Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Consistent Time for Meetings
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, So we need to set an official, every two week (or maybe 3?) time for our meetings...I say we set it in stone, we either meet that day or we cancel the meeting (no more moving it around, I think it gives a bad message, leads to discouragement for members that were planning on joining but then time is moved, plus just is unprofessional in general). +1 Robinson made a great point that this does not exclude special meetings... special meetings should be for an individual item that needs additional discussion. Speaking of which...we might schedule a special meeting soon to help sort out the BugReport/documentation pages..but I digress :-) So again, I'm happy to stick with 1300 UTC/GMT if it's best for everyone, if others are open to alternative times here is what I prefer. M/T/W/F - 1400 UTC/GMT (one hour later than currently set) M-F - 1900 - 2000 (start time between this period) My hours are pretty flexible right now, but if I do return to a 9-5 schedule, the 13:00 or 14:00 UTC time slot would be very convenient. If we decide on something later in the day like 19:00 or 20:00 UTC, I'd prefer Mon-Thu so as to leave my weekend options open :-) Thanks, --R ___ 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] Consistent Time for Meetings
Joel Madero píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 16:42 -0700: Hi All, So we need to set an official, every two week (or maybe 3?) I would keep the two weeks. It we use 3 weeks and cancel one, it would mean 1.5 month without a meeting :-) An important part of the meeting should be making conclusion when there is a long discussion on the mailing list with an unclear result. Another important thing is discussing state of different tasks. Even the 2 weeks between meeting might break the useful dynamic in some cases :-) So again, I'm happy to stick with 1300 UTC/GMT if it's best for everyone, if others are open to alternative times here is what I prefer. M/T/W/F - 1400 UTC/GMT (one hour later than currently set) M-F - 1900 - 2000 (start time between this period) I am fine with all the proposed times. I wonder if a new time would allow other people to joining the call. It would be great to discuss things with Rainer, Pedro, Alexander, and other active people. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Consistent Time for Meetings
Le 11/04/13 01:42, Joel Madero a écrit : Hi Joel, all, So again, I'm happy to stick with 1300 UTC/GMT if it's best for everyone, if others are open to alternative times here is what I prefer. M/T/W/F - 1400 UTC/GMT (one hour later than currently set) M-F - 1900 - 2000 (start time between this period) I don't feel it is really my place to comment here, since I've never yet attended a QA meeting, but since Petr put me on copy ;-) and I follow the QA list from time to time, I'll chime in just with regard to how this would pan out for me. Unfortunately, none of these times are any good for me personally as they are the times at which my clients tend to ring me the most often :-)) I do understand, however, that finding a suitable time for everyone is not easy, so from my point of view, just go with whatever consensus you can find. If I'm available, I'll try and join in, if not, then not, as per the status quo :-)) Alex ___ 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] Lifecycle of builds?
Robinson Tryon píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 11:29 -0400: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: I see that you both use a bit different logic, so we need to decide how we count the 6 and 9 months. I understand it the following way: + the release is defined by the minor version release, e.g. 3.6 or 4.0 + regular and extra bugfix releases are provided during the life time + the life starts with the .0 release + the life ends when we are not willing to provide any new bugfix release So would we provide an EOL date for each point release in a series, or just a single EOL date for all of our 3.6.x released builds? I think that only the single EOL date make sense. We do not provide bugfix releases for bugfix releases. We provide bugfix releases for the minor version X.Y. I think that it would be fair to make it live at least 4 weeks after the last scheduled bugfix release. By other words, we should provide extra bugfix release if we add serious regression into the last bugfix release. 4 weeks of support for a regular build seems pretty short, but when you describe it as a bugfix release, it makes a lot more sense in my mind. Yes, I think that it can't work any other way. For example, if we supported 3.6.7 for 6 months, we might need to release 3.6.8 to fix a security problem. 3.6.8 would trigger another 6 months, ... We simply need to cat it at some stage :-) Perhaps we could add some language on the ReleasePlan page to help telegraph the impending end of the series? Maybe in the tables of releases: 3.6.0 ... 3.6.6 bugfix 3.6.7 bugfix I have updated the table title at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan to mention basic dates for the initial and bugfix releases. I wonder if this might be enough. It is basically what Michael mentioned because the .0 release is for early adopters. The release is stable around .3 bugfix relase which is 3 months after the .0 release. Ah, okay, so perhaps a new column in the table: 3.6.0 - early adopters 3.6.1 - (or maybe 'unstable'? marketing would hate that..) 3.6.2 - (Better: leave it empty until we can mark it 'stable' :-) 3.6.3 - stable ... 3.6.6 - bugfix 3.6.7 - bugfix I would prefer to avoid these statements. Every release is different. Some are pretty good from the .0 release. Some need more love. In addition, it is individual. Some bugs might be critical for a certain group of users and uninteresting for others. In each case, we need to be in sync with the statement on the official download page that is created by the marketing team. I wonder if there is a list of certified developers somewhere. I have found only the description at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDFCertification https://www.documentfoundation.org/certification/developers/ Thanks for the link. I would suggest that you link to some internal page on the wiki (say TDF/certification), as it's likely that other pages will want to mention the certification program or the currently-certified developers. I am not sure how you mean this. Feel free to update the wiki. Note that there is https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDFCertification but the text need to be approved by BoD. You might need to discuss it with them. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Consistent Time for Meetings
Hi Petr, all Petr Mladek wrote I wonder if a new time would allow other people to joining the call. It would be great to discuss things with Rainer, Pedro, Alexander, and other active people. As I said to Joel, I don't consider myself part of the QA team. I'm just someone who sometimes contributes to this project. Since many of my contributions don't even deserve an answer (even a f* off would be nicer than being ignored), I don't see any reason for my level of commitment to increase. Thank you for the invitation, though ;) Good luck with QA work. This project really needs it (IMO it should be more *sincerely* appreciated and valued ;) ) Kind regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Consistent-Time-for-Meetings-tp4049178p4049280.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 early-testing-announce maling list
Petr Mladek píše v Čt 11. 04. 2013 v 09:33 +0200: Hi, you might want to subscribe the new early-testing-annou...@documentfoundation.org mailing list. It will be low volume. We will send there just the announcements when the builds are available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/ Please, do not spread the information widely. There is always another public announcement when the the build are available on mirrors and download is possible by many people in parallel. I forgot to write that if you want to subscribe, just send a mail to early-testing-announce+subscr...@documentfoundation.org Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] [LibreOffice-QA] April 10th, 2013 - Call Minutes
Hi All, Thanks to a ton of work by Robinson, our wiki is very nice now and you can find the current minutes here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2013/April_10 Any questions, concerns, etc... don't hesitate to respond. Best, Joel ___ 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] Rename bug or open new one?
Pedro píše v St 20. 03. 2013 v 04:27 -0700: Nevermind. User already changed the bug status to CLOSED NOTABUG. So I opened a new one https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62554 You did it correctly. The new bug is clear and easy to understand. The old was already a bit messed with finding root of the problem, marking the original problem as fixed, ... Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Master daily builds for Windows are broken
Pedro píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 02:20 -0700: The last successful build is from April 8th at 5 AM. Dev support needed here :) Adding the developer list into CC. It actually should have been better to send the notice there. Is there any volunteer who could setup another Windows tinderbox? It is a bootleneck to have ony single host and single maintainer :-( Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Master daily builds for Windows are broken
Petr Mladek wrote Adding the developer list into CC. It actually should have been better to send the notice there. Thanks. I avoid posting there ;) Petr Mladek wrote It is a bootleneck to have ony single host and single maintainer :-( Actually there are 2 tinderboxes that should be building from Master. Unfortunately both are not succeeding (#16 isn't even trying...) And it's not a single maintainer... #6 is owned by suse in Czech Republic (where you are?) and #16 by Norbert Thiebaud Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Master-daily-builds-for-Windows-are-broken-tp4048968p4049368.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Consistent Time for Meetings
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote: As I said to Joel, I don't consider myself part of the QA team. I'm just someone who sometimes contributes to this project. Since many of my contributions don't even deserve an answer (even a f* off would be nicer than being ignored), I don't see any reason for my level of commitment to increase. If swearing at you will increase your participation, then I'm sure we can @!#$*## arrange that, but I'm pretty certain that we can find more constructive things to tell you :-) IMHO working in a project like LibreOffice requires both diplomacy and drive. The drive will keep you motivated and focused, and the diplomacy comes in handy when you step on (or drive over?) someone's toes by accident :-) Thank you for the invitation, though ;) Good luck with QA work. This project really needs it (IMO it should be more *sincerely* appreciated and valued ;) ) True, true. I think the QA Team strives to provide some of that support and appreciation to its own members (as well as to those who don't consider themselves members yet). External appreciation/recognition would be nice, but having the respect of my direct peers is most important to me. Cheers, --R ___ 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] Lifecycle of builds?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Robinson Tryon píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 11:29 -0400: So would we provide an EOL date for each point release in a series, or just a single EOL date for all of our 3.6.x released builds? I think that only the single EOL date make sense. We do not provide bugfix releases for bugfix releases. We provide bugfix releases for the minor version X.Y. +1 Perhaps we could add some language on the ReleasePlan page to help telegraph the impending end of the series? ... I have updated the table title at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan to mention basic dates for the initial and bugfix releases. I wonder if this might be enough. I think that helps a bit. I believe I understand the situation a bit better now that we've had the conversation, but I'm still slightly confused about the versioning, and that makes me wonder if users would also find themselves confused :-) Taking the 3.6 branch as an example, the first release came out by Aug 12th., after which point there were no new major/minor builds until 4.0 was released just after 3.6.5 in February. That means that for 6 months, the 3.6 branch was our most up-to-date release. That also means (if I understand correctly) that we didn't ship any new features for 6 months. Is that correct? Ah, okay, so perhaps a new column in the table: 3.6.0 - early adopters 3.6.1 - (or maybe 'unstable'? marketing would hate that..) 3.6.2 - (Better: leave it empty until we can mark it 'stable' :-) 3.6.3 - stable ... 3.6.6 - bugfix 3.6.7 - bugfix I would prefer to avoid these statements. Every release is different. Some are pretty good from the .0 release. Some need more love. In addition, it is individual. Some bugs might be critical for a certain group of users and uninteresting for others. Fair enough. As I said above, I guess I'm just trying to make better sense of the nature of the point releases. Cheers, --R ___ 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] Master daily builds for Windows are broken
Pedro píše v Čt 11. 04. 2013 v 08:36 -0700: Petr Mladek wrote Adding the developer list into CC. It actually should have been better to send the notice there. Thanks. I avoid posting there ;) Petr Mladek wrote It is a bootleneck to have ony single host and single maintainer :-( Actually there are 2 tinderboxes that should be building from Master. Unfortunately both are not succeeding (#16 isn't even trying...) I could not speak for this one. And it's not a single maintainer... #6 is owned by suse in Czech Republic (where you are?) and #16 by Norbert Thiebaud Of course, we could share the responsibilities to some stage. But please, take in mind that we need to specialize to be effective. Also everyone has many other tasks. Humans are not bits of data that you could move fast over the internet. And it even takes some time to copy the whole harddisk. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Master daily builds for Windows are broken
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Humans are not bits of data that you could move fast over the internet. Hmm... consider the following: StarOffice StarTrek Coincidence? I think not.. --R ___ 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] Master daily builds for Windows are broken
Answered to the previous post privately. Apparently my English (which is obviously NOT my native language) was misinterpreted. I apologize for that ;) Thank you for lightening the topic R ;) Kind regards, Pedro Robinson Tryon wrote On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Petr Mladek lt; pmladek@ gt; wrote: Humans are not bits of data that you could move fast over the internet. Hmm... consider the following: StarOffice StarTrek Coincidence? I think not.. --R ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@.freedesktop 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/ -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Master-daily-builds-for-Windows-are-broken-tp4048968p4049387.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] minutes of ESC call ...
* Present + Andras, Kendy, Stefan, Bjoern, Petr, Michael M, David, Joel, Astron, Norbert, Caolan, Markus, Eike * Completed Action Items + mail list of committers to public list (Bjoern) + instead have the global headers in one central global directory + write up for the mailing list (Bjoern) + integrating / feedback on Issa's icons (Lionel) + change -4-0 calc default to not use cached values (Markus) + decided: change the default install directory to 'LibreOffice 4' on master (Pmladek) + get wikihelp credentials to Andras so he can set it up (Kendy) * Pending Action Items + disable Rhino / Beanshell unless in experimental mode (Michael M) + look at gradient / clipart issues (Michael) [ some progress: re-working gengal ] + helping out with code-pointers for UI bugs (Kendy) + need design for copying styles between templates (Astron/UX) + either in that dialog or a new dialog + also issue with only editing templates that are in the mgr + Personas - update / de-couple built-in URL (Kendy) + legacy link will continue to work for a while. + buy Windows build hardware / hosting (Norbert) + still investigating options + update mac SDK configure check on master (Norbert) + publish results of automated load testing (Markus) + work on fixing automated load test issues (Kendy,Fridrich,Eike) [ Kendy -8, Eike -2 so far ] * Release Engineering update (Petr) + 3.6.6 rc2 status + released today, thank you for the fixes! + 3.6.7 schedule on the Wiki page + 4.0.3 rc1 - ~one week out April 15th + 4.1 - feature-freeze: five weeks out: May 20th + Alpha1 two weeks before * Tentative End Of Life definition (Petr) + TEOL is the time when TDF stops providing bugfix releases + TEOL should be one month after publishing the last planned bugfix release + decided. + how do we define the last bugfix release (Kendy) + on the ML - 3.6.7 is an exception, with that, it will already a year (Petr) + the lifetime should be ~6 - ~8 months (Petr) + sounds good to everyone * UX input (Astron) + curious blog set this morning: + constructive points: UX for LibreOffice is not at the tip of the spear yet + perhaps few corp. customers paying for fixes ? + agreed it is fundamentally a UX -hacker- resourcing problem, we need more UX hackers somehow. + some work on design of templ. mgr ... + lots of good work by Raphael + tentative #3rd design for colour picker on-going + communcation was poor there + writer/image-rotation 90degree thought good. * GSOC update (Cedric) + we were accepted as a mentoring organisation + lots of promising applicants showing up + Mentors need to register on Google Melange: + https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/profile/mentor/google/gsoc2013?org=libreoffice + if you have an unusual account name - please mail it to Cedric to get added. * Internal galleries / and theme building (Michael) + why do we ship pre-canned galleries ? + can we build them under Windows these days ? (Caolan) AI: + look into Windows gallery builds (Michael) * Getting on with the public headers issue (Bjoern) + no open issues on design if we do it + only open: if we do it and when. + if do it, do it before 4.1 otherwise wait for 4.1.2 (Norbert) + Advantages: + removes a chunk of Package_foo_inc makefiles + solves incremental build issues when header is left in the solver. + probable improvements in build time for Win32 AI: + mass-move tweak of dmake stuff (Bjoern) + also propose to move external modules into an 'external' top-level + reduce the 200 top-levels around there. + love someone to do that * Regression testing documents + Kendy will fix more today tomorrow, Markus can then re-run the tests blog * Hard Hacks (Bjorn) + http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/HardHacks + should we continue to prioritise these ? + review of how the program is going + is it a working process? (Bjoern) + the idea is good, but prioritization is not ideal yet (Joel) + feedback from hard-hack fixes: + Markus: 3-4 days to fix - can have no more than 1 per month. + Caolan: some of the hard-hacks are too hard + bugs from OO.o 2
