Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Martin Hollmichel]

On 23.06.2010 00:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:

On 22.06.2010 14:49, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,



Hi,


the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone
is a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed.
The same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue
earlier or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?


Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.

Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to
document that by changing the issue data.

The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement
about that with other stakeholders involved.


That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 


camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


That's complete nonsense. Setting a target to an issue or CWS can be 
done short before or even after a CWS is integrated. If you ever had 
to change the targets of issues or CWS just because you had set them 
to the "allowed" target but then - when the CWS did not make it into 
the release - had to change it again, you might understand why I think 
that is bureaucratic humbug. The target release of an issue or CWS 
*before* it gets integrated is unrelated to what is documented or even 
to what exactly ends in the release. In a "train model" you never know 
the time of arrival exactly before the train really arrives. So a 
"target release" is just a declaration of what is aimed for, nothing 
else. Why else are we retargetting so much issues each and every release?


From my experience from the 10 past years we should only set the target 
milestone when the code actually get integrated. From my point of view 
we should only set target milestones for regression issues and stoppers 
only. Nevertheless I think a cws should only be integrated if all issues 
have the right milestone set, so that we can track with Issuezilla what 
actually got into the release. Making this random will lead that the 
target milestone will randomly set. I will set the nomination right 
anyhow for 3.4 for release management only, so these people will be the 
only one to fight their bureaucratic humbug theirself :-).


Martin


Ciao,
Mathias




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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Martin Hollmichel]

On 22.06.2010 16:52, Philipp Lohmann wrote:

Hi,

On 6/22/10 2:49 PM, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 


camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


Name calling aside: what about issues concerning extensions ? Right 
now I have to move the target from the correct "milestone 1" of an 
extension to "3.3" or some such to satisfy EIS. Which is kind of 
bogus. However the CWS should be "3.4" or some such since that marks 
into which repository code line the CWS will get integrated.
one of the objective of extensions was to have an Office independent 
release schedule. This automatically leads to an own issue tracking and 
own repository, from my point of view we even can have a simplified 
development process, since all the cws handling was introduced not to 
break office code. So I would leave it to the developers of the 
extension whether they want to have cws or another model. Sane 
extensions can't break office code !

Extensions, please break out of the Office workspace,


Just my 2 cents, pl

+2 cent,

Martin



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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Jörg Jahnke]

Hi,

from my POV it's OK to go with the check as it is OK for me to remove 
it. In any case, the tooling team is not in a position to simply decide 
to remove it. It you would like to see the check removed, please contact 
the Program Managers, who had requested this feature.


Regards,

Jörg


Mathias Bauer schrieb:

Hi,

the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone is 
a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed. The 
same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue earlier 
or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"? That's 
exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.


The check for "all tasks fixed" is another story. It makes sense to 
check that before a CWS is waiting for QA approval.


Regards,
Mathias

On 21.06.2010 12:00, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi there!

I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done
on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a
new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding
rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we
wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just
has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do
these administrative tasks and that is "program management".

Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just
because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the
right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting
the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks
with the wrong target.


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,

ACK.

If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at
least some humbug that is less annoying.

Regards,
Mathias

On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to
do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
- 



The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.

The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1

The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
- 




This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.

Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
). 





-Stephan


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






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






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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Mathias Bauer]

On 22.06.2010 14:49, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,



Hi,


the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone
is a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed.
The same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue
earlier or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?


Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.

Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to
document that by changing the issue data.

The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement
about that with other stakeholders involved.


That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation
camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


That's complete nonsense. Setting a target to an issue or CWS can be 
done short before or even after a CWS is integrated. If you ever had to 
change the targets of issues or CWS just because you had set them to the 
"allowed" target but then - when the CWS did not make it into the 
release - had to change it again, you might understand why I think that 
is bureaucratic humbug. The target release of an issue or CWS *before* 
it gets integrated is unrelated to what is documented or even to what 
exactly ends in the release. In a "train model" you never know the time 
of arrival exactly before the train really arrives. So a "target 
release" is just a declaration of what is aimed for, nothing else. Why 
else are we retargetting so much issues each and every release?


Ciao,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Bernd Eilers]

Philipp Lohmann wrote:

Hi,


Hi there!


[... snip ...]

Name calling aside: what about issues concerning extensions ? Right now 
I have to move the target from the correct "milestone 1" of an extension 
to "3.3" or some such to satisfy EIS. Which is kind of bogus. However 
the CWS should be "3.4" or some such since that marks into which 
repository code line the CWS will get integrated.




Testing the CWS Release setting and Issues target settings are two tests 
and the release test would be OK in this case now since the 3.4 setting 
is now there for the DEV300 codeline. So in this case only the later has 
a problem. I think here the issue is similar as with the issue of the 
first poster in this thread: If you think "milestone 1" should be a 
valid task target let´s say on the DEV300 codeline which I suppose you 
do than ask a program manager to configure this for EIS if it is 
currently not yet allowed. This has to be done just once and than from 
than on you and others can use that "milestone 1" target on issues for 
the DEV300 codeline and you would not need to use a bogus setting just 
to "satisfy" EIS. Bogus settings on the CWSes to "satisfy" the tooling 
can not be the right solution the tools (EIS in this case) should be 
configured at the right end or enhanced to reflect the actual needs instead!



Just my 2 cents, pl



Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Philipp Lohmann]

Hi,

On 6/22/10 2:49 PM, Bernd Eilers wrote:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.



Well I know we do have some members in an
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation
camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


Name calling aside: what about issues concerning extensions ? Right now 
I have to move the target from the correct "milestone 1" of an extension 
to "3.3" or some such to satisfy EIS. Which is kind of bogus. However 
the CWS should be "3.4" or some such since that marks into which 
repository code line the CWS will get integrated.


Just my 2 cents, pl

--
"If the designers of X-window built cars, there would be no fewer than
 five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed
 the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your
 car stereo. Useful feature, that."
-- From the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990.

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Björn Michaelsen]

Am Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:49:17 +0200
schrieb Bernd Eilers :

> The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer
> that there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on
> another CWS which is based on another codeline or which need to be
> adjusted to be fixed on another target which might eventually also
> need an agreement about that with other stakeholders involved.

Well, as long the CWS is in state "new", neither QA or program
management should care for it. It is still firmly in the domain of
development. And there is absolutely not reason to even _care_ and
maintain "allowed releases" or other bureaucratic stuff, as development
at this stage only cares about failed buildbots and failed tests and EIS
should behave that way. Certainly devs do not want to beg PM for adding
an allowed release so they can again have a sensible summary of the
_important_ information at this stage. Once the CWS goes RfQA it is a
different issue: this is the point where the bureaucratic stuff starts.

OTOH it might be simpler to just keep the important development info
(bots and tests) out of EIS. Thereby devs could happily ignore it while
it is irrelevant (before RfQA) and still have relevant information at
hand in that phase.

Just my heretic 2 euro cents,

Bjoern


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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Bernd Eilers]

Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,



Hi,

the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone is 
a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed. The 
same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue earlier 
or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"?


Because the data of the issue doesn´t match the data of the CWS and we 
have an inconsistent state in the tools that document what we are doing.


Where is the point of not wanting to also change the issue data if the 
decision when to fix the issue did change. Why do you want to refuse to 
document that by changing the issue data.


The "failed" status in this case is just a "hint" to the developer that 
there are issues on his CWS which either need to be fixed on another CWS 
which is based on another codeline or which need to be adjusted to be 
fixed on another target which might eventually also need an agreement 
about that with other stakeholders involved.


That's 
exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.




Well I know we do have some members in an 
implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 
camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)


The need to provide information and status flags in EIS and issues is 
just there to reflect what actually currently is being done and what has 
been done in the past for others and for processes besides the pure 
coding in development that need to be organized for creating a product.


The check for "all tasks fixed" is another story. It makes sense to 
check that before a CWS is waiting for QA approval.




Well just because the CWS is flagged red while it is in development that 
is not a bad thing and it doesn´t mean the test has to be postponed to 
the very last momment just when the developer wants to change it´s state 
to "ready for qa".


In fact that´s a quite common thing in programming to write the testcase 
first and than let it fail until the changes in the implementation fix 
the issue.


Regards,
Bernd


Regards,
Mathias

On 21.06.2010 12:00, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi there!

I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done
on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a
new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding
rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we
wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just
has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do
these administrative tasks and that is "program management".

Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just
because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the
right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting
the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks
with the wrong target.


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,

ACK.

If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at
least some humbug that is less annoying.

Regards,
Mathias

On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to
do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
- 



The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.

The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1

The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
- 




This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.

Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
). 





-Stephan


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






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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Mathias Bauer]

Hi,

the "right solution" would be to remove the check. A target milestone is 
a hint when a particular should be fixed or is planned to be fixed. The 
same is true for a CWS. If a developers decided to fix an issue earlier 
or finish a CWS earlier, why should that be marked as "failed"? That's 
exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.


The check for "all tasks fixed" is another story. It makes sense to 
check that before a CWS is waiting for QA approval.


Regards,
Mathias

On 21.06.2010 12:00, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi there!

I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done
on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a
new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding
rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we
wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just
has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do
these administrative tasks and that is "program management".

Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just
because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the
right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting
the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks
with the wrong target.


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,

ACK.

If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at
least some humbug that is less annoying.

Regards,
Mathias

On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to
do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
-

The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.

The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1

The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
-


This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.

Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
).



-Stephan


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






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




--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Bernd Eilers]

Hi there!

I think the real root cause is that the definitions of what can be done 
on which codeline is currently often not done early enough. As soon as a 
new target is being created for the bugtracking system the corresponding 
rules should be configured in EIS also. If that would be the case we 
wouldn´t have any annoyance either. If that doesn´t work somebody just 
has to complain to the group of people which have been assigned to do 
these administrative tasks and that is "program management".


Doing such test only when the cws is being set to "ready for QA" just 
because some developers don´t like to see the color red is IMHO not the 
right solution. On the contrary I would argue that maybe even setting 
the CWS to "ready for QA" shouldn´t be allowed at all if there are tasks 
with the wrong target.



Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Mathias Bauer wrote:

Hi,

ACK.

If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not 
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be 
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at least 
some humbug that is less annoying.


Regards,
Mathias

On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
- 


The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.

The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1

The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
- 



This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.

Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
). 




-Stephan


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






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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Mathias Bauer]

Hi,

ACK.

If we think that we need that bullshit, the status should at least not 
be set to "failed" before the CWS is ready for QA. That still would be 
bureaucratic humbug (because both fields are that per se), but at least 
some humbug that is less annoying.


Regards,
Mathias

On 18.06.2010 12:06, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following
information:
-
The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS
is invalid.

The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1
, OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1

The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained
by program management.
-

This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the
list for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program
manager next door to add it.

Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see
).


-Stephan


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




--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.

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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Stephan Bergmann]

What a heap of bureaucratic humbug.

-Stephan

On 06/18/10 11:43, Bernd Eilers wrote:


Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following information:
-
The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS 
is invalid.


The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1 , 
OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1


The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained by 
program management.

-

This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the list 
for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program manager 
next door to add it.


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:
For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all 
associated tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and 
AllowedTaskTargets erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see 
). 



-Stephan


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

Re: [tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Bernd Eilers]

Hi Stephan!

There is no "error" in EIS, EIS behaves just as it was instructed to do.

If you click on the "Details" link you will find the following information:
-
The release of this ChildWorkspace is OOo 3.4 . The release of the CWS 
is invalid.


The allowed Releases for the MasterWorkspace of this CWS are: OOo 3.1 , 
OOo 3.2 , OOo 3.1.1 , OOo 3.3 , OOo 3.2.1


The List of allowed Releases for MasterWorkspaces is being maintained by 
program management.

-

This all basically means that if you think OOo 3.4 should be in the list 
for that MasterWorkspace but isn´t ask your friendly program manager 
next door to add it.


Kind regards,
Bernd Eilers


Stephan Bergmann wrote:
For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all associated 
tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and AllowedTaskTargets 
erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see 
). 



-Stephan

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




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

[tools-dev] EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

[Stephan Bergmann]

For a CWS based on DEV300 with release set to OOo 3.4 and all associated 
tasks having target OOo 3.4, AllowedRelease and AllowedTaskTargets 
erroneously are both set to failed (e.g., see 
).


-Stephan

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