Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice and Windows 2000
Hi Petr, all Isn't it possible to check for OS version and suggest the LO version accordingly? This would be a good test for the upcoming EOL of Windows XP, in less than a year from now :) It makes sense. Could you please report this into bugzilla and add ke...@suse.cz into CC? I am not sure if Kendy would have time to work on it but it might be a nice Easy Hack and he could add some code pointers. Best Regards, Petr Added as enhancement requests https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65128 and https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65129 For some reason your email was not forwarded to the QA list. Let's see what happens when I reply to all from Gmail Cheers, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.1 Online Update testing
Good morning Kendy, all I am terribly sorry, I messed the description of the test; I wanted to ask you to install 3.5.2 RC1 (3.5.2.1), and wrote 3.5.1 RC1 instead :-( Can you please try with 3.5.2 RC1? That should offer you an update to the 3.5.2 RC2 (and point to the pre-release download site). I can confirm that it is working correctly. LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 is available. The installed version is LibreOffice 3.5.2. The behavior you are seeing is correct, the update offers you to update 3.5.1 RC1 to the 3.5.1 Final (which equals to RC2 bit-by-bit). That is correct as well. The problem are still the messages... The server messages are confusing simply because the installed version does not mention the installed RC. Why doesn't it simply report that the installed version is 3.5.2.1 and that the available version is 3.5.2.2? If for some reason you can't get it to work the RC version at least use the numbering information which already makes sense. Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Investigating Caseconductor for next QA call
Hi Sophie, all I'm not Pedro or Rimas, but I would have time to have a look for the end of next week. If you think I'm not enough skilled, no problem. Excellent! You are certainly more skilled, experienced and knowledgeable about OOo/LO than I am. Thank you for jumping in! Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 test builds available
Hi Christian Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia reports problem) http://ask.libreoffice.org/question/1459/secunia-psi-reports-insecure also on the mailinglists) i.e. version info of soffice.exe, not the one in the about dialog. I didn't check that and now I can't have access to the installer at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/win/x86/ it only shows the help packs. Was the installer removed? Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 test builds available
Hi all, Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia reports problem) I think Secunia has already fixed the numbering so that the warning it gone for version 3.5.1. But the Version number in the file Properties for 3.5.2rc2 is now 3.5.0.202 instead of 3.5.2.2 Unless there is an rc3 and this is fixed meanwhile LO is going to get a bad image with Secunia (and all the security minded people :) ) Personally I couldn't care less about Secunia but since it only takes a small number change, I think it would be worth the effort :) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 test builds available
Hi all, Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia reports problem) I think Secunia has already fixed the numbering so that the warning it gone for version 3.5.1. But the Version number in the file Properties for 3.5.2rc2 is now 3.5.0.202 instead of 3.5.2.2 Unless there is an rc3 and this is fixed meanwhile LO is going to get a bad image with Secunia (and all the security minded people :) ) Personally I couldn't care less about Secunia but since it only takes a small number change, I think it would be worth the effort :) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: Regressions in Open Source projects ...
Hi Michael, all I'm looking at another few Windows specific bugs that are of interest. Particularly with the new drmemory tool and Jesus' windows / debug builds - we should be able to progress here quickly. It'd be wonderful if we could get these traces for Windows specific bugs. I'm quite curious to test that on a 100% reproducible crash as soon as I find some time ;) Clearly that is true of some hypothetical user, for whom some serious regression blocks them from updating. It is not so hypothetical. I had to keep a Portable LibreOffice 3.3.4 copy around just to be able to open documents that included equations. And yes I know it was a docx only bug but I do need to exchange manuscript revisions with my co-authors and I haven't been able to convince them to drop Microsoft Office 2007... So this is a real life example for a single specific bug, as I'm sure there are many others ;) There is however an easy solution for them - pay to have their (apparently un-interesting to the community) bugs fixed: then they can have their regression-free release, supported indefinately and everyone is happy :-) This sounds like a pitch for users to switch to SUSE LibreOffice :P BTW the code optimizations under Windows are fantastic ;) But SUSE released version 3.4.2 while TDF is already at 3.5.1. Doesn't that show a little about the importance of stability? ;) As a straw-man (and I don't think anyone suggests this) - suggesting that we never ship until there are zero regressions would not meet this goal: we typically find regressions only after we ship. I'm not sure I understand the straw-man concept but no one in QA is advocating not to ship until zarro boogs are found... But we (at least I am) are asking to give higher priority to fixing regressions and crashers (even if they happen to only ONE user as long as it is reproducible) than to adding new features. This doesn't mean AT ALL to stop adding features. Just to change priorities ;) As a general conclusion I think we are all doing the best given the limited human resources and the scarcity of our most valuable resource: time! It is because we do CARE about this project that we complain about the short testing times AND the regressions ;) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Regressions in Open Source projects ...
Hi Petr, all Please, do not take this that we do not take care about openSUSE/SUSE users. We do a lot of things for them. It is only about my packaging work and about that I underestimated the demand for 3.5. Actually I was talking about SUSE LibreOffice for Windows (which is apparently a one-off unsupported release created for the Intel AppUp store) :) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Regressions in Open Source projects ...
Hi Michael, all I'm looking at another few Windows specific bugs that are of interest. Particularly with the new drmemory tool and Jesus' windows / debug builds - we should be able to progress here quickly. It'd be wonderful if we could get these traces for Windows specific bugs. I'm quite curious to test that on a 100% reproducible crash as soon as I find some time ;) Clearly that is true of some hypothetical user, for whom some serious regression blocks them from updating. It is not so hypothetical. I had to keep a Portable LibreOffice 3.3.4 copy around just to be able to open documents that included equations. And yes I know it was a docx only bug but I do need to exchange manuscript revisions with my co-authors and I haven't been able to convince them to drop Microsoft Office 2007... So this is a real life example for a single specific bug, as I'm sure there are many others ;) There is however an easy solution for them - pay to have their (apparently un-interesting to the community) bugs fixed: then they can have their regression-free release, supported indefinately and everyone is happy :-) This sounds like a pitch for users to switch to SUSE LibreOffice :P BTW the code optimizations under Windows are fantastic ;) But SUSE released version 3.4.2 while TDF is already at 3.5.1. Doesn't that show a little about the importance of stability? ;) As a straw-man (and I don't think anyone suggests this) - suggesting that we never ship until there are zero regressions would not meet this goal: we typically find regressions only after we ship. I'm not sure I understand the straw-man concept but no one in QA is advocating not to ship until zarro boogs are found... But we (at least I am) are asking to give higher priority to fixing regressions and crashers (even if they happen to only ONE user as long as it is reproducible) than to adding new features. This doesn't mean AT ALL to stop adding features. Just to change priorities ;) As a general conclusion I think we are all doing the best given the limited human resources and the scarcity of our most valuable resource: time! It is because we do CARE about this project that we complain about the short testing times AND the regressions ;) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Regressions in Open Source projects ...
Hi Petr, all Please, do not take this that we do not take care about openSUSE/SUSE users. We do a lot of things for them. It is only about my packaging work and about that I underestimated the demand for 3.5. Actually I was talking about SUSE LibreOffice for Windows (which is apparently a one-off unsupported release created for the Intel AppUp store) :) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.4.6 RC2 test builds available
Hi Rainer, all It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept. It is true that this model tends to accumulate regressions. Unfortunately it is not easy to measure if adding more features is attracting more users than repelling users because of regressions/unsolved problems... On a positive note see how far this has taken us since release 3.3.0 ;) Please excuse me that I can't tell anything more enthusiastic. TBH I am quite enthusiastic that the long standing regression Bug #36982 (which caused data loss and was reported 10 months ago) was finally squashed. But I do agree that killing branches (without solving all regressions) means that users are being left behind as the project moves forward... Maybe branch 3.4.x should continue to be updated (in the same way that Mozilla keeps fixing bugs in version 3.6.x, with x currently at 28, even though the latest version is 11.0...) until at least all 3.3.x regressions are fixed??? Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.4.6 RC2 test builds available
Hi Rainer, all It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept. It is true that this model tends to accumulate regressions. Unfortunately it is not easy to measure if adding more features is attracting more users than repelling users because of regressions/unsolved problems... On a positive note see how far this has taken us since release 3.3.0 ;) Please excuse me that I can't tell anything more enthusiastic. TBH I am quite enthusiastic that the long standing regression Bug #36982 (which caused data loss and was reported 10 months ago) was finally squashed. But I do agree that killing branches (without solving all regressions) means that users are being left behind as the project moves forward... Maybe branch 3.4.x should continue to be updated (in the same way that Mozilla keeps fixing bugs in version 3.6.x, with x currently at 28, even though the latest version is 11.0...) until at least all 3.3.x regressions are fixed??? Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.1 Online Update testing
Hi Kendy Working perfectly under Win XP Pro x86 SP3, except that the Pre-release page still shows RC1... http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ Regards, Pedro On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Jan Holesovsky ke...@suse.cz wrote: Hi there, Please, is here anybody who can check whether the 3.5.1 Online Update is working? How to test: - install 3.5.1 _RC1_ (for Windows, or other) - trigger Online Update from the Help menu - expected result: LibreOffice reports that there is an update available to 3.5.1 RC2 Please let me know if it worked as expected :-) Thank you a lot, Kendy ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] credits for people doing QA
Hi Nino, all Having false-positives ist bad, of course. But IMO false-negatives are worse :-/ Couldn't agree more :) There were at least 3 guys that were particularly helpful on the second Bug Hunting Session while I was online (probably there were many more). I thanked them publicly on IRC (not the same as a BoD member doing it but still...) but then there wasn't even a nice Thank you post on the TDF blog like for BHS 1... I have already commented with Cor that this was really bad. So I'd still vote for some type of 'credit points' like Yifan brought in. In my eyes, it's enough summing them up alltogether, but we also could consider to differentiate. But this would end up in something like PersonX(12/3/23/8) which I'd consider rather ugly. That is ugly. I think that rather than showing counts (although it could be sorted by counts) it would be much nicer to have something like Rainer Bielefeld (Since Oct 2011) or if someone stopped contributing for over a month Rainer Bielefeld (Between Oct 2011 and Dec 2011) Eventually people that stopped contributing for e.g. 2 months would be moved to a linked Former contributers (or something similar) page as new more active people would be more visible. If they returned the original date would show up (of course the break would count as being active but it would be petty to reset the starting date...) This would put more weight into being active rather than a rat race to have more points over time... Top contributors would still show on top but without showing the numbers. Just my 2 (non-dev) cents ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer
Hi Michael, all Well - I guess the -idea- is prolly to try to show the user the key that is written on their keyboard, rather than a generic 'Ctrl' for Control - it can show 'Control' (if that is what is written there) or somesuch. I think it would make sense for different countries since special keys have different text... That said this would mean having a database of ALL keyboard models for ALL brands for ALL supported Languages, which was fine when there was IBM and HP... Today... well just look at the keyboard section in any supply store :) E.g. I have two Logitech keyboards with Portuguese layout. Model Y-SR34 has an Insert key; in Model K120 the key has been translated (correctly :) ) to the Portuguese word Inserir. If you want to cover all keyboards that is the kind of information that would have to be available :) I was pondering what to do with the code the other day; if it is not even working for the common cases ;-) IMO remove it all. It doesn't make any sense to cater for some old unused models (and introducing unneeded errors) while not supporting the huge amount of newer keyboards. Just my 2 (non-dev) cents :) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer
Hi Stefan, all All we should need is localised versions of key names like Ctrl, Del, Ins (that are on almost every keyboard [1], but whose names can change) and global versions of key names for alphanumeric/script-specific keys (which might not be on every keyboard, but whose names are the same internationally). So, looking at the code, we'd need to just move the keyboard language specific data to the specific locales. This also seems a lot more scalable than for every localiser having to ask a developer to add their native keys into this code. That would be too simple. See my example in the previous email. You would need to match the keys for EACH keyboard model, regardless of Locale. This is particularly true for laptops (at least in Portugal...). All laptops sold in Portugal have a Portuguese layout but the Special keys (like Ctrl, Alt, Insert) have the English text. Obviously manufacturers do this to save on producing specific keys. So Locale doesn't solve the problem. Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer
Hi Rimas, all I think you'd just have to choose which label to use. Correctly matching key names with the keyboard model is hardly impossible. I would say you'd just have to choose whether to use Inserir or Insert, and stick to that choice. Which strings you would choose would be completely up to you, but you could of course take popularity and other factors into account. That is exactly the problem! You can not choose. It is selected based on Locale. And that is exactly what Stefan (Astron) is complaining about. Instead of creating a huge database, there could be simply an option in the Language settings. The keyboard would be selected based on Locale but the user would have the option to switch to the Language that matches the keyboard buttons (or that matches the GUI, as Stefan mentioned) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer
Hi Michael, all Well - I guess the -idea- is prolly to try to show the user the key that is written on their keyboard, rather than a generic 'Ctrl' for Control - it can show 'Control' (if that is what is written there) or somesuch. I think it would make sense for different countries since special keys have different text... That said this would mean having a database of ALL keyboard models for ALL brands for ALL supported Languages, which was fine when there was IBM and HP... Today... well just look at the keyboard section in any supply store :) E.g. I have two Logitech keyboards with Portuguese layout. Model Y-SR34 has an Insert key; in Model K120 the key has been translated (correctly :) ) to the Portuguese word Inserir. If you want to cover all keyboards that is the kind of information that would have to be available :) I was pondering what to do with the code the other day; if it is not even working for the common cases ;-) IMO remove it all. It doesn't make any sense to cater for some old unused models (and introducing unneeded errors) while not supporting the huge amount of newer keyboards. Just my 2 (non-dev) cents :) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer
Hi Stefan, all All we should need is localised versions of key names like Ctrl, Del, Ins (that are on almost every keyboard [1], but whose names can change) and global versions of key names for alphanumeric/script-specific keys (which might not be on every keyboard, but whose names are the same internationally). So, looking at the code, we'd need to just move the keyboard language specific data to the specific locales. This also seems a lot more scalable than for every localiser having to ask a developer to add their native keys into this code. That would be too simple. See my example in the previous email. You would need to match the keys for EACH keyboard model, regardless of Locale. This is particularly true for laptops (at least in Portugal...). All laptops sold in Portugal have a Portuguese layout but the Special keys (like Ctrl, Alt, Insert) have the English text. Obviously manufacturers do this to save on producing specific keys. So Locale doesn't solve the problem. Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2
Hi Kohei The truth is that different people have different pet peeve bugs they want backported to 3.4.x, and we can't respond to all of them because it's extra work. Backporting a change is not free, someone has to review the change and make sure that change won't introduce regressions. And that's not as easy as you may think, since a lot of things are different between 3.4 and 3.5, and 3.4 being marked stable, there is additional effort required to ensure no regressions. I'm aware of the work involved in backporting fixes even if I'm not a developer ;) As for the bug you mentioned, you just need to prod someone to review, sign off, and backport that change. I can't do it since I'm the one you made the change; it needs to be reviewed by another developer. I was quoting that particular problem as an example. Maybe someone less unpopular than myself can do that :) To be honest I'm puzzled that a program which reportedly is used by 25 *million* people worldwide has half a dozen people in QA... I guess this shows a lot about human nature :( Could you clarify on this? I'm not sure how to interpret this. I meant that there are (reportedly) so many people downloading and using LO that it is absurd that so few are willing to give something back... And we aren't even talking about money... just a few minutes of their time... ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] Removing LibO on Windows ...
Hi Tor, all and it's Pedro even! I'm almost sure this wasn't a compliment... Still I'm glad that I'm not the only one who has this opinion :) I can't guarantee that it is installed by default (I NEVER use the default install option on any software) but it is selected by default when I switch to Custom (and I always un-select it). Under Windows options already selected in Custom should be the same installed by using the Default option. -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.5.2 tag created (3.4.5-rc2)
do you mean 3.4.5-rc1 ? No. That was almost a month ago :) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ANNOUNCE-libreoffice-3-4-5-1-tag-created-3-4-5-rc1-tt3585973.html ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Online update service up running
Hi Kendy, all JFYI - the service that warns you that there is a newer LibreOffice version out is up running, and when you have Beta1, it should inform you about the availability of Beta2, and offer you to redirect to its download page. Should there be troubles with this, please report among the most annoying bugs; the update service can get very annoying if not done right :-) Absolutely fantastic! I uninstalled Beta2 and reinstalled Beta1 just to check what happened when an update is available. It works perfectly under Windows XP Pro x86 SP3. This was probably a small step for developers but it is a huge leap for users! Well done! Kudos to all involved ;) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs in Portable LibO Versions
I do not know at all how bug fixes for Portable LibO Builds will be proceeded. I believe hints in http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Version are not useful. What do you think? Are there any specific Portable LO errors? I assume that the Portable version works 100% like the installed. If there are any errors they should be detected in the installed version... In any case there is specific support at portableapps.com http://portableapps.com/support/libreoffice_portable http://portableapps.com/forums/support/libreoffice_portable -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Crash in Impress in slideshow mode with linked movie ?
it seems that Impress in LO 3.5.0 crashes under *MS-Windows* in slideshow mode when you try to show a slide with a linked movie (menu Insert - Movie and Sound...). Yes. I can confirm that, although I couldn't find the Bug report. Impress crashes instantly when switching to Slideshow mode. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.0 Beta1 test builds available
Hi 7362ca8-b5a8e65-af86909-d471f98-61464c4 *is* Beta1, this is the way we can identify it, now it is documented in mail archives, so... :) :) Fair enough :) I'm glad Petr is on it. I hope he doesn't give up that easily ;) -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5
LO stores information about a selected JRE in the user profile at config/javasettings_*.xml. Can you verify that just deleting that file from the bad old user profile would already be enough to solve the crash? Yes, I can confirm that. I made some extensive testing. This problem occurs if the user uninstalls or downgrades the Java version (i.e. from 7 to 6) This happens because under Windows the absolute path to Java is stored in file javasettings_Windows_x86.xml located in %AppData%\LOdev\3\user\config E.g. locationfile:///C:/Program%20Files/Java/jre6/location If LO would delete the xml file when it fails to find JRE at the specified location and started a new search (as it does currently on every run if Java is enabled) then the problem would be solved: if no Java is installed, LO would ask to install; if another version is installed LO would find it ;) HTH, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ? that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix. Yep. I would say so :) Conclusion LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7; Right there is no support there. I know that. Just reported it because I'm happy about 3.4.4 :) So - on this basis, it sounds like supporting Java 7 is something we should be doing, if only to avoid the crashes when it is not present ;-) Having said that - the relevant components will be disabled if there was no Java on the system at install time. What do you mean disabled? Is it automatically enabled when/if Java is installed? If not then it would be better to keep it enabled and just pop the warning (like in 3.4.4) You can select it in tools-options IIRC, otherwise the latest version. Yes I know how to select it. I just wanted to know the criteria. -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi Petr IMHO, community can't support too many stable versions. Customers who need it, have to pay someone for it. We should leave 3.3 and concentrate on making 3.5 the best release ever. I couldn't agree more. But someone made up this concept of rock solid and Enterprise ready. To make things more confusing there are two versions on the download page that are Enterprise ready and there isn't anyone who can say which are the differences and which one should companies adopt... E.g. http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Differences-between-LibreOffice-3-3-and-3-4-tt3518436.html The reason for my post is that family 3.3 will no longer be updated and the ONLY version this Community is selling as Enterprise ready will be version 3.4.5 I think that there is no need for panic :-) 3.4 has been out since, Jun 1, 2011. We did 4 bug fix releases. There was plenty of time to escalate bugs that would break people from using this version and there were many possibilities to get these fixes. Currently there are two rock solid versions. And you can see from the comments at the forum that many people (and companies) were sticking with version 3.3.x just to be on the safe side (maybe that is why there are not more bug reports for 3.4.4?) I'm not in panic. I was just sharing my concern. If you guys aren't worried why should I be? Best regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi all Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3: Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29. Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. Installed Java 7 rev 1 without rebooting Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. Run again LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Went to Options, Java, selected Version 1.7.0_01 Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Wizard worked as expected. Uninstalled Java 7. Rebooted Installed Java 7 rev 1 and rebooted Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Wizard worked as expected. Conclusion LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7; LO 3.5.0 crashes on Wizard execution if Java is not installed or was not detected. Works as expected when Java is detected or selected. One question: if both Java versions are installed and I do not specify which one to use, which version is used? -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi all Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3: Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29. Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. Installed Java 7 rev 1 without rebooting Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. Run again LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Went to Options, Java, selected Version 1.7.0_01 Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Wizard worked as expected. Uninstalled Java 7. Rebooted Installed Java 7 rev 1 and rebooted Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15fca-1f1fd1a-ca8e46d-5bcbce4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Wizard worked as expected. Conclusion LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7; LO 3.5.0 crashes on Wizard execution if Java is not installed or was not detected. Works as expected when Java is detected or selected. One question: if both Java versions are installed and I do not specify which one to use, which version is used? -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Which nightly/daily build should be used?
The problem arises again: For Beta0 testing Petr Mladek suggests getting the latest from http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/ (this machine builds and uploads quite frequently) Thorsten Behrens suggests http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases (this folder contains the Win-x86@6 MSVC build from 2011-12-09_12.44.50 but machine #6 only uses core, dictionaries and help) and finally Fridrich Strba suggests http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Windows_Release_Configuration/libreoffice-3-5/ (this is a build that finished compiling at 11-Dec-2011 06:51, it doesn't have a log but it includes all 5 repositories) Since these 3 folders contain binaries compiled at different times from different repositories, the question is: which one should we use? I repeat my previous question: Is it important for testing purposes how many/which repositories are used? -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi Korrawit, all So, what should we do to each group of bugs? Anyway, I'm not sure whether there are how many bugs in each group, or even there is any bug in some group. Maybe we need separate discussion? This isn't simply a matter of checking and reporting bugs. It involves the Quality of a product this Community claims to be Enterprise ready. IMO there can be NO regressions. I think this is way over our (QA) heads given the sheer amount of unfixed bugs. It doesn't seem realistic the release date of January 11 especially because this is the Christmas season and most people here are volunteers. The TDF BoD and the Devs need to make a decision about how to handle this. -- Pedro http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/2011-December/000623.html ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi Michael Seems that Eike picked this to -3-4 shortly after you mentioned it ;-) of course, if there are more annoying, but trivial / obvious fixes we need to get into 3.4.5 it'd be great to know ASAP - the freeze for 3.4.5 RC1 is early next week, and I'd really like not to see ~anything much go in after RC1. That was just an example. I think you missed this discussion.Please read it here http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/2011-December/000623.html -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi Michael Seems that Eike picked this to -3-4 shortly after you mentioned it ;-) of course, if there are more annoying, but trivial / obvious fixes we need to get into 3.4.5 it'd be great to know ASAP - the freeze for 3.4.5 RC1 is early next week, and I'd really like not to see ~anything much go in after RC1. That was just an example. I think you missed this discussion.Please read it here http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/2011-December/000623.html -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be enabled on the Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java tab page, and that File - Wizards - Letter... (which uses Java) looks reasonable. Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when (date/time) this was added? There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't include that fix? Is there a list of functions that depend on Java? Or a Java test for LO? ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Tor, all Thank you for all the replies Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I understand it. Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily builds from the central repository. Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our central repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build machine's repository? I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central repository by a developer (in this case the Java 1.7 change) which can (I hope!) be compared to the pull time of the dailies in the tinderboxes. If this doesn't work this way, please let me know! :) There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I hope). So until a 3.4.5 build is released this is the nearest approach to test back ;) -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Michael There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't include that fix? Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1 will be coming next week or so I think). Excellent. Thank you for the confirmation. Not really; perhaps litmus has some Java related data ? things like the hsqldb (default database backend) use Java, also the Wizards currently still use Java (File-Wizard etc.) - there are also some Java samples we ship I suspect in the macros menu. The nlpsolver is Java, the wiki publisher, and base report-builder. This sure helps ;) -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are feature branches and merges... Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was pushed to the central repository by a developer which is comparable to the pull time from the central repository. In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done on master, and those deemed good and important are cherry-picked to a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository structure for master and 3-4 (single core vs. a bunch), it isn't a cherry-pick.) Excellent. Then all good changes are in the master already :) Thank you for the clarification ;) -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Norbert the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not keep track of it. I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to provide a log file for each build E.g. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/libreoffice-3-5~2011-12-09_12.44.50_build_info.txt And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info should/could be included in the About box http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3561117 However Bjoern seems to have a different idea... But I still don't know what it is :) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3567211 It is possible to do a web service to automate that (that is giving 2 sha1s and it tell you if the second one (the fix) is an 'ancestor' of the first one (your build) essentially: if $(git merge-base build-sha fix-sha) = fix-sha That would be nice ;) The important part here is to know if the fix is included or not. When or the exact time is not important at all! Can you do that? :) -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time' :) Thank you, then :) Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into Central repository before time X are included in the source that is pulled after time X... I think? And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info should/could be included in the About box http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tt3556898.html#a3561117 it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;) otoh I am considering addin the tinderbox id to the about box, so one can know which box built it (and therefore what config was used) It would be great if that information was added BOTH to the About box and to the tar/msi file name! Please do consider it :) Can you do that? :) The shell script that give you the anwser given the about box info and the sha1 of the fix, yes... the web page that wrap it all nicely, no Does anyone on this list know how to add this script to the wiki? I think that would be the best place to have this... -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi all Looking at the Release Plan chart http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png and wiki http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3. This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which only use the most stable build) the next version will (sometimes forcefully :) ) be 3.4.5. I think this carries (from a QA point of vue) a much heavier responsibility and care than the change from 3.4.4 to 3.5.0 (which is experimental) The planned release date for 3.4.5 is on January 11, 2012 and apparently there won't be any Beta releases, it will jump directly to RC1. I urge everybody to make sure that EVERY regression detected from 3.3.x to 3.4.x is fixed/added to the 3.4 branch E.g. A bug fix such as this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42958 needs to be cherry picked to the 3.4 branch I volunteer to do any checking (within my limited knowledge) on the Windows x86 platform but someone with more experience needs to do an exhaustive search on the Bug tracker (Rainer?) Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and bear in mind timezone :-)) Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :) for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since otherwise you would not have found the file to start with. Obviously. But once you have downloaded it there is no way to know where it came from. Therefore it is important that this is kept in the filename for pre-release, we don't want to have too fancy filename, that would make thing much more dicey when we 'release'... For Pre-release (not dev builds) a simple Beta1 is enough :) (Also in the About box as requested many times and suggested by Petr :) ) ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing
Hi Andras You use your Windows with an administrator account. It is not recommended, however I know that many people do this. Therefore LibreOffice can write into its own Program Files folder. This is how all personal Windows XP PCs work. Only in companies/schools/etc does it work differently. By default the Windows XP user accounts are created as Admin so that you can install/remove any programs. If that is what is causing the leftovers then the location of the files should be modified. All personal files should be created in the user Profile (and optionally removed on Uninstall) regardless of the user permissions. It is hard to remove files that were not installed by MSI. Not impossible, but probably I won't spend time on that, because AFAIK Windows 7 does not let this happen. I'm more interested in those leftovers, if any, when you start LibreOffice with a non priviliged user account. Yes, it is true that WIndows Vista and 7 have greater protection but nearly 40% of all PC users worlwide still use Windows XP. I think TDF shouldn't neglect them :) Even if the Admin doesn't use LO at all :) the share folder and all subfolders/items (see PDF linked in previous post) are still leftover. -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier. That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;) This is not a SHA vs Timestamp discussion. It is a simple Please Add both Peace! -- Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be enabled on the Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java tab page, and that File - Wizards - Letter... (which uses Java) looks reasonable. Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when (date/time) this was added? There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't include that fix? Is there a list of functions that depend on Java? Or a Java test for LO? ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
Hi Tor, all Thank you for all the replies Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I understand it. Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily builds from the central repository. Would you be interested in the time stamp when a change was committed to the developer's local repository? Or when it was pushed to our central repository? Or when it was pulled from there into the build machine's repository? I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central repository by a developer (in this case the Java 1.7 change) which can (I hope!) be compared to the pull time of the dailies in the tinderboxes. If this doesn't work this way, please let me know! :) There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the master? Well, master is quite far from the liboreoffice-3-4 branch. Fixes applied to the 3.4 branch were added back to the master (I hope). So until a 3.4.5 build is released this is the nearest approach to test back ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are feature branches and merges... Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was pushed to the central repository by a developer which is comparable to the pull time from the central repository. In this case (and usually) it is the other way around: Fixes are done on master, and those deemed good and important are cherry-picked to a stable branch. (Although technically, as we use different repository structure for master and 3-4 (single core vs. a bunch), it isn't a cherry-pick.) Excellent. Then all good changes are in the master already :) Thank you for the clarification ;) -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [bjoern.michael...@canonical.com: [Libreoffice] What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?]
http://people.canonical.com/~bjoern/bibisect-3.5.lzma contains: - 53 complete office installs between the creation of the core repo and the -3-5 branchoff (thats 5000 commits) - at 450MB each, that would be ~22GB total - however, it is only 749MB total download size, thats 15MB per installation And one does not need to install them in parallel as one can switch through all of them with a quick git checkout source-hash-XX -- one switch costs 1 second). This sounds like a very useful tool. What do you mean complete office install? Switch between releases with a git command? Does this work under Windows??? -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions
Hi all Looking at the Release Plan chart http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png and wiki http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3. This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which only use the most stable build) the next version will (sometimes forcefully :) ) be 3.4.5. I think this carries (from a QA point of vue) a much heavier responsibility and care than the change from 3.4.4 to 3.5.0 (which is experimental) The planned release date for 3.4.5 is on January 11, 2012 and apparently there won't be any Beta releases, it will jump directly to RC1. I urge everybody to make sure that EVERY regression detected from 3.3.x to 3.4.x is fixed/added to the 3.4 branch E.g. A bug fix such as this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42958 needs to be cherry picked to the 3.4 branch I volunteer to do any checking (within my limited knowledge) on the Windows x86 platform but someone with more experience needs to do an exhaustive search on the Bug tracker (Rainer?) Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)
We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier. That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert it is less reliable and at best redundant with the git-sha... Redundant is good! Especially if the redundant information can be understood by non-technical users ;) This is not a SHA vs Timestamp discussion. It is a simple Please Add both Peace! -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
Hi Petr, * It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find exactly the problems that it was supposed to find. It is clear that we should have used the name alphaX. Well, the plan was public and nobody protested against the beta0 name ;-) You seem to be taking the complaints about Beta/Alpha personally. I can say for myself (and most probably for everybody that posted on this topic) that any comments are not and were never ad hominem. It wouldn't make any sense anyway. You are doing an excellent job and you can not be blamed for a common decision (or lack of). If this situation happened is because we all failed. Beta0 should have been a very internal test build given that the tinderboxes had been failing for months (and still are working quite irregularly for Windows, at least) I am afraid that beta1 is going to be delayed by two days or so. We want to make some testing before we build it. I'm certainly glad to hear that ;) If you need some testing on a Windows machine, just yell ;) Yes, we should have used alpha name instead of beta0. We will take it in mind when updating schedule for 3.6 release. May I suggest that this is added to the scripts ASAP instead of leaving it for later? In June (3.6 planned release date) no one will remember this discussion. Kind regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
Hi Petr, * It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find exactly the problems that it was supposed to find. It is clear that we should have used the name alphaX. Well, the plan was public and nobody protested against the beta0 name ;-) You seem to be taking the complaints about Beta/Alpha personally. I can say for myself (and most probably for everybody that posted on this topic) that any comments are not and were never ad hominem. It wouldn't make any sense anyway. You are doing an excellent job and you can not be blamed for a common decision (or lack of). If this situation happened is because we all failed. Beta0 should have been a very internal test build given that the tinderboxes had been failing for months (and still are working quite irregularly for Windows, at least) I am afraid that beta1 is going to be delayed by two days or so. We want to make some testing before we build it. I'm certainly glad to hear that ;) If you need some testing on a Windows machine, just yell ;) Yes, we should have used alpha name instead of beta0. We will take it in mind when updating schedule for 3.6 release. May I suggest that this is added to the scripts ASAP instead of leaving it for later? In June (3.6 planned release date) no one will remember this discussion. Kind regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed in parallel with the stable release. Excellent news! Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is scheduled for today? Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases on Windows and MAC. They still will install in parallel with 3.4 on Linux. So, it will work the same way like with 3.4 vs. 3.3. Can't this be consistent across OSes? What option allows RCs to be installed in parallel in Linux? Can't we use the same option in Windows and Mac? Best regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed in parallel with the stable release. Excellent news! Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is scheduled for today? Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases on Windows and MAC. They still will install in parallel with 3.4 on Linux. So, it will work the same way like with 3.4 vs. 3.3. Can't this be consistent across OSes? What option allows RCs to be installed in parallel in Linux? Can't we use the same option in Windows and Mac? Best regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] RESET - BACK button text and function interchanged
Hi Rainer Since you asked not to discuss on the Bug Tracker here is my opinion: The function Back doesn't make any sense. If the idea is to Undo the values that you changed and you haven't Saved then you already have the Cancel button. If the goal is to return to LO default values then the user should use the Reset button (and the Reset button should indeed Reset the values _in the current tab_ to the LO defaults). I think this is a complex decision and that the UX people should be involved. It's a bit more than just incorrectly identified buttons... Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] RESET - BACK button text and function interchanged
Hi Rainer Since you asked not to discuss on the Bug Tracker here is my opinion: The function Back doesn't make any sense. If the idea is to Undo the values that you changed and you haven't Saved then you already have the Cancel button. If the goal is to return to LO default values then the user should use the Reset button (and the Reset button should indeed Reset the values _in the current tab_ to the LO defaults). I think this is a complex decision and that the UX people should be involved. It's a bit more than just incorrectly identified buttons... Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
Hi all This is my final request about this subject. Can you please make some sense out of the version naming convention? I was about to reinstall version 3.4.4 (after it was overwritten by 3.5.0 Beta0) and I already had an unpacked install folder on my desktop. The only way I could verify that it was for 3.4.4 final, was to run the installer and check what would be the name of the generated folder. Since it had the same code (4eb10e5c) it was the same version... Another situation: I download a master build from a tinderbox. How do I know the build included? How do I know if the source it was generated from is newer or older than the one I already have? Easy. Just install, open the About box and check if 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd is greater or smaller than 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd (just an example) If the latest final version was named 3.4.4 and build was 402 couldn't it simple be named 3.3.4.402? And this new version can't it be simply named 3.5.0.xxx??? And keep this code constant in the installer, the about box, the master builds, etc? I think this is not an unreasonable request... Maybe the codes you use are perfect for developers, but this is a community and not all users (namely those in QA, l10n, etc, let alone common users) are version experts. Here is a proper bug request about this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43031 Please help us to contribute to this project. Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
Hi again Andras We have 5 repositories now: core, binfilter, dictionaries, help, and translations. Therefore there are 5 git commit IDs in the About box separated by dashes. These are good identifiers of the build, at least these uniquely identify the source code that the build was made from. Of course the outcome of build process depends on the configure switches, too. Maybe we should hack something in like about:buildconfig in Firefox. When you see the full build log of master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35.exe, you will see the git commit IDs there, but I agree that it is hard to find. Interesting information about the 5 code blocks. The problem is: if someone doesn't use the 5 repositories then the build ID only has e.g. 3 blocks like in master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35.exe where Kendy only used core, dictionaries and help So the About box says a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94 which I just realized are the 7 first letters of each used repository commit ID tinderbox: git sha1s core:a28635374613e556a0093c242823ea90a3704f74 dictionaries:090bcbaa55370d7906b0cab08839fe88f4e80215 help:3bf3b943ff05fda627498426a23f94cd0e0b7aab (The above four lines were extracted from master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_build_info.txt which is a separate download, not included in the msi file.) Shouldn't it have all five blocks in the same order and just display # (or some other character for those not used), as in a286353-#-090bcba-3bf3b94-# (since it lacks binfilter and translations)? So the information is indeed all there, but this is not user friendly at all :) No, build numbers do not bump at each commit, they are bumped before releases (beta, rc). 4f11d0a is the commit ID that git produces. It is not in the source code. So, 4f11d0a is a global commit ID calculated from the partial 5 git commit IDs? And obviously this only makes sense when the 5 repositories are used, which is not mandatory for any build... I think this makes QA work in any master build pointless. QA must then be restricted to official Betas but then there needs to be more coordination and time between Beta0 and the public Beta1 (unless TDF is not worried about the quality and image that a Public Beta conveys). Thank you again for the excellent explanation, Andras ;) Best regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???
Hi Korrawit That is, if your 4f11d0a is the first group of IDs in About box, it's the core repository's commit ID. Yes, obviously. Sorry for the confusion. I thought Andras was referring to the single 8 letter/number code added to the Windows install folder name. Where does that come from? Example: Build ID: 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd Folder name LibO-dev 3.5 (4ec47f5f) Installation Files Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs it would still be useless as an identification because different binaries using the same core would have a different code depending on the repositories used, right? Regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???
No need to know. It is just a random (or not so random) sequence of hex digits. If nothing documents it to have some significance, don't assume it to have any significance. Thank you for the clarification. It does have some significance. Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs it would still be useless as an identification Well, is it claimed anywhere to be useful as an identification? I (wrongly) assumed it was meant for identification. In fact if the same build generates the same sequence then they are synonyms and can be used for some sort of identification (as I just explained in a previous email). I realize from your answer that the code was generated simply to make the folder name unique. But this is irrelevant since the installer folder will no longer be created. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???
Hi Lionel Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author) timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch? That would help! Something like: Build assembled from: repo commit date branch core: 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master help: adcf6d5 2011-11-05 14:01:21 master ... Or instead of pretty-printing the date, just put it as seconds since the epoch: core: 4f11d0a 1321480648 master help: adcf6d5 1320501681 master That would solve the problem when looking into the log file but not when looking at the About box. Picking up your (excellent) idea of using the date and converting to a linear value: if each repository was given a Birth Date and time since that date converted to a linear value (age), using the Date function you could get a 10 digit value able to separate builds with one second time difference. E.g. If the Core repository was created at midnight Sept 28th 2010 (TDF's birthday) or in linear time (times 10 to eliminate the point) 404490, then the 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master age would be 41491490. This seems like a nice easy number to compare. In fact a build using code from one second later would be 41491491. All this takes is attributing an arbitrary birth date for each repository and very simple calculations. Please do consider this! Thank you again, Lionel! ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???
No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string. Oh, I see! But then it would be easier to use the pretty printing date instead of having 2 strings to compare for each repository. That would be a nice improvement. What I was proposing was to replace 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd with 41491490-etc-etc which is a simple numeric value that will continually grow because it is an age... One year from now you would be using build 79831260-etc-etc and you wouldn't have to look twice to know that this build was much newer than 41491490-etc-etc Even better, use the string as the actual number of days which is even easier to visually compare: 414.91490-etc-etc now, 798.31260-etc-etc in a year, 44534.31260-etc-etc ten years from today at the exact same second It's easy to visualize and to explain to anyone the logic. Kind regards, Pedro ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment
As posted already yesterday, it is not unlikely that beta1 will have about the same troubles. If so, those will be fixed before beta2, which will make that version fine for larger testing. Really??? Not _unlikely_? The Devs are actually going to release a Public Beta in this state? I hope that _at least_ they make DAMN sure that Beta1 doesn't overwrite the stable build... I can see that the Timetable is stronger than Quality concerns... Sad. So what do we (QA) do now? Is there some protocol? Are there tasks to split? By how many? Cheers, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???
Hi all This is my final request about this subject. Can you please make some sense out of the version naming convention? I was about to reinstall version 3.4.4 (after it was overwritten by 3.5.0 Beta0) and I already had an unpacked install folder on my desktop. The only way I could verify that it was for 3.4.4 final, was to run the installer and check what would be the name of the generated folder. Since it had the same code (4eb10e5c) it was the same version... Another situation: I download a master build from a tinderbox. How do I know the build included? How do I know if the source it was generated from is newer or older than the one I already have? Easy. Just install, open the About box and check if 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd is greater or smaller than 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd (just an example) If the latest final version was named 3.4.4 and build was 402 couldn't it simple be named 3.3.4.402? And this new version can't it be simply named 3.5.0.xxx??? And keep this code constant in the installer, the about box, the master builds, etc? I think this is not an unreasonable request... Maybe the codes you use are perfect for developers, but this is a community and not all users (namely those in QA, l10n, etc, let alone common users) are version experts. Here is a proper bug request about this https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43031 Please help us to contribute to this project. Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
Hi again Andras We have 5 repositories now: core, binfilter, dictionaries, help, and translations. Therefore there are 5 git commit IDs in the About box separated by dashes. These are good identifiers of the build, at least these uniquely identify the source code that the build was made from. Of course the outcome of build process depends on the configure switches, too. Maybe we should hack something in like about:buildconfig in Firefox. When you see the full build log of master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35.exe, you will see the git commit IDs there, but I agree that it is hard to find. Interesting information about the 5 code blocks. The problem is: if someone doesn't use the 5 repositories then the build ID only has e.g. 3 blocks like in master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35.exe where Kendy only used core, dictionaries and help So the About box says a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94 which I just realized are the 7 first letters of each used repository commit ID tinderbox: git sha1s core:a28635374613e556a0093c242823ea90a3704f74 dictionaries:090bcbaa55370d7906b0cab08839fe88f4e80215 help:3bf3b943ff05fda627498426a23f94cd0e0b7aab (The above four lines were extracted from master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_build_info.txt which is a separate download, not included in the msi file.) Shouldn't it have all five blocks in the same order and just display # (or some other character for those not used), as in a286353-#-090bcba-3bf3b94-# (since it lacks binfilter and translations)? So the information is indeed all there, but this is not user friendly at all :) No, build numbers do not bump at each commit, they are bumped before releases (beta, rc). 4f11d0a is the commit ID that git produces. It is not in the source code. So, 4f11d0a is a global commit ID calculated from the partial 5 git commit IDs? And obviously this only makes sense when the 5 repositories are used, which is not mandatory for any build... I think this makes QA work in any master build pointless. QA must then be restricted to official Betas but then there needs to be more coordination and time between Beta0 and the public Beta1 (unless TDF is not worried about the quality and image that a Public Beta conveys). Thank you again for the excellent explanation, Andras ;) Best regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Insert - fields - others dialog : button close does not work on master
On my build of the master (Build ID: 2c09f50-43e9388-090bcba-3bf3b94-05891e7 on Ubuntu 10.04 x86_64) the button Close in the dialog Insert - Fields - Other... (Ctrl+F2) does nothing. Other buttons (Insert and Help) work as expected. The only way to close the dialog is to click the cross button in the title bar of the window. There is another button Close in the dialog Insert - Hyperlink and it works well for me. Do you reproduce ? Yes, I can reproduce the bug in build a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3. This is a regression from version 3.4.4 Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
Hi Korrawit That is, if your 4f11d0a is the first group of IDs in About box, it's the core repository's commit ID. Yes, obviously. Sorry for the confusion. I thought Andras was referring to the single 8 letter/number code added to the Windows install folder name. Where does that come from? Example: Build ID: 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd Folder name LibO-dev 3.5 (4ec47f5f) Installation Files Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs it would still be useless as an identification because different binaries using the same core would have a different code depending on the repositories used, right? Regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
No need to know. It is just a random (or not so random) sequence of hex digits. If nothing documents it to have some significance, don't assume it to have any significance. Thank you for the clarification. It does have some significance. Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs it would still be useless as an identification Well, is it claimed anywhere to be useful as an identification? I (wrongly) assumed it was meant for identification. In fact if the same build generates the same sequence then they are synonyms and can be used for some sort of identification (as I just explained in a previous email). I realize from your answer that the code was generated simply to make the folder name unique. But this is irrelevant since the installer folder will no longer be created. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
Hi Lionel Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author) timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch? That would help! Something like: Build assembled from: repo commit date branch core: 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master help: adcf6d5 2011-11-05 14:01:21 master ... Or instead of pretty-printing the date, just put it as seconds since the epoch: core: 4f11d0a 1321480648 master help: adcf6d5 1320501681 master That would solve the problem when looking into the log file but not when looking at the About box. Picking up your (excellent) idea of using the date and converting to a linear value: if each repository was given a Birth Date and time since that date converted to a linear value (age), using the Date function you could get a 10 digit value able to separate builds with one second time difference. E.g. If the Core repository was created at midnight Sept 28th 2010 (TDF's birthday) or in linear time (times 10 to eliminate the point) 404490, then the 4f11d0a 2011-11-16 21:57:28 master age would be 41491490. This seems like a nice easy number to compare. In fact a build using code from one second later would be 41491491. All this takes is attributing an arbitrary birth date for each repository and very simple calculations. Please do consider this! Thank you again, Lionel! ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
[Libreoffice-qa] Can't paste formulas between 3.4.4 and 3.5.0
Hi guys I was copying cells between two open spreadsheets, one in 3.4.4 final and another on LibO-dev 3.5.0 ( a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94) aka master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35 from Win-x86@6 When I pasted a cell containing a formula, it got pasted as the resulting value. This happens both ways. I have no problem transferring formulas between sheets of the same workbook or even between windows of the same version of LO. The only obstacle is between windows of different versions of LO. Can someone confirm this before I post a bug report? As usual this is under Windows XP Pro x86 SP3 Thanks! ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???
No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string. Oh, I see! But then it would be easier to use the pretty printing date instead of having 2 strings to compare for each repository. That would be a nice improvement. What I was proposing was to replace 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4bb9bd with 41491490-etc-etc which is a simple numeric value that will continually grow because it is an age... One year from now you would be using build 79831260-etc-etc and you wouldn't have to look twice to know that this build was much newer than 41491490-etc-etc Even better, use the string as the actual number of days which is even easier to visually compare: 414.91490-etc-etc now, 798.31260-etc-etc in a year, 44534.31260-etc-etc ten years from today at the exact same second It's easy to visualize and to explain to anyone the logic. Kind regards, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.0 beta0 available
May I add to the known limitations listed below that the Icon showing on the program window for all applications in Windows is the StarOffice 5.2 icon? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42979 Although this has been dismissed as cosmetic, it is a regression from 3.4 and it is a major functional flaw in the sense that one can't visually identify an open spreadsheet from an open text document (without reading the window or task text, obviously). I think it would make sense to fix this before the Public Beta... ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.0 beta0 available
May I add to the known limitations listed below that the Icon showing on the program window for all applications in Windows is the StarOffice 5.2 icon? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42979 Although this has been dismissed as cosmetic, it is a regression from 3.4 and it is a major functional flaw in the sense that one can't visually identify an open spreadsheet from an open text document (without reading the window or task text, obviously). I think it would make sense to fix this before the Public Beta... ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status
Hi Christian I.e. does the number of errors potentially affect the quality and reliability of the binaries? Not necessarily. But it would be suspicious if for example the Mac ones that are below 10 errors suddenly spike to 50 or more and still be green. Then it is worth to have a look what triggered the parser, and either silence the parser or fix the code. So if Tinderbox #9 finished successfully 2 days ago with 176 errors and today with 846(!!!), doesn't that sound suspicious? Cheers, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status
So if Tinderbox #9 finished successfully 2 days ago with 176 errors and today with 846(!!!), doesn't that sound suspicious? Yes, it does - but only if it is the same machine, the same builder. In your initial post you were comparing different builders, and there it is rather irrelevant. No I wasn't. I was providing two examples of the same problem. On the MinGW errors increased from 16 to 220 and on the MSVC from 176 to 375 (846 was copied from the wrong column by mistake. My bad :) ). I don't see a previous successful entry for #9, so nothing to compare with right now, and I surely don't remember the error count from before the rename :-) It was my mistake. I mixed results, But you can see that for Win machine #6 the current error number is 375 and the previous successful build had 176 http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/cgi-bin/tinder.cgi?tree=MASTERstart-time=1322562647display-hours=50 Cheers, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status
Excellent! Thank you all for the answers ;) Now onto some real bug swatting :) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Windows tinderbox: Windows 2008R2
Hi Rainer and we should try to waste as few as many time as possible. For me it's annoying to have to check every day various folders whether we have new builds. currently I mostly search in vain, and sometimes I find something I can't use; You can speedup the process by looking into http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html I can see that all tinderboxes are being organized and listed according to this page https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Tinderbox I think this is a big step forward. Thank you all! ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
