When have we changed from Beta to Dev Snapshot? Sorry, I think
I've missed this point of time.

Marcus

We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but
not allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure
with Infra first)
We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to
all of our openoffice.apache.org
mailing lists.
We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a
way to solve user issues.

(I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this
version from www.apache.org/dist/ .)

Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?

On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic
wrote:

Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when
I have
time.

My own release checklist would include:
1. Library audit.
1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since
the
4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting
everything and
then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
possible.
1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older
gbuild
modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map
files back
then.
1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both
4.1.0 and
4.2.0?
2. Base:
2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new
SDBC-JDBC
bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++
one, fix any
differences.
2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users,
groups,
etc.
2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the
Base UI
forms (like MySQL already is).
3. Crashreporter
3.1 Get it working again.
3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now
obsolete
server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
4. Testing
4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module
integration
tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
regressions.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel

wrote:

IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.

We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a
(public)
beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...

Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can
export
the latest translations from Pootle.
At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF
files still
need to be updated in source.

[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129

Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-08 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Marcus,

Am 07.03.19 um 21:03 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>
>>> ++1
>>>
 On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
  wrote:

 As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
 (public) beta.
 But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
 "official" we can base our discussions on.

 So here is my proposal:

 We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
 developer snapshot.
 This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
 openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.

 We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png


 I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged
 before
 we create the tag.
 March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated
 English
 dictionary.

 The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
 hashes and PGP signatures.
 It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.

 Opinions?
>>
>> Would we limit the distribution as follows?
>> We would not distribute to SourceForge.
>> We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
>
> and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list
> of links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what
> we have available now. ;-)

Remember, we are talking about a Developer Snapshot here... ;-)
The procedure would be exactly the same as for our Release Candidates.

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but
>> not allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure
>> with Infra first)
>> We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to
>> all of our openoffice.apache.org 
>> mailing lists.
>> We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a
>> way to solve user issues.
>>
>> (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this
>> version from www.apache.org/dist/ .)
>>
 Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when
>> I have
>> time.
>>
>> My own release checklist would include:
>> 1. Library audit.
>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since
>> the
>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting
>> everything and
>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>> possible.
>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older
>> gbuild
>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map
>> files back
>> then.
>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both
>> 4.1.0 and
>> 4.2.0?
>> 2. Base:
>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new
>> SDBC-JDBC
>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++
>> one, fix any
>> differences.
>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users,
>> groups,
>> etc.
>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the
>> Base UI
>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>> 3. Crashreporter
>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now
>> obsolete
>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>> 4. Testing
>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module
>> integration
>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>> regressions.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>>>
>>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a
>>> (public)
>>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>>>
>>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can
>>> export
>>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF
>>> files still
>>> need to be updated in source.
>>>
>>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>>
>>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>
>
>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Marcus

Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:

On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

++1

On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel
wrote:

As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
(public) beta.
But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
"official" we can base our discussions on.

So here is my proposal:

We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
developer snapshot.
This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.

We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png

I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
we create the tag.
March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
dictionary.

The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
hashes and PGP signatures.
It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.

Opinions?

Would we limit the distribution as follows?
We would not distribute to SourceForge.
We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.

and how to you want the people to download the files? Via a long list of
links? I hope not as it would be clearly a big step backwards what we
have available now. ;-)

Marcus

We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not allow
the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra first)
We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of our
openoffice.apache.org mailing lists.
We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to solve
user issues.

(I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from
www.apache.org/dist/ .)

Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?

On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
time.

My own release checklist would include:
1. Library audit.
1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
possible.
1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
then.
1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
4.2.0?
2. Base:
2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
differences.
2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
etc.
2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
forms (like MySQL already is).
3. Crashreporter
3.1 Get it working again.
3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
4. Testing
4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
regressions.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel
wrote:

IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.

We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...

Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
the latest translations from Pootle.
At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
need to be updated in source.

[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129

Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Dave Fisher



> On Mar 7, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>> Hi -
>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ++1
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
 wrote:
 
 Hi Jim and all,
 
 As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
 (public) beta.
 But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
 "official" we can base our discussions on.
 
 So here is my proposal:
 
 We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
 developer snapshot.
 This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
 openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
 
 We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
 
 I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
 we create the tag.
 March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
 dictionary.
 
 The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
 hashes and PGP signatures.
 It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
 
 Opinions?
>> Would we limit the distribution as follows?
>> We would not distribute to SourceForge.
>> We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
>> We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not 
>> allow the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra 
>> first)
>> We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of 
>> our openoffice.apache.org  mailing lists.
>> We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to 
>> solve user issues.
>> 
>> (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from 
>> www.apache.org/dist/ .)
> 
> Speaking for a Developer Snapshot:
> Yes to all, but I would prefer to put the binaries to
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ 
> 

Got it. Then we really don’t even need to VOTE.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
 Regards,
 
  Matthias
 
 Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
> 
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>> 
>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>> time.
>> 
>> My own release checklist would include:
>> 1. Library audit.
>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything 
>> and
>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>> possible.
>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
>> back
>> then.
>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 
>> and
>> 4.2.0?
>> 2. Base:
>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
>> SDBC-JDBC
>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
>> any
>> differences.
>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>> etc.
>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>> 3. Crashreporter
>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>> 4. Testing
>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>> regressions.
>> 
>> Damjan
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jim,
>>> 
>>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>>> 
>>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>>> 
>>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>>> need to be updated in source.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Matthias
>>> 
>>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Dave,

Am 07.03.19 um 17:02 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi -
>
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> ++1
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim and all,
>>>
>>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>>> (public) beta.
>>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>>>
>>> So here is my proposal:
>>>
>>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>>> developer snapshot.
>>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>>>
>>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>>>
>>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
>>> we create the tag.
>>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
>>> dictionary.
>>>
>>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
> Would we limit the distribution as follows?
> We would not distribute to SourceForge.
> We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
> We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not allow 
> the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra first)
> We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of 
> our openoffice.apache.org  mailing lists.
> We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to 
> solve user issues.
>
> (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from 
> www.apache.org/dist/ .)

Speaking for a Developer Snapshot:
Yes to all, but I would prefer to put the binaries to
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/

Regards,

   Matthias


>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>   Matthias
>>>
>>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>
> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> time.
>
> My own release checklist would include:
> 1. Library audit.
> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
> possible.
> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
> back
> then.
> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
> 4.2.0?
> 2. Base:
> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
> SDBC-JDBC
> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
> any
> differences.
> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
> etc.
> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
> forms (like MySQL already is).
> 3. Crashreporter
> 3.1 Get it working again.
> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
> 4. Testing
> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
> regressions.
>
> Damjan
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
> 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>>
>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>>
>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>> need to be updated in source.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>
>>
>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 08:02:49 -0800
Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> > On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> > 
> > ++1
> > 
> >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Jim and all,
> >> 
> >> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
> >> (public) beta.
> >> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
> >> "official" we can base our discussions on.
> >> 
> >> So here is my proposal:
> >> 
> >> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
> >> developer snapshot.
> >> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
> >> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
> >> 
> >> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
> >> 
> >> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
> >> we create the tag.
> >> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
> >> dictionary.
> >> 
> >> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
> >> hashes and PGP signatures.
> >> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
> >> 
> >> Opinions?
> 
> Would we limit the distribution as follows?
> We would not distribute to SourceForge.
> We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
> We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not allow 
> the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra first)
> We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of 
> our openoffice.apache.org  mailing lists.
> We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to 
> solve user issues.
> 
> (I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from 
> www.apache.org/dist/ .)
> 
> Regards,
> Dave

It would be good to advise the Forum Volunteers that a 4.2.0 beta is available; 
they are an experienced set of users and some will adopt the new Beta.  When 
the Beta is available, I or Hagar could advise them privately via a Forum 
backchannel.

Rory 

> 
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >>   Matthias
> >> 
> >> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
> >>> 
>  On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>  
>  Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>  understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>  time.
>  
>  My own release checklist would include:
>  1. Library audit.
>  1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>  4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything 
>  and
>  then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>  possible.
>  1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>  modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
>  back
>  then.
>  1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 
>  and
>  4.2.0?
>  2. Base:
>  2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
>  SDBC-JDBC
>  bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>  2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
>  any
>  differences.
>  2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>  etc.
>  2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
>  forms (like MySQL already is).
>  3. Crashreporter
>  3.1 Get it working again.
>  3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>  server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>  4. Testing
>  4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>  tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>  regressions.
>  
>  Damjan
>  
>  
>  On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>  
>  wrote:
>  
> > Hi Jim,
> > 
> > IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
> > 
> > We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
> > beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
> > 
> > Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
> > the latest translations from Pootle.
> > At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
> > need to be updated in source.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Matthias
> > 
> > [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
> > 
> > 
> > Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Dave Fisher

Hi -

> On Mar 7, 2019, at 6:31 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> ++1
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jim and all,
>> 
>> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
>> (public) beta.
>> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
>> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>> 
>> So here is my proposal:
>> 
>> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
>> developer snapshot.
>> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
>> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>> 
>> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>> 
>> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
>> we create the tag.
>> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
>> dictionary.
>> 
>> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
>> hashes and PGP signatures.
>> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>> 
>> Opinions?

Would we limit the distribution as follows?
We would not distribute to SourceForge.
We would not put this on the OpenOffice.org download page.
We would put the distribution on our official Apache Dist page, but not allow 
the Apache Mirrors to pick it up (as now, but make sure with Infra first)
We would only note the distribution from the blog post and emails to all of our 
openoffice.apache.org  mailing lists.
We would allow the Forums to POST where it is available if it is a way to solve 
user issues.

(I think we need to warn Infra in case too many are taking this version from 
www.apache.org/dist/ .)

Regards,
Dave

>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>   Matthias
>> 
>> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>> 
 On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

 Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
 understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
 time.

 My own release checklist would include:
 1. Library audit.
 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
 then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
 possible.
 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
 modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
 then.
 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
 4.2.0?
 2. Base:
 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
 bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
 differences.
 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
 etc.
 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
 forms (like MySQL already is).
 3. Crashreporter
 3.1 Get it working again.
 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
 server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
 4. Testing
 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
 tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
 regressions.

 Damjan

 On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 

 wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
> 
> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
> 
> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
> the latest translations from Pootle.
> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
> need to be updated in source.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Matthias
> 
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
> 
> 
> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Jim Jagielski

++1

> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim and all,
> 
> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
> (public) beta.
> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
> "official" we can base our discussions on.
> 
> So here is my proposal:
> 
> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
> developer snapshot.
> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
> 
> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
> 
> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
> we create the tag.
> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
> dictionary.
> 
> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
> hashes and PGP signatures.
> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>> 
>>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> My own release checklist would include:
>>> 1. Library audit.
>>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
>>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>>> possible.
>>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
>>> then.
>>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
>>> 4.2.0?
>>> 2. Base:
>>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
>>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
>>> differences.
>>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>>> etc.
>>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
>>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>>> 3. Crashreporter
>>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>>> 4. Testing
>>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>>> regressions.
>>> 
>>> Damjan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Jim,
 
 IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
 
 We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
 beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
 
 Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
 the latest translations from Pootle.
 At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
 need to be updated in source.
 
 Regards,
 
  Matthias
 
 [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
 
 
 Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 
 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:46:08 +0100
Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Hi all!
> 
> I am still open for input.
> 
> Even if you are not involved in development/release, you sure have an
> opinion, don't you? ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Matthias


I'm using 4.2.0, currently revision 1854799, for daily work on Xubuntu 18.04.2 
64 bit - writing/editing long booklength texts and preparing/editing/showing 
Impress presentations, with also some trivial Calc work.  

It runs well, and has produced no unpleasantnesses.  I think it is ready for a 
first beta, with the usual warnings about not being used for mission critical 
work

Rory

 > 
> Am 24.02.19 um 17:35 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> > Hi Jim and all,
> >
> > As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
> > (public) beta.
> > But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
> > "official" we can base our discussions on.
> >
> > So here is my proposal:
> >
> > We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
> > developer snapshot.
> > This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
> > openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
> >
> > We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
> >
> > I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
> > we create the tag.
> > March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
> > dictionary.
> >
> > The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
> > hashes and PGP signatures.
> > It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >    Matthias
> >
> > Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
> >>
> >>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> >>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> >>> time.
> >>>
> >>> My own release checklist would include:
> >>> 1. Library audit.
> >>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
> >>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
> >>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
> >>> possible.
> >>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
> >>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files 
> >>> back
> >>> then.
> >>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
> >>> 4.2.0?
> >>> 2. Base:
> >>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new 
> >>> SDBC-JDBC
> >>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
> >>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix 
> >>> any
> >>> differences.
> >>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
> >>> etc.
> >>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
> >>> forms (like MySQL already is).
> >>> 3. Crashreporter
> >>> 3.1 Get it working again.
> >>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
> >>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
> >>> 4. Testing
> >>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
> >>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
> >>> regressions.
> >>>
> >>> Damjan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Jim,
> 
>  IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
> 
>  We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>  beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
> 
>  Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>  the latest translations from Pootle.
>  At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>  need to be updated in source.
> 
>  Regards,
> 
>    Matthias
> 
>  [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
> 
> 
>  Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> >
> > -
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-03-07 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi all!

I am still open for input.

Even if you are not involved in development/release, you sure have an
opinion, don't you? ;-)

Regards,

   Matthias

Am 24.02.19 um 17:35 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Hi Jim and all,
>
> As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
> (public) beta.
> But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
> "official" we can base our discussions on.
>
> So here is my proposal:
>
> We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
> developer snapshot.
> This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
> openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.
>
> We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png
>
> I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
> we create the tag.
> March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
> dictionary.
>
> The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
> hashes and PGP signatures.
> It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
> Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>>>
>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>>> time.
>>>
>>> My own release checklist would include:
>>> 1. Library audit.
>>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
>>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>>> possible.
>>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
>>> then.
>>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
>>> 4.2.0?
>>> 2. Base:
>>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
>>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
>>> differences.
>>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>>> etc.
>>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
>>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>>> 3. Crashreporter
>>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>>> 4. Testing
>>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>>> regressions.
>>>
>>> Damjan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Jim,

 IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.

 We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
 beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...

 Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
 the latest translations from Pootle.
 At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
 need to be updated in source.

 Regards,

   Matthias

 [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129


 Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>
> -
> 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
>>
>>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-24 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim and all,

As mentioned before, I think we need some more time before doing a
(public) beta.
But I also want to get a wider user base for testing and something
"official" we can base our discussions on.

So here is my proposal:

We could create a tag (snapshot420 or whatever) and build it as a
developer snapshot.
This can be done similar to a beta with the build targets:
openofficedev, ooodevlanguagepack and sdkoodev.

We also have a special splashscreen for a "Developer Snapshot":
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/ooo_custom_images/dev/introabout/intro.png

I would like to have all recent translations committed and merged before
we create the tag.
March would be a good time, so we could also include the updated English
dictionary.

The build should be uploaded to an official place together with all
hashes and PGP signatures.
It could be announced with a blog post linked on our homepage.

Opinions?

Regards,

   Matthias

Am 18.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?
>
>> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>>
>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>> time.
>>
>> My own release checklist would include:
>> 1. Library audit.
>> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
>> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
>> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
>> possible.
>> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
>> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
>> then.
>> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
>> 4.2.0?
>> 2. Base:
>> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
>> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
>> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
>> differences.
>> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
>> etc.
>> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
>> forms (like MySQL already is).
>> 3. Crashreporter
>> 3.1 Get it working again.
>> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
>> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
>> 4. Testing
>> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
>> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
>> regressions.
>>
>> Damjan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>>>
>>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>>>
>>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>>> need to be updated in source.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>   Matthias
>>>
>>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

 -
 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
>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Rory,

Am 18.02.19 um 17:07 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:58:38 +0100
> Matthias Seidel  wrote:
>
>> Hi Rory,
>>
>> Am 18.02.19 um 16:53 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:08:09 +
>>> Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:00:20 +0100
 Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Hi Rory,
>
> Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
>> Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>>
>>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>>> time.
>> A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert 
>> a background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can 
>> subsequently select the frame and then insert the background.
>>   
>> Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
>> attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using 
>> /View /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not 
>> display the Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is 
>> not anywhere on my desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not 
>> hidden behind anything).
> I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
> never could reproduce it on Windows.
>
> However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.
>>> OK, on 
>>> AOO420m1(Build:9820)  -  Rev. 1853744
>>> 2019-02-17_20:20:13 - Rev. 1853770
>>>
>>> just now installed (old profile used): The Frame toolbar shows on Linux deb 
>>> 64 when a frame is selected.  I can link frames OK.  However, I cannot 
>>> insert a background (Area) fill when defining a frame.  The system hangs, 
>>> then crashes.  The old linux trick of starting openoffice4 in a terminal 
>>> does not give any diagnostic information after such a crash.
>> You mix up two separate issues here...
>>
>> I only fixed the hidden toolbar. The crash is well known and documented:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>    Matthias
> Thanks - I understand that; however, it is probably useful to note the 
> continued existence of other problems concerned with a limited area of 
> functionality - in this case, frames.

That's what Bugzilla is for... ;-)

It is even flagged as a release blocker.

Matthias

>
> Rory 
>
>>> I can, once a frame is made, select it and change the background (Area) 
>>> colour.  If a frame has had a background inserted after making the frame, 
>>> its linking to another frame is uncertain - the background colour is 
>>> sometimes treated as frame content and linking is not permitted; however, 
>>> the logic of "content" in a frame probably ought be inserted content such 
>>> as text or illustration, not structural content such as a background colour 
>>> generated at frame make time; but until a frame can have such content 
>>> generated at frame make time, one cannot experiment in any detail.
>>>
>>> Rory
 OK, downloading now - will try this over next few days, but little time 
 until later in the week.

 Rory

>> (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
>> 2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice 
>> Test Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)
>>
>> I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is 
>> not a matter of any urgency for me.
>>
>> I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or 
>> private) to examine any change in this or other problems.
> You can try a build from our buildbot:
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
 -- 
 Rory O'Farrell 

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


>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:58:38 +0100
Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Hi Rory,
> 
> Am 18.02.19 um 16:53 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:08:09 +
> > Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:00:20 +0100
> >> Matthias Seidel  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Rory,
> >>>
> >>> Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
>  On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
>  Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> 
> > Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> > understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> > time.
>  A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert 
>  a background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can 
>  subsequently select the frame and then insert the background.
>    
>  Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
>  attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using 
>  /View /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not 
>  display the Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is 
>  not anywhere on my desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not 
>  hidden behind anything).
> >>> I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
> >>> never could reproduce it on Windows.
> >>>
> >>> However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.
> > OK, on 
> > AOO420m1(Build:9820)  -  Rev. 1853744
> > 2019-02-17_20:20:13 - Rev. 1853770
> >
> > just now installed (old profile used): The Frame toolbar shows on Linux deb 
> > 64 when a frame is selected.  I can link frames OK.  However, I cannot 
> > insert a background (Area) fill when defining a frame.  The system hangs, 
> > then crashes.  The old linux trick of starting openoffice4 in a terminal 
> > does not give any diagnostic information after such a crash.
> 
> You mix up two separate issues here...
> 
> I only fixed the hidden toolbar. The crash is well known and documented:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Matthias

Thanks - I understand that; however, it is probably useful to note the 
continued existence of other problems concerned with a limited area of 
functionality - in this case, frames.

Rory 

> 
> >
> > I can, once a frame is made, select it and change the background (Area) 
> > colour.  If a frame has had a background inserted after making the frame, 
> > its linking to another frame is uncertain - the background colour is 
> > sometimes treated as frame content and linking is not permitted; however, 
> > the logic of "content" in a frame probably ought be inserted content such 
> > as text or illustration, not structural content such as a background colour 
> > generated at frame make time; but until a frame can have such content 
> > generated at frame make time, one cannot experiment in any detail.
> >
> > Rory
> >>
> >> OK, downloading now - will try this over next few days, but little time 
> >> until later in the week.
> >>
> >> Rory
> >>
>  (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
>  2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice 
>  Test Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)
> 
>  I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is 
>  not a matter of any urgency for me.
> 
>  I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or 
>  private) to examine any change in this or other problems.
> >>> You can try a build from our buildbot:
> >>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>>    Matthias
> >>>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Rory O'Farrell 
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Rory,

Am 18.02.19 um 16:53 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:08:09 +
> Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:00:20 +0100
>> Matthias Seidel  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rory,
>>>
>>> Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
 On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
 Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> time.
 A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert a 
 background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can subsequently 
 select the frame and then insert the background.
   
 Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
 attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using 
 /View /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not 
 display the Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is not 
 anywhere on my desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not hidden 
 behind anything).
>>> I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
>>> never could reproduce it on Windows.
>>>
>>> However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.
> OK, on 
> AOO420m1(Build:9820)  -  Rev. 1853744
> 2019-02-17_20:20:13 - Rev. 1853770
>
> just now installed (old profile used): The Frame toolbar shows on Linux deb 
> 64 when a frame is selected.  I can link frames OK.  However, I cannot insert 
> a background (Area) fill when defining a frame.  The system hangs, then 
> crashes.  The old linux trick of starting openoffice4 in a terminal does not 
> give any diagnostic information after such a crash.

You mix up two separate issues here...

I only fixed the hidden toolbar. The crash is well known and documented:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> I can, once a frame is made, select it and change the background (Area) 
> colour.  If a frame has had a background inserted after making the frame, its 
> linking to another frame is uncertain - the background colour is sometimes 
> treated as frame content and linking is not permitted; however, the logic of 
> "content" in a frame probably ought be inserted content such as text or 
> illustration, not structural content such as a background colour generated at 
> frame make time; but until a frame can have such content generated at frame 
> make time, one cannot experiment in any detail.
>
> Rory
>>
>> OK, downloading now - will try this over next few days, but little time 
>> until later in the week.
>>
>> Rory
>>
 (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
 2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice 
 Test Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)

 I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is 
 not a matter of any urgency for me.

 I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or 
 private) to examine any change in this or other problems.
>>> You can try a build from our buildbot:
>>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>    Matthias
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Rory O'Farrell 
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:08:09 +
Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:00:20 +0100
> Matthias Seidel  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rory,
> > 
> > Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
> > > Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> > >> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> > >> time.
> > > A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert a 
> > > background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can subsequently 
> > > select the frame and then insert the background.
> > >   
> > > Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
> > > attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using 
> > > /View /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not 
> > > display the Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is not 
> > > anywhere on my desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not 
> > > hidden behind anything).
> > 
> > I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
> > never could reproduce it on Windows.
> > 
> > However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.

OK, on 
AOO420m1(Build:9820)  -  Rev. 1853744
2019-02-17_20:20:13 - Rev. 1853770

just now installed (old profile used): The Frame toolbar shows on Linux deb 64 
when a frame is selected.  I can link frames OK.  However, I cannot insert a 
background (Area) fill when defining a frame.  The system hangs, then crashes.  
The old linux trick of starting openoffice4 in a terminal does not give any 
diagnostic information after such a crash.

I can, once a frame is made, select it and change the background (Area) colour. 
 If a frame has had a background inserted after making the frame, its linking 
to another frame is uncertain - the background colour is sometimes treated as 
frame content and linking is not permitted; however, the logic of "content" in 
a frame probably ought be inserted content such as text or illustration, not 
structural content such as a background colour generated at frame make time; 
but until a frame can have such content generated at frame make time, one 
cannot experiment in any detail.

Rory
> 
> 
> OK, downloading now - will try this over next few days, but little time until 
> later in the week.
> 
> Rory
> 
> > 
> > > (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
> > > 2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice 
> > > Test Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)
> > >
> > > I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is 
> > > not a matter of any urgency for me.
> > >
> > > I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or 
> > > private) to examine any change in this or other problems.
> > 
> > You can try a build from our buildbot:
> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >    Matthias
> > 
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:00:20 +0100
Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Hi Rory,
> 
> Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
> > Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> >
> >> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> >> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> >> time.
> > A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert a 
> > background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can subsequently 
> > select the frame and then insert the background.
> >   
> > Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
> > attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using /View 
> > /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not display 
> > the Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is not anywhere 
> > on my desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not hidden behind 
> > anything).
> 
> I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
> never could reproduce it on Windows.
> 
> However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.


OK, downloading now - will try this over next few days, but little time until 
later in the week.

Rory

> 
> > (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
> > 2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice 
> > Test Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)
> >
> > I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is not 
> > a matter of any urgency for me.
> >
> > I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or private) 
> > to examine any change in this or other problems.
> 
> You can try a build from our buildbot:
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Matthias
> 
> >
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Rory,

Am 15.02.19 um 11:22 schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
> Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>
>> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
>> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
>> time.
> A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert a 
> background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can subsequently 
> select the frame and then insert the background.
>   
> Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
> attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using /View 
> /Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not display the 
> Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is not anywhere on my 
> desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not hidden behind anything).

I have seen this "hidden" toolbar on Linux (with a fresh profile) but
never could reproduce it on Windows.

However, Revision 1853741 should fix it.

> (I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
> 2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice Test 
> Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)
>
> I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is not a 
> matter of any urgency for me.
>
> I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or private) 
> to examine any change in this or other problems.

You can try a build from our buildbot:
https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/41x/

Regards,

   Matthias

>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-18 Thread Jim Jagielski

Release, as in GA, or release as in Beta?

> On Feb 15, 2019, at 4:55 AM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> 
> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> time.
> 
> My own release checklist would include:
> 1. Library audit.
> 1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
> 4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
> then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
> possible.
> 1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
> modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
> then.
> 1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
> 4.2.0?
> 2. Base:
> 2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
> bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
> 2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
> differences.
> 2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
> etc.
> 2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
> forms (like MySQL already is).
> 3. Crashreporter
> 3.1 Get it working again.
> 3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
> server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
> 4. Testing
> 4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
> tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
> regressions.
> 
> Damjan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jim,
>> 
>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>> 
>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>> 
>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>> need to be updated in source.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>   Matthias
>> 
>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>> 
>> 
>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 15.02.19 um 13:33 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Just trying to keep the momentum going ;)

Definitely!

And I would be the last person not wanting to release AOO 4.2.0 (beta)! ;-)

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>> On Feb 14, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>>
>> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
>> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>>
>> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
>> the latest translations from Pootle.
>> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
>> need to be updated in source.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>Matthias
>>
>> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>>
>>
>> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Mechtilde

HEllo Pedro

Am 15.02.19 um 11:56 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> 
>> On February 14, 2019 at 4:45 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> 
> How does a Beta version install on Linux?* Is it installed in parallel to the 
> Stable version (like on Windows)?

Under Linux (here: Debian) it is possible to install several versions
(stale and betas and des) side-by-side. The requerement is to install
the desktop-integration only one time.

Then ist is possible to take the directory openoffice4 under /opt into a
drectory you create yourself.

For example, at this time I have 6 Versions in parallel. In former time
I hat more than 10 or so.
> 
> If not then I believe the update problem should be fixed *before* releasing 
> the Beta
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127774

I never used the update function
> 
> Regards,
> Pedro
> 
> * I was going to test a previous Beta instead of asking, but the archive for 
> the only Beta does not contain any binaries 
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/binaries/en-US/

Kind regards

-- 
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Jim Jagielski

Just trying to keep the momentum going ;)

> On Feb 14, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
> 
> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
> 
> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
> the latest translations from Pootle.
> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
> need to be updated in source.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>Matthias
> 
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
> 
> 
> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Pedro Lino

Hi Rory, Keith, all

> On February 15, 2019 at 11:32 AM "Keith N. McKenna" < 
> keith.mcke...@comcast.net mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/15/2019 6:03 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> 
> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:56:25 + (WET) Pedro Lino
> > < pedro.l...@mailbox.org mailto:pedro.l...@mailbox.org > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > On February 14, 2019 at 4:45 PM 
> > > Jim Jagielski < j...@jagunet.com mailto:j...@jagunet.com >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> > > > 
> > > > > > > How does a Beta version install on 
> > > > Linux?* Is it installed in
> > > parallel to the Stable version (like on Windows)?
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > I always found a Beta overwrote the current version.
> > 
> > > 
Thanks! Then I believe Bug 127774 should be fixed in advance


> See the How To at
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Run_OOo_versions_parallel for running
> multiple versions in parallel. There is a warning at the top of the page
> about possible incompatibilities, but I have used the process defined
> there on Windows 7 professional on 4.x versions in the past with no
> problems.
> If you find any problems in the Linux instructions please let me know so
> the page can be updated.
> 

The question was how the Beta is installed by default (manual parallel 
installation is indeed possible on both OSes)

Regards,
Pedro


> >>
> >> If not then I believe the update problem should be fixed *before*
> >> releasing the Beta
> >> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127774
> >>
> >> Regards, Pedro
> >>
> >> * I was going to test a previous Beta instead of asking, but the
> >> archive for the only Beta does not contain any binaries
> >> http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/binaries/en-US/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
> mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For
> >> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
> mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> 
> > > 
> > 
> > >

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Keith N. McKenna

On 2/15/2019 6:03 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:56:25 + (WET) Pedro Lino
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On February 14, 2019 at 4:45 PM Jim Jagielski 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>> 
>> How does a Beta version install on Linux?* Is it installed in
>> parallel to the Stable version (like on Windows)?
> 
> 
> I always found a Beta overwrote the current version.
> 
> Rory
> 
See the How To at
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Run_OOo_versions_parallel for running
multiple versions in parallel. There is a warning at the top of the page
about possible incompatibilities, but I have used the process defined
there on Windows 7 professional on 4.x versions in the past with no
problems.
If you find any problems in the Linux instructions please let me know so
the page can be updated.

Regards
Keith

>> 
>> If not then I believe the update problem should be fixed *before*
>> releasing the Beta 
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127774
>> 
>> Regards, Pedro
>> 
>> * I was going to test a previous Beta instead of asking, but the
>> archive for the only Beta does not contain any binaries
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/binaries/en-US/
>>
>>
>> 
-
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For
>> additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:56:25 + (WET)
Pedro Lino  wrote:

> 
> > On February 14, 2019 at 4:45 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> 
> How does a Beta version install on Linux?* Is it installed in parallel to the 
> Stable version (like on Windows)?


I always found a Beta overwrote the current version.

Rory

> 
> If not then I believe the update problem should be fixed *before* releasing 
> the Beta
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127774
> 
> Regards,
> Pedro
> 
> * I was going to test a previous Beta instead of asking, but the archive for 
> the only Beta does not contain any binaries 
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/binaries/en-US/
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Pedro Lino



> On February 14, 2019 at 4:45 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> 
> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

How does a Beta version install on Linux?* Is it installed in parallel to the 
Stable version (like on Windows)?

If not then I believe the update problem should be fixed *before* releasing the 
Beta
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127774

Regards,
Pedro

* I was going to test a previous Beta instead of asking, but the archive for 
the only Beta does not contain any binaries 
http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/binaries/en-US/

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:55:32 +0200
Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

> Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
> understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
> time.

A quick experiment with Writer in 4.2.0 shows me that one cannot insert a 
background fill (Area tab) when making a frame, but one can subsequently select 
the frame and then insert the background.

Also, the Frame toolbar does not show onscreen for me, so I am unable to 
attempt Linking frames, whether empty or with background fill.  Using /View 
/Toolbars : Frame turns off the Formatting toolbar, but does not display the 
Frame toolbar.  I am reasonably sure the Frame toolbar is not anywhere on my 
desktop (several monitors in use - checked it is not hidden behind anything).

(I am using AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1851640
2019-01-19 15:48:21 (Sat, 19 Jan 2019) - Linux x86_64 [Apache OpenOffice Test 
Development Build] running on Xubuntu 18.04.02 64 bit)

I don't currently use Frames in any of my works in progress, so this is not a 
matter of any urgency for me.

I am of course ready to try any interim version (whether public or private) to 
examine any change in this or other problems.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-15 Thread Damjan Jovanovic

Bug 125129 looks like a wild goose chase and requires considerable
understanding of the framework layer, but I'll try continue when I have
time.

My own release checklist would include:
1. Library audit.
1.1 Did we lose or gain any public symbols in our libraries since the
4.1.0? Gbuild requires explicit export instead of exporting everything and
then possibly controlling visibility with a .map file, so it's very
possible.
1.2 Did ELF symbol versions on *nix platforms change? The older gbuild
modules probably did, as I didn't understand the meaning of .map files back
then.
1.3 Are the same libraries with the same names available in both 4.1.0 and
4.2.0?
2. Base:
2.1 Complete the Java SDBC driver framework, used by both the new SDBC-JDBC
bridge and the Postgres SDBC driver.
2.2 Audit the new SDBC-JDBC bridge in Java against the old C++ one, fix any
differences.
2.3 Complete the Postgres SDBC driver; still needs views, users, groups,
etc.
2.4 Complete the integration of the Postgres SDBC driver into the Base UI
forms (like MySQL already is).
3. Crashreporter
3.1 Get it working again.
3.2 Bug reported in UI form (instead of submitted to some now obsolete
server), which can be copied/pasted or attached to Bugzilla.
4. Testing
4.1 Run all available tests (unit tests, smoketest, module integration
tests, bvt, fvt, etc.) against 4.1.0 and 4.2.0, find and fix any
regressions.

Damjan

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:25 AM Matthias Seidel 
wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.
>
> We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
> beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...
>
> Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
> the latest translations from Pootle.
> At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
> need to be updated in source.
>
> Regards,
>
>Matthias
>
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129
>
>
> Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-14 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

IMO, the situation hasn't changed so much.

We should at least fix issue 125129 [1] before we release a (public)
beta. I have seen that Damjan is investigating...

Then we need time to inform translators on l10n@ before we can export
the latest translations from Pootle.
At the moment most of them are at 98% for the UI but the SDF files still
need to be updated in source.

Regards,

   Matthias

[1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125129


Am 14.02.19 um 17:45 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-14 Thread Marcus


Am 14.02.19 um 19:39 schrieb JD:
Great! Please post the URL of the binaries so other people can start 
testing.


this is the keyword:

First we need to do some tests on our own. Otherwise we risk to release 
a beta that doesn't survive barley longer than a small smoketest.


The problem is that different people have different point of views how 
good the quality should be before a beta should be release. Therefore I 
cannot say what exactly has to be covered by a smoketest.


But up to know I haven't seen someone that has posted some tests results.

So, maybe the best time to define a standard set of test tasks that have 
to be executed before a more public release like a beta release should 
be done.


Opinions?

Marcus




On 02/14/2019 11:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just in case, I'm doing Beta builds of AOO42X (HEAD) for macOS and 
Linux 64+32



On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?



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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-14 Thread JD

Great! Please post the URL of the binaries so other people can start 
testing.



On 02/14/2019 11:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Just in case, I'm doing Beta builds of AOO42X (HEAD) for macOS and Linux 64+32


On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

-
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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-14 Thread Jim Jagielski

Just in case, I'm doing Beta builds of AOO42X (HEAD) for macOS and Linux 64+32

> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?
> 
> -
> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-14 Thread Jim Jagielski

Time for another ping... what does everyone think? Time?

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-02-01 Thread Pedro Lino

Hi Matthias, Andrea, all

> On January 31, 2019 at 11:08 PM Matthias Seidel < 
> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 31.01.19 um 23:33 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> 
> > > On 30/01/2019 Peter Kovacs wrote:
> > 
> > > > > AFAIK Root cause is that the TLS connection 
> > can not be established in
> > > Version 1.2 due to wrong version on client side.
> > > The Idea has been to lower security on server back to 1.1 
> > > Version for
> > > now.
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > I confirm this is the conclusion we reached, but then we 
> (at least I)
> > haven't find the time for following up properly.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thank you Pedro for the reminder, let's see if time 
> allows for taking
> > action (server-side) on this soon! But I think there is no code bug 
> > to
> > address in this respect.
> > 
> > > 
Thank you for listening ;)


> In the past month I had about 2 weeks where AOO 4.1.6 on Ubuntu 16.04
> had a working connection to the update server. Now it is gone again... :-(
> So it is clearly no problem in our code in the first place.
> 
It is even stranger that it works sometimes...
Clearly it has to be a change on the server side since the clients are not 
changing (e.g. on a Windows XP machine) and checking for updates worked 
previously


> Also the download statistics show me that a great number of users (from
> OOo 3.2 to AOO 4.1.5) have gotten the update notification and did update
> via this channel.
> 
Can you determine from which OS? I can't get it to work on any Windows version 
but Andrea mentioned that the update worked on some Linux distros (but not on 
Ubuntu)


> 
> > > For sure not for 4.2.0-beta where updates would be 
> disabled anyway.
> > 
> > > I really see no reason for that... At least this was only a 
> > suggestion
> from Marcus and hasn't been discussed further.
> 
> At the moment Beta builds for 4.2.0 point to
> https://ooo-updates.apache.org/aoonextbeta/check.Update.
> This is an empty feed just enough to respond "OpenOffice Beta 4.2.0 is
> up to date." and it is already working. [1]
> 

I don't see any reason to disable it... Even if a user forgets to remove the 
beta and then is notified that a new full version is available, after install 
all outdated files will be overwritten...

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-31 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 31.01.19 um 23:33 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 30/01/2019 Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> AFAIK Root cause is that the TLS connection can not be established in
>> Version 1.2 due to wrong version on client side.
>> The Idea has been to lower security on server back to 1.1 Version for
>> now.
>
> I confirm this is the conclusion we reached, but then we (at least I)
> haven't find the time for following up properly.
>
> Thank you Pedro for the reminder, let's see if time allows for taking
> action (server-side) on this soon! But I think there is no code bug to
> address in this respect.

In the past month I had about 2 weeks where AOO 4.1.6 on Ubuntu 16.04
had a working connection to the update server. Now it is gone again... :-(
So it is clearly no problem in our code in the first place.

Also the download statistics show me that a great number of users (from
OOo 3.2 to AOO 4.1.5) have gotten the update notification and did update
via this channel.

> For sure not for 4.2.0-beta where updates would be disabled anyway.

I really see no reason for that... At least this was only a suggestion
from Marcus and hasn't been discussed further.

At the moment Beta builds for 4.2.0 point to
https://ooo-updates.apache.org/aoonextbeta/check.Update.
This is an empty feed just enough to respond "OpenOffice Beta 4.2.0 is
up to date." and it is already working. [1]

Regards,

   Matthias

[1] https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO%204.2.0%20Beta%20Update%20feed.png

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

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-31 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 30/01/2019 Peter Kovacs wrote:

AFAIK Root cause is that the TLS connection can not be established in
Version 1.2 due to wrong version on client side.
The Idea has been to lower security on server back to 1.1 Version for now.


I confirm this is the conclusion we reached, but then we (at least I) 
haven't find the time for following up properly.


Thank you Pedro for the reminder, let's see if time allows for taking 
action (server-side) on this soon! But I think there is no code bug to 
address in this respect. For sure not for 4.2.0-beta where updates would 
be disabled anyway.


Regards,
  Andrea.

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-30 Thread Peter Kovacs

AFAIK Root cause is that the TLS connection can not be established in
Version 1.2 due to wrong version on client side.

The Idea has been to lower security on server back to 1.1 Version for now.

On 30.01.19 00:11, Marcus wrote:
> Am 29.01.19 um 22:57 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>
>>>  On January 29, 2019 at 9:02 PM Matthias Seidel <
>>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
>>
>>>  How is this related to 4.2.0 Beta?!
>>
>> The subject of this email/topic is "Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?"
>>
>> My opinion is that it is better to fix pending issues than to move on...
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't fix the regression myself so I have to keep
>> reminding the few people that can.
>>
>> I think it is easy to understand that I'm not insisting on this
>> subject to benefit myself (I can easily update AOO and ignore the
>> problem) but to benefit all current AOO users...
>
> at the moment the root is not yet found (AFAIK, please say so when I'm
> wrong) and a fix is therefore difficult. But sure, for the final 4.2.0
> this probnlem should be fixed.
>
> 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: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-30 Thread Matthias Seidel

Hi Jim,

Am 30.01.19 um 16:15 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>
>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:52 AM, Matthias Seidel  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Do you also build SDK and language pack as beta? See:
>>
>>
> I do yes... my build scripts (see 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.2.0-dev)
> have a '--beta' option that builds all the related Beta artifacts.
>
>
Ah, great! Did you change the scripts lately?

I was not "up to date"... ;-)

Regards,

   Matthias




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-30 Thread Marcus


Am 30.01.19 um 14:24 schrieb Jim Jagielski:


sorry to ask, do you have also a screenshot for the About box?



Sure, no prob:


thanks

It seems that the space is nearly full and we shouldn't squeeze much 
more text into it.


What about a short sentence + link to a new webpage that gives more 
information about the Beta release. Like:


For more information about this Beta release:
https://www.openoffice.org/AOO_420_Beta_This_Webpage_Needs_To_Be_Created.html

Of course this is just 1 of many channels where the user can find more 
information.


Marcus


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-30 Thread Jim Jagielski

> On Jan 29, 2019, at 7:52 AM, Matthias Seidel  
> wrote:
> 
> Do you also build SDK and language pack as beta? See:
> 
> 

I do yes... my build scripts (see 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.2.0-dev)
have a '--beta' option that builds all the related Beta artifacts.

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?


Am 29.01.19 um 22:57 schrieb Pedro Lino:



 On January 29, 2019 at 9:02 PM Matthias Seidel < matthias.sei...@hamburg.de 
mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:



 How is this related to 4.2.0 Beta?!


The subject of this email/topic is "Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?"

My opinion is that it is better to fix pending issues than to move on...

Unfortunately I can't fix the regression myself so I have to keep reminding the 
few people that can.

I think it is easy to understand that I'm not insisting on this subject to 
benefit myself (I can easily update AOO and ignore the problem) but to benefit 
all current AOO users...


at the moment the root is not yet found (AFAIK, please say so when I'm 
wrong) and a fix is therefore difficult. But sure, for the final 4.2.0 
this probnlem should be fixed.


Marcus


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-29 Thread Pedro Lino

> On January 29, 2019 at 9:02 PM Matthias Seidel < 
> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de > wrote:
> 
> 
> 

> How is this related to 4.2.0 Beta?!
> 

The subject of this email/topic is "Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?"

My opinion is that it is better to fix pending issues than to move on...

Unfortunately I can't fix the regression myself so I have to keep reminding the 
few people that can.

I think it is easy to understand that I'm not insisting on this subject to 
benefit myself (I can easily update AOO and ignore the problem) but to benefit 
all current AOO users...

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-29 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 29.01.19 um 21:53 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>> On January 29, 2019 at 7:21 PM Marcus  wrote:
>> Am 29.01.19 um 13:05 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>>> Shouldn't AOO be concerned that previous users are not notified of new 
>>> releases
>>> (or extension updates)? The update notification mechanism has been broken 
>>> for months. This means that  users
>>> currently on any previous build weren't even notified that 4.1.6 was 
>>> released 2 months ago...
>>>
>>> I realize that the update notification is working on 4.2.0 but how are 
>>> users going to be notified to update to 4.2.0?
>> If you mean the Beta release:
>> We shouldn't activate the update service - because it's just a Beta 
>> which not suitable for any production use.
> No, I mean that anyone who has AOO 4.1.5 (or previous) has NOT been notified 
> that 4.1.6 was released.
> The update notification mechanism is broken.
> Isn't fixing regressions a priority for Apache OpenOffice?

How is this related to 4.2.0 Beta?!

Please don't hijack threads... Just open up another one or change the topic.

Regards,

   Matthias

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-29 Thread Pedro Lino



> On January 29, 2019 at 7:21 PM Marcus  wrote:

> Am 29.01.19 um 13:05 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> > Shouldn't AOO be concerned that previous users are not notified of new 
> > releases
> > (or extension updates)? The update notification mechanism has been broken 
> > for months. This means that  users
> > currently on any previous build weren't even notified that 4.1.6 was 
> > released 2 months ago...
> > 
> > I realize that the update notification is working on 4.2.0 but how are 
> > users going to be notified to update to 4.2.0?
> 
> If you mean the Beta release:
> We shouldn't activate the update service - because it's just a Beta 
> which not suitable for any production use.

No, I mean that anyone who has AOO 4.1.5 (or previous) has NOT been notified 
that 4.1.6 was released.
The update notification mechanism is broken.
Isn't fixing regressions a priority for Apache OpenOffice?

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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?


Am 28.01.19 um 21:58 schrieb F C. Costero:

I am a moderator on the en forum but I am speaking only for myself here. I
think gathering feedback on the forum would be a good solution. The en
forum has a User Experience area that gets very little traffic and could
perhaps be used to gather beta build input. Feedback in languages other
than English could be gathered on the appropriate forums, though they may
need to make a dedicated area. It would be nice to widen the range of
participants beyond people comfortable in English.


thanks for your input.


I am not sure what the concern is behind the comment "What I mean is, is
there enough coverage of moderators and power users?". On the en forum we


When we tell the people "Please visit our forums when you have problems 
or feedback for improvements" there should be enough people for coverage 
to collect that feedback. It would be too bad when the users don't get 
feedback or way too late. ;-)



have close to 24 hour coverage of moderators and volunteers and I don't
think an increase in traffic from a beta build would be a problem. The es
forum is the only other one I have experience with and I think there are
plenty of moderators and volunteers there to handle an increase in traffic,
though I obviously have not asked them about this.


OK, that sounds good. In the worst case the en forums in an special Beta 
release area could take some more languages - of course only as exception.



I would be happy to make note on this list of interesting or repeated input
about a beta build appearing on the en or es forums.


At the moment we are just discussing what is possible to decide later 
what to do.



Stating the correct way to give feedback on the Splash screen should be
considered.


The splash screen is not the best place as it's shown too short. ;-) 
That was my mistake.


But the About box, download webpage, release announcement, release 
notes, blog post are way better to tell the people what to expect and 
where to go.


Marcus




On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:53 PM Marcus  wrote:


Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Perfect, thx.

Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases? Where

do they go?

this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can tell
you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way together. ;-)

I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
compared to our normal releases.

After thinking a bit I suggest that we:

- exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a beta
(no production use, no regular support, etc.)
- prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file names
- no participation with the update service
- upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
- offer them on our download webpage

I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums? What
I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power users?

Marcus




On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello Jim,

the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will start
to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.

Kind regards

Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
feedback (all IMO ;) ).

Any comments or other thoughts?



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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-29 Thread Matthias Seidel

Am 29.01.19 um 20:14 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 29.01.19 um 13:52 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Am 29.01.19 um 13:28 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>
>>>
 On Jan 28, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Marcus >>> > wrote:

 Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Perfect, thx.
>>>
>>> Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
>>> Where do they go?
>>
>> this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
>> tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
>> together. ;-)
> It is "our" second: ;-)
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/

 OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)

>> I would say we should not do things different (at least not too
>> many)
>> compared to our normal releases.
>>
>> After thinking a bit I suggest that we:
>>
>> - exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
>> beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)

 When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.

>>>
>>> At least on the macOS build, 'beta' is splashed quite obviously:
>>
>> Yes, that is what I am referring to.
>> I made a beta build for Windows a year ago and remember having the
>> same discussion back then...
>
> sorry to ask, do you have also a screenshot for the About box?

No problem, but I would have to install a beta first... ;-)
(In fact I am just building a new one)

Maybe Jim can provide a screenshot.

Regards,

   Matthias

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



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?


Am 29.01.19 um 13:05 schrieb Pedro Lino:



 I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
 Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
 and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
 feedback (all IMO ;) ).


Is this going to be an English only Beta test? Only English and a couple more
languages (de, nl, ...) have a complete 4.2.0 translation


for every language we should take the following factors into account:

- translation ratio = 0 - 100 % --> larger is better
- the last activites = days/weeks ago or years --> shorter is better

With this we should create a list with supported languages.


 Any comments or other thoughts?


Shouldn't AOO be concerned that previous users are not notified of new releases
(or extension updates)? The update notification mechanism has been broken for 
months. This means that  users
currently on any previous build weren't even notified that 4.1.6 was released 2 
months ago...

I realize that the update notification is working on 4.2.0 but how are users 
going to be notified to update to 4.2.0?


If you mean the Beta release:
We shouldn't activate the update service - because it's just a Beta 
which not suitable for any production use.


Marcus


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?


Am 29.01.19 um 13:52 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Hi Jim,

Am 29.01.19 um 13:28 schrieb Jim Jagielski:



On Jan 28, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Marcus > wrote:


Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Perfect, thx.

Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
Where do they go?


this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
together. ;-)

It is "our" second: ;-)
https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/


OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)


I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
compared to our normal releases.

After thinking a bit I suggest that we:

- exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)


When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.



At least on the macOS build, 'beta' is splashed quite obviously:


Yes, that is what I am referring to.
I made a beta build for Windows a year ago and remember having the same 
discussion back then...


sorry to ask, do you have also a screenshot for the About box?

Thanks

Marcus


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-29 Thread Pedro Lino

Hi Jim, all


> I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
> 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
> Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
> and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
> feedback (all IMO ;) ).
> 
Is this going to be an English only Beta test? Only English and a couple more
languages (de, nl, ...) have a complete 4.2.0 translation


> Any comments or other thoughts?
> 
Shouldn't AOO be concerned that previous users are not notified of new releases
(or extension updates)? The update notification mechanism has been broken for 
months. This means that  users
currently on any previous build weren't even notified that 4.1.6 was released 2 
months ago...

I realize that the update notification is working on 4.2.0 but how are users 
going to be notified to update to 4.2.0?

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Marcus,

Am 28.01.19 um 23:52 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 28.01.19 um 21:32 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 28.01.19 um 21:23 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
 Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Perfect, thx.
>>
>> Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
>> Where do they go?
>
> this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
> tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
> together. ;-)

 It is "our" second: ;-)

 https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/
>>>
>>> OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)
>>>
> I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
> compared to our normal releases.
>
> After thinking a bit I suggest that we:
>
> - exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
> beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)
>>>
>>> When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> I already made an early test build for a Beta some time ago...
>
> sorry, actually I meant the about box. Do we have also for this a
> special graphic and text content?

There are beta graphics [1] [2] [3] and the text can be changed via
configure switch (as we do with our buildbots)

As I wrote, the appropriate graphics are used by building the beta targets.

Matthias

[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/default_images/introabout/beta/about.png
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/default_images/introabout/beta/intro.png
[3]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/AOO42X/main/default_images/framework/res/beta/backing.png

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> - prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file
> names
 A build with the special targets (openofficebeta, sdkoobeta,
 ooobetalanguagepack) will do this automatically.
> - no participation with the update service

 --disable-online-update in configure.

> - upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
> - offer them on our download webpage

 If the download page can handle that, it would be perfect.
>>>
>>> I think it's a matter of time to get this integrated. But should be
>>> faster than the test phase for the Beta itself.
>>
>> Personally, I don't think we are at Beta stage already... But we
>> definitely have to work towards it! ;-)
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
> I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
> channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums?
> What I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power
> users?
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Jim,
>>>
>>> the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will
>>> start
>>> to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
 Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
 and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
 feedback (all IMO ;) ).

 Any comments or other thoughts?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-28 Thread Marcus


Am 28.01.19 um 21:32 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 28.01.19 um 21:23 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Perfect, thx.

Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
Where do they go?


this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
together. ;-)


It is "our" second: ;-)

https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/


OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)


I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
compared to our normal releases.

After thinking a bit I suggest that we:

- exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)


When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.


See below.

I already made an early test build for a Beta some time ago...


sorry, actually I meant the about box. Do we have also for this a 
special graphic and text content?


Marcus




- prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file
names

A build with the special targets (openofficebeta, sdkoobeta,
ooobetalanguagepack) will do this automatically.

- no participation with the update service


--disable-online-update in configure.


- upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
- offer them on our download webpage


If the download page can handle that, it would be perfect.


I think it's a matter of time to get this integrated. But should be
faster than the test phase for the Beta itself.


Personally, I don't think we are at Beta stage already... But we
definitely have to work towards it! ;-)

Matthias



Marcus




I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums?
What I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power users?

Marcus




On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello Jim,

the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will
start
to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.

Kind regards

Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
feedback (all IMO ;) ).

Any comments or other thoughts?



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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Am 28.01.19 um 23:20 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> On 28.01.19 21:32, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think we are at Beta stage already... But we
>> definitely have to work towards it! ;-)
>>
>> Matthias
>
> What is missing?

I can simply crash it with two clicks... ;-)

That bug is 4 1/2 years old now.

>
> I am happy on the progress.
So am I.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-28 Thread Peter Kovacs



On 28.01.19 21:32, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't think we are at Beta stage already... But we
> definitely have to work towards it! ;-)
>
> Matthias


What is missing?

I am happy on the progress.


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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-28 Thread F C. Costero

I am a moderator on the en forum but I am speaking only for myself here. I
think gathering feedback on the forum would be a good solution. The en
forum has a User Experience area that gets very little traffic and could
perhaps be used to gather beta build input. Feedback in languages other
than English could be gathered on the appropriate forums, though they may
need to make a dedicated area. It would be nice to widen the range of
participants beyond people comfortable in English.

I am not sure what the concern is behind the comment "What I mean is, is
there enough coverage of moderators and power users?". On the en forum we
have close to 24 hour coverage of moderators and volunteers and I don't
think an increase in traffic from a beta build would be a problem. The es
forum is the only other one I have experience with and I think there are
plenty of moderators and volunteers there to handle an increase in traffic,
though I obviously have not asked them about this.

I would be happy to make note on this list of interesting or repeated input
about a beta build appearing on the en or es forums.

Stating the correct way to give feedback on the Splash screen should be
considered.

best regards,
Francis

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:53 PM Marcus  wrote:

> Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > Perfect, thx.
> >
> > Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases? Where
> do they go?
>
> this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can tell
> you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way together. ;-)
>
> I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
> compared to our normal releases.
>
> After thinking a bit I suggest that we:
>
> - exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a beta
> (no production use, no regular support, etc.)
> - prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file names
> - no participation with the update service
> - upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
> - offer them on our download webpage
>
> I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
> channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums? What
> I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power users?
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> >> On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Jim,
> >>
> >> the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will start
> >> to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> >>> I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
> >>> 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
> >>> Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
> >>> and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
> >>> feedback (all IMO ;) ).
> >>>
> >>> Any comments or other thoughts?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Am 28.01.19 um 21:23 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
 Perfect, thx.

 Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
 Where do they go?
>>>
>>> this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
>>> tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
>>> together. ;-)
>>
>> It is "our" second: ;-)
>>
>> https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/
>
> OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)
>
>>> I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
>>> compared to our normal releases.
>>>
>>> After thinking a bit I suggest that we:
>>>
>>> - exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
>>> beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)
>
> When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.

See below.

I already made an early test build for a Beta some time ago...

>
>>> - prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file
>>> names
>> A build with the special targets (openofficebeta, sdkoobeta,
>> ooobetalanguagepack) will do this automatically.
>>> - no participation with the update service
>>
>> --disable-online-update in configure.
>>
>>> - upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
>>> - offer them on our download webpage
>>
>> If the download page can handle that, it would be perfect.
>
> I think it's a matter of time to get this integrated. But should be
> faster than the test phase for the Beta itself.

Personally, I don't think we are at Beta stage already... But we
definitely have to work towards it! ;-)

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>> I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
>>> channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums?
>>> What I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power users?
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
> On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>
> Hello Jim,
>
> the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will
> start
> to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
>> 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
>> Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
>> and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
>> feedback (all IMO ;) ).
>>
>> Any comments or other thoughts?
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

2019-01-28 Thread Marcus


Am 28.01.19 um 21:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Am 28.01.19 um 20:30 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

Perfect, thx.

Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases?
Where do they go?


this will be our first beta release here at Apache. So, nobody can
tell you what to do / where to go and we have to find the way
together. ;-)


It is "our" second: ;-)

https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.0-beta/


OK, this is a bit embarrassing. ;-)


I would say we should not do things different (at least not too many)
compared to our normal releases.

After thinking a bit I suggest that we:

- exchange the splash screen with a big and clear hint that it's a
beta (no production use, no regular support, etc.)


When we had already a Beta release then this must be somewhere.


- prepare the install files as a normal release but with special file
names

A build with the special targets (openofficebeta, sdkoobeta,
ooobetalanguagepack) will do this automatically.

- no participation with the update service


--disable-online-update in configure.


- upload the install files to SourceForge in an own subdir
- offer them on our download webpage


If the download page can handle that, it would be perfect.


I think it's a matter of time to get this integrated. But should be 
faster than the test phase for the Beta itself.


Marcus




I don't know how we can to collect the feedback. BZ is not the right
channel for this. Can we create a special beta area in the forums?
What I mean is, is there enough coverage of moderators and power users?

Marcus




On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:

Hello Jim,

the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will start
to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.

Kind regards

Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
feedback (all IMO ;) ).

Any comments or other thoughts?



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

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?

Hi Jim,

Am 28.01.19 um 19:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Perfect, thx.
>
> Just so I know, what's the procedure for us doing beta releases? Where do 
> they go?

Just a general reminder:

A bunch of people, including Mechtilde, Andrea and me will be at FOSDEM
in Brussels next weekend.

I have some last preparations to do, so my time is limited until early
next week...

Regards,

   Matthias

>> On Jan 28, 2019, at 12:31 PM, Mechtilde  wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> the beta version should contain the recent translation, so I will start
>> to prepare an update of the *.sdf files.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Am 28.01.19 um 14:20 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> I think we are at a stage where we should consider doing our
>>> 1st beta release of 4.2.0... we have successful builds for macOS,
>>> Linux 32 and 64, and Windows; we have a stable 4.2.0-dev branch,
>>> and enough changes to warrant a beta release for testing and
>>> feedback (all IMO ;) ).
>>>
>>> Any comments or other thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mechtilde Stehmann
>> ## Apache OpenOffice
>> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
>> ## Debian Developer
>> ## PGP encryption welcome
>> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Time for our first 4.2.0 beta?