Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Kieran Peckett wrote >> > I think that the whole portable X-LibO repository from winPenPack could >> be >> > a valuable tool for QA guys. > > Just out of interest... how? Because, unlike PortableApps, they do keep all previous versions available. This can be quite useful to find a regression. TDF as a PortableApps partner should keep all PortableApps versions. Unfortunately that sometimes fails http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/3.6.5.2/portable/ Luckily there are other backups http://ftp.uni-muenster.de/pub/software/DocumentFoundation/libreoffice/portable/ Even if PortableApps dropped the 3.6 branch, maybe wPP will still have a 3.6.6 build and also the upcoming 3.6.7 Keeping my fingers crossed :) Kieran Peckett wrote > I agree - for testing of older versions, paralell / server is the way to > go, but for people coming with questions about the portable version, I > think an archive should be made available. Indeed it should. But it seems that the wPP archive is a better bet. However this is useful not only for testing old versions and regressions. Here is a good use of a portable version from a (soon to be) discontinued branch http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/18402/can-libreoffice-read-staroffice-sdw-files/ -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4059190.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Actually, they are: they even supply apps to help with the process see http://portableapps.com/development all the instructions are there, along with example code On 20 May 2013 19:17, "Pedro" wrote: > Hi Kieran > > > Kieran Peckett wrote > > Seeing as the Portable Version is hosted at LibreOffice rather than > > SourceForge, I assume LibO devs pack it up. If that is true, then can't > > someone, at least for future versions, if older versions can't be found > in > > anyone's "Downloads" folder keep archives of non-"EOL" versions (like <= > > 3.5) around? > > The Portable builds are hosted at LibreOffice but they are created by the > PortableApps owner. There are no instructions available to create such a > version (I offered to help in creating the missing versions but never got > any answer http://portableapps.com/node/35110) > > The existing versions are all stored in LibreOffice's server. The only > problem is that as soon as a new branch is released they abandon the > previous branch, so there is no final version for each branch. > > Luckily, the guys at winPenPack think differently :) > > (two pence are much more than 2 cents :) ) > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4057058.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/ > ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:06:20 +0200, Pedro wrote: ... Tommy wrote I think that the whole portable X-LibO repository from winPenPack could be a valuable tool for QA guys. It is indeed. Actually it seems that the developers of wPP are more in the Open Source spirit than the guys at PortableApps. Maybe TDF should buddy up with the wPP also (or instead?) It's sad to let you know that the guys already asked a lot of time ago to become official partners of TDF to distribuite their X-LibO version with some kind of "TDF approved version" logo unfortunately, for reasons that me and the wPP guys do not clearly understand, things stalled and no official partnership was offered by TDF, whilst they were very quick to give PortableApps an official approval. as I said before, I consider X-LibO superior to PortableApps LibO under various aspects, and it's a pity that TDF did not yet give the deserved credit to wPP. I hope things could change. ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On 20 May 2013 19:06, "Pedro" wrote: > > Hi Tommy > > > Tommy wrote > > I'll try asking about the 3.6.6 > > Thanks! ;) > > > Tommy wrote > > I think that the whole portable X-LibO repository from winPenPack could be > > a valuable tool for QA guys. > Just out of interest... how? > > It is indeed. Actually it seems that the developers of wPP are more in the > Open Source spirit than the guys at PortableApps. Maybe TDF should buddy up > What is meant by that? It seems that all PA.c installers are Open-Source, even if the apps (like Chrome or Skype) aren't. > > with the wPP also (or instead?) > I'd say also - there are many people (myself included) who use PA.c often, and I would miss the builds linked to from there. With PA.c being as well-known as they are, especially with portable versions of software such as Skype and TweetDeck being released recently, people who, previously, have used OOo or AOO may start using LibO as it is the only other full office suite there, and it looks more updated than OOo portable, especially as it has support for saving in the new MSO formats, rather than just reading them, which is ultimately part of what swayed me towards LibO. OOo which is a version older than 3.4, which is obvious due to the different home menu. This was actually how I discovered LibO and I'm sure others have too. > > > Tommy wrote > > IMHO it's much easier to deal with no-install packages rather than > > parallel installations. > > It is a double edged sword. On one hand it is indeed much easier. On the > other hand since the packages need to be modified it is difficult to be sure > if the observed behaviour is caused by LibreOffice or the hacks used to make > it Portable... As Florian said the parallel install uses the same "vanilla" > binaries and registry keys so it is less modified than a portable version. > I agree - for testing of older versions, paralell / server is the way to go, but for people coming with questions about the portable version, I think an archive should be made available. > > But thanks to you I'm now a fan of X-LibreOffice :) > > BTW One very important detail: you can run as many X-LibreOffice versions > simultaneously and at the same time as the standard install AND parallel > installs. > > Goodbye PortableApps, Hello winPenPack :) I hope not - the LibO Devs (I'm assuming they do it seeing as it's hosted on the LibO site, not sourceforge) seem to be portablising it pretty much in time with the main production, as updates come through on the menu very almost as often as the main app. I hope that, in the end, we stick with PA.c, but also help out WPP, as > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4057055.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/ ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Kieran Kieran Peckett wrote > Seeing as the Portable Version is hosted at LibreOffice rather than > SourceForge, I assume LibO devs pack it up. If that is true, then can't > someone, at least for future versions, if older versions can't be found in > anyone's "Downloads" folder keep archives of non-"EOL" versions (like <= > 3.5) around? The Portable builds are hosted at LibreOffice but they are created by the PortableApps owner. There are no instructions available to create such a version (I offered to help in creating the missing versions but never got any answer http://portableapps.com/node/35110) The existing versions are all stored in LibreOffice's server. The only problem is that as soon as a new branch is released they abandon the previous branch, so there is no final version for each branch. Luckily, the guys at winPenPack think differently :) (two pence are much more than 2 cents :) ) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4057058.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Tommy Tommy wrote > I'll try asking about the 3.6.6 Thanks! ;) Tommy wrote > I think that the whole portable X-LibO repository from winPenPack could be > a valuable tool for QA guys. It is indeed. Actually it seems that the developers of wPP are more in the Open Source spirit than the guys at PortableApps. Maybe TDF should buddy up with the wPP also (or instead?) Tommy wrote > IMHO it's much easier to deal with no-install packages rather than > parallel installations. It is a double edged sword. On one hand it is indeed much easier. On the other hand since the packages need to be modified it is difficult to be sure if the observed behaviour is caused by LibreOffice or the hacks used to make it Portable... As Florian said the parallel install uses the same "vanilla" binaries and registry keys so it is less modified than a portable version. But thanks to you I'm now a fan of X-LibreOffice :) BTW One very important detail: you can run as many X-LibreOffice versions simultaneously and at the same time as the standard install AND parallel installs. Goodbye PortableApps, Hello winPenPack :) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4057055.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Seeing as the Portable Version is hosted at LibreOffice rather than SourceForge, I assume LibO devs pack it up. If that is true, then can't someone, at least for future versions, if older versions can't be found in anyone's "Downloads" folder keep archives of non-"EOL" versions (like <= 3.5) around? Just my two pence' Kieran ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:57:45 +0200, Pedro wrote: Hi Tommy Now that I also have the elusive version 3.4.6 do you think you can convince them to create a portable version of 3.6.6? Actually the 3.6 branch isn't dead yet and there might be a 3.6.7 release https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.6_release Thank you again! I'll try asking about the 3.6.6 I think that the whole portable X-LibO repository from winPenPack could be a valuable tool for QA guys. IMHO it's much easier to deal with no-install packages rather than parallel installations. ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Tommy Tommy wrote > hi Pedro, look at this link... > all the X-LibO versions you asked for are available here: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/winpenpack/files/X-LibreOffice/releases/ I had already been in that folder but wrongly assumed the releases were sorted by version number (and didn't scroll all the way down) Now that I also have the elusive version 3.4.6 do you think you can convince them to create a portable version of 3.6.6? Actually the 3.6 branch isn't dead yet and there might be a 3.6.7 release https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.6_release Thank you again! -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4057005.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:00:14 +0200, Tommy wrote: this is not correct... they did the 3.3.x and 3.4.x branches as well (I'm sure because I used those versions) but probably they removed them from the website since they are very old release. If you are interested I can ask the wPP.com guys to make them available again. hi Pedro, look at this link... all the X-LibO versions you asked for are available here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/winpenpack/files/X-LibreOffice/releases/ ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:06:55 +0200, Pedro wrote: Tommy wrote you should check X-LibreOffice which is an alternative portable package from winPenPack.com IMHO X-LibreOffice is much better than the PortableApps package. Thank you for the suggestion. Just downloaded and unpacked version 4.0.2 (for comparison) It does have some nice touches like the language selection at first run. Curiously it seems to be running faster than the installed version. I told you it was better :-) That shows that they have missed 3.6.6 (which was launched back in April... one month before 4.0.3) you are right... they forgot about that micro-release But they do have 3.5.7 which is a good thing (as I mentioned PortableApps ignored all versions after 3.5.5) It is a shame that they (wPP.com) only started doing Portable versions for the 3.5 branch. It would be great to have a Portable version 3.4.6.2 (PortableApps stopped at 3.4.5.2) this is not correct... they did the 3.3.x and 3.4.x branches as well (I'm sure because I used those versions) but probably they removed them from the website since they are very old release. If you are interested I can ask the wPP.com guys to make them available again. ... ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Tommy, all Tommy wrote > you should check X-LibreOffice which is an alternative portable package > from winPenPack.com > > IMHO X-LibreOffice is much better than the PortableApps package. Thank you for the suggestion. Just downloaded and unpacked version 4.0.2 (for comparison) It does have some nice touches like the language selection at first run. Curiously it seems to be running faster than the installed version. Tommy wrote > moreover the guys from wPP.com keep updated every branch minor release. > > you can download here the X-LibO 3.6.5 > http://www.winpenpack.com/main/download.php?view.1338 That shows that they have missed 3.6.6 (which was launched back in April... one month before 4.0.3) But they do have 3.5.7 which is a good thing (as I mentioned PortableApps ignored all versions after 3.5.5) It is a shame that they (wPP.com) only started doing Portable versions for the 3.5 branch. It would be great to have a Portable version 3.4.6.2 (PortableApps stopped at 3.4.5.2) Regarding the package size, the download is larger than any other option (it's just a zip file) but the unpacked folder is around 340Mb so it's quite similar to the PortableApps space requirements (and nearly a third of the parallel install) Again, thank you for the suggestion -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056914.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:47:09 +0200, Pedro wrote: ... However not all versions are available because the guys at PortableApps abandon a branch as soon as there is a release from a newer branch (e.g. the final version in the 3.5 branch is 3.5.5 so 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 were ignored) This is not very good because ideally you would use the final version of each branch to quickly locate in which branch the regression occurred (and then check where it occurred within the branch) you should check X-LibreOffice which is an alternative portable package from winPenPack.com IMHO X-LibreOffice is much better than the PortableApps package. moreover the guys from wPP.com keep updated every branch minor release. you can download here the X-LibO 3.6.5 http://www.winpenpack.com/main/download.php?view.1338 and here the X-LibO 4.0.3 http://www.winpenpack.com/main/download.php?view.1354 ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
V Stuart Foote wrote > I don't see it, size on Windows OSs for current 4.1.0 builds whether /A > administrative install or full install with registry is coming in about > ~319-321 MB. Comparable to current Apache OpenOffice 4.0 betas which > average ~325 MB. Current builds are not comparable with final builds. They don't include all dictionaries, all UI languages and all extensions included in the final build ;) Sorry to say but you are comparing apples with oranges :) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056808.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Florian reisi007 wrote >> A parallel install can be made with ANY installer so all versions are >> available. However it requires more knowledge (even using Florian >> Reisinger's SI GUI it's not trivial) and the install size is huge >> (because >> all files are unpacked) > > :) Sorry to hear that, but still easier to do it manually (Any > more suggestions from your side??) This was not a criticism to SI GUI ;) Yes, if you want to make a user friendly alternative GUI (for non-experts) I can send some ideas by email (maybe tomorrow) reisi007 wrote > Portable: IMHO No --> might use a different build, too less insight into > that :) That is true. There are many obscure (and deliberately undocumented) changes to make LO Portable... reisi007 wrote >> 2) Which one is more realistic when comparing functionality? > > Both have the same functionality, but parallel installations run > independent from each other, whereas I (at least) never managed to > start one parallel and a portable version... That is a good point. Although it might not be necessary to run at the same time. reisi007 wrote > Final statement. As the programmer of SI-GUI I recommend parallel > installation, because these are the vanilla builds Yes. That is a good point. reisi007 wrote > BTW: Is there really a that big difference in size? Yes, there is. For version 4.0.2.2 it's 908Mb for the parallel install versus 220Mb for the portable version if you select the Remove Extra Languages option (or 330Mb if you don't) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056807.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
reisi007 wrote >>Thanks for that info, but I meant difference between parallel install >>and portable... Sorry, misunderstood... So latest PortableApps.com build of LibreOffice (4.0.3.3 - 0eaa50a932c8f2199a615e1eb30f7ac74279539) is ~330 MB for an English install, but that can be cut to ~221MB if you check the "remove extra languages" box. So no real size difference between the portable and the /A administrative server installs. Stuart -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056806.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi, Am 18.05.2013 um 19:03 schrieb V Stuart Foote : > reisi007 wrote Pedro-- ... and the install size is huge (because all files are unpacked) >>> BTW: Is there really a that big difference in size? > > I don't see it, size on Windows OSs for current 4.1.0 builds whether /A > administrative install or full install with registry is coming in about > ~319-321 MB. Comparable to current Apache OpenOffice 4.0 betas which average > ~325 MB. > Thanks for that info, but I meant difference between parallel install and portable... -- Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056803.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/ ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
reisi007 wrote >>> Pedro-- ... and the install size is huge (because all files are >>> unpacked) >>BTW: Is there really a that big difference in size? I don't see it, size on Windows OSs for current 4.1.0 builds whether /A administrative install or full install with registry is coming in about ~319-321 MB. Comparable to current Apache OpenOffice 4.0 betas which average ~325 MB. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781p4056803.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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi Pedro, Am 18.05.2013 um 13:48 schrieb Pedro : > Hi all > > In order to test regressions it is useful to have several versions > installed. True... > > Since under Windows only one (stable) version can be installed as the > working version, the alternatives are: a Portable version or a parallel > installation. Portable is not a 100% alternative (Around 85%) > > The main advantage of the Portable version is that it is self-contained, > drive independent and anyone can install it. However not all versions are > available because the guys at PortableApps abandon a branch as soon as there > is a release from a newer branch (e.g. the final version in the 3.5 branch > is 3.5.5 so 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 were ignored) That's one con > This is not very good because ideally you would use the final version of > each branch to quickly locate in which branch the regression occurred (and > then check where it occurred within the branch) +1 > > A parallel install can be made with ANY installer so all versions are > available. However it requires more knowledge (even using Florian > Reisinger's SI GUI it's not trivial) and the install size is huge (because > all files are unpacked) :) Sorry to hear that, but still easier to do it manually (Any more suggestions from your side??) > > My questions are: > 1)If a bug occurs in a portable or parallel install can it be assumed to > occur in a standard install or some bugs can be due to installation method > (or inherent to the hacks needed to make the program parallel or portable)? Parallel: Yes Portable: IMHO No --> might use a different build, too less insight into that :) > > 2) Which one is more realistic when comparing functionality? Both have the same functionality, but parallel installations run independent from each other, whereas I (at least) never managed to start one parallel and a portable version... Final statement. As the programmer of SI-GUI I recommend parallel installation, because these are the vanilla builds -> Everyone should use portable, it's far away from being worthless IMHO they simply are not the vanilla builds. (Keep in mind that IMHO Linux Distros do not use vanilla as well. I think, that Ubuntu version of version vs. Vanilla (original) compared to portable and parallel (vanilla)... BTW: Is there really a that big difference in size? > > Cheers, > Pedro > Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781.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/ ___ 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] Portable vs Parallel: which one is better?
Hi all In order to test regressions it is useful to have several versions installed. Since under Windows only one (stable) version can be installed as the working version, the alternatives are: a Portable version or a parallel installation. The main advantage of the Portable version is that it is self-contained, drive independent and anyone can install it. However not all versions are available because the guys at PortableApps abandon a branch as soon as there is a release from a newer branch (e.g. the final version in the 3.5 branch is 3.5.5 so 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 were ignored) This is not very good because ideally you would use the final version of each branch to quickly locate in which branch the regression occurred (and then check where it occurred within the branch) A parallel install can be made with ANY installer so all versions are available. However it requires more knowledge (even using Florian Reisinger's SI GUI it's not trivial) and the install size is huge (because all files are unpacked) My questions are: 1)If a bug occurs in a portable or parallel install can it be assumed to occur in a standard install or some bugs can be due to installation method (or inherent to the hacks needed to make the program parallel or portable)? 2) Which one is more realistic when comparing functionality? Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781.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/
