Test Results: AOO 3.4 on XP Pro SP3

[Greg Roberts]

Hi All,
 
I have just installed the Aoo3.4 from 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots file:
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1293550/win32/OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe and
 have the following observations and issues.
 
NIS 2012 got a WS.Reputation.1 removed and quarentined file. Need to add trust 
to all Virus vendors

Install does a wierd rollover to the Install prep page after install, I think 
most users expect a install to indicate it has finished and is complete. I know 
this is a common behavior for the older Orale install packages. They might 
still do this but I think the verbage on the page changes and I think indicates 
that the product completed the install process. 
 
Writer 
open with Win 97-2003 Doc file OK
modify and save Win 97-2003 Doc file OK
modify and spell check save Win 97-2003 Doc file All words are failing in the 
spell checker. standard.dic does not exist
open ODT file OK
modify and save ODT file OK
open DOC file OK
modify and save Win 97-2003 Doc OK

Calc
Open new file and save OK
was able to do a sum on the number columns and also did a subtotal OK
then did a ctrl-z to undo the subtotal OK
was looking at an perceived error with a validation of a number column that had 
U on the end of a number and noticed the below
tried to do some modification to the cell that had the U in it and the 
ctrl-z undo function did not work.
working on a ctrl-z observations and got a Aoo3.4 unexpected error
 
I have attached the ods file that I was working with for everyones review. 
Please let me know if you all want me to create Bugzilla reports of all the 
things I have observed.
 
Thanks
Greg Roberts

Aoo3.4testing.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Andre Fischer]

On 01.03.2012 21:45, Gavin McDonald wrote:




-Original Message-
From: Andre Fischer [mailto:a...@a-w-f.de]
Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2012 11:36 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

On 01.03.2012 14:25, imacat wrote:

On 2012/03/01 18:57, Andre Fischer said:

On 29.02.2012 19:50, imacat wrote:

On 2012/02/29 18:23, Jürgen Schmidt said:

1) Developers (I for example) could start with converting PO to SDF
without (necessarily) the pootle server.


  I don't get it.  Could you please clarify on this?  Did you mean
that we download the PO, run po2oo offline and commit?


Yes, something like that.  Usually the PO files live on the pootle server and
are transformed during the download to AOO.  As we do not have an active
pootle server we can either



What do you mean by the statement  "We do not have an active pootle server" ??

There is https://translate.apache.org , been up for months, please concentrate 
your pootle
efforts in helping to get that working for your needs -- it is after all your 
project that
asked for it in the first place !!


Yes I know that and I hope and think that I have acknowledged that 
before. Apparently I chose the wrong words.  I meant this:
We (Apache OpenOffice) have not yet started to put our data on the 
Apache pootle server and have not yet integrated that server into our 
localization process.
I used the word "active" in the context of Apache OpenOffice not Apache 
in general.


I know and appreciate that the Apache pootle server is up and running 
and assume it works just fine.


-Andre



Gav...



a) setup the pootle server, then upload the PO files and finally download the
SDF files, or

b) store the PO files somewhere (where they do not get lost) and convert
them directly into SDF.  This, of course, would be only a temporary solution.





2) It would be a start to drop support for SDF files in the long run
and use PO files directly.


  +1 That is best.  SDF really sucks.

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Andre Fischer]

On 02.03.2012 02:19, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Hi at all

I just import the date... takes same time but it works now.


That is great news.  Could you describe in a few words how you did that, 
either here on the list or in the wiki ([1])?  I would like to 
understand how it works.


-Andre



Greetings Raphael


[1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers

Re: [RELEASE]: release platforms, products and languages

[Ariel Constenla-Haile]

Hi imcat,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:02:32AM +0800, imacat wrote:
> On 2012/03/01 00:21, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:
> > I've uploaded hu, ru, and zh-TW langpacks for Linux 32 and 64 bits.
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-langpacks
> 
> Hmm...  On a second thought, I do not think it is fair to have a
> "mutli-lingual full installation sets" and "language packs" for other
> languages.  What's the reason behind the decision that some languages
> are in the "mutli-lingual full installation sets" and others in the
> "language packs"?

I didn't build an updated multilingual install set because it takes too
much time for me to upload those files:
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1293550/scp.log

OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
 100%  260MB  61.9KB/s 1:11:38
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
 100%  259MB  60.8KB/s 1:12:48
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
100%  250MB  61.9KB/s 1:08:59
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
100%  250MB  62.5KB/s 1:08:15


Now that we added 3 more languages, IMO those multilingual install sets
don't make much sense. I'd propose we drop building them the next week.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpBt5wr81dkT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: AOO-3.4 Test on Ubuntu 12.04 Alpha/beta

[Wolf Halton]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:57:11 -0500
> Wolf Halton  wrote:
>
>> I have started a test on Ubuntu 12.04
>> I am an alpha-tester for Ubuntu and usually have a VM or 3
>> running with the developer's snapshot of Ubuntu.
>> I put 3.4 on one of these boxes and have done manual installs
>> of the pieces.
>>
>> The default LibreOffice interferes with my AOO install
>
> It was the case that the Ubuntu distro of OpenOffice.org had to
> be completely removed before Oracle OpenOffice.org would run.
> I'm not sure if this applies to LibreOffice, but just in case I
> zapped it completely before installing Oracle OpenOffice.org on
> the more recent Ubuntus.  It was also sometimes the case that the
> newly installed OOOo would crash on first run, which could be
> cured by deleteing the (default) User Profile.  I don't know if
> any of this will be of use to you, but it may suggest a path to
> follow.
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I am having fun with a broken VirtualBox
install, reverting to snapshot turned out to still have the problems.
By next week I expect to get LO entirely removed and run the manual
installs of whatever is dev snapshot at that point.

Wolf

-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 02.03.12 09:21, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 02.03.2012 02:19, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Hi at all

I just import the date... takes same time but it works now.


That is great news.  Could you describe in a few words how you did 
that, either here on the list or in the wiki ([1])?  I would like to 
understand how it works.

I will documenting this later, but it's verry easy.

One Problem I have with the helpcontent2. I don't know if I can add this 
without problem to the OOo Project without crashing the ui content.  I 
will try this on the VM now. Workaround would be to create a additional 
project ooo_help (or samething like that).


If we put it under OOo (if possible) then we will have Help content and 
UI all in one project, I don't know if that is a good idea. Please give 
feedback about it.


Gruss Raphael


--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Andre Fischer]

On 02.03.2012 09:47, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 02.03.12 09:21, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 02.03.2012 02:19, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Hi at all

I just import the date... takes same time but it works now.


That is great news. Could you describe in a few words how you did
that, either here on the list or in the wiki ([1])? I would like to
understand how it works.

I will documenting this later, but it's verry easy.


Sounds good.



One Problem I have with the helpcontent2. I don't know if I can add this
without problem to the OOo Project without crashing the ui content. I
will try this on the VM now. Workaround would be to create a additional
project ooo_help (or samething like that).

If we put it under OOo (if possible) then we will have Help content and
UI all in one project, I don't know if that is a good idea. Please give
feedback about it.


As far as I understand it help content always was a separate project on 
the pootle server.  Not necessarily for technical reasons but more for 
the moral of the translators.  Help contains so many more strings than 
UI that even if you finished translating UI, pottle would tell you that 
only a small fraction of the whole set of strings (help + UI) where 
finished.


I would vote for separating help from UI.

-Andre



Gruss Raphael

press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello,

I think in particular this AOO (Apache OpenOffice) more at the market, or in 
public, must be present.

Because now the release/publication of the final version of Apache OpenOffice 
3.4 approaches it is a matter press announcements to prepare for it.

1.
Is an international press announcement already in preparation? 
This would be good as a basis for national or local press announcements.

2.
How is the "Lazy Consensus" for national or local press announcements? 
I think that this in the national communities must be created, because national 
particularities are to be considered (i mean in the minds of local users).



greetings
Jörg

Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test

[Joost Andrae]

Hi,

after downloading the multi language OOo-Dev 3.4.0_m1 build (r1293550) 
for Windows from 
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1293550/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_nl.exe 
Norton Internet Security found WS.Reputation.1 and removed the 
installation set from my system.


Kind regards, Joost

Re: [RELEASE]: release platforms, products and languages

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 9:23 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

Hi imcat,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:02:32AM +0800, imacat wrote:

On 2012/03/01 00:21, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:

I've uploaded hu, ru, and zh-TW langpacks for Linux 32 and 64 bits.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-langpacks


 Hmm...  On a second thought, I do not think it is fair to have a
"mutli-lingual full installation sets" and "language packs" for other
languages.  What's the reason behind the decision that some languages
are in the "mutli-lingual full installation sets" and others in the
"language packs"?


I didn't build an updated multilingual install set because it takes too
much time for me to upload those files:
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1293550/scp.log

OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
 100%  260MB  61.9KB/s 1:11:38
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
 100%  259MB  60.8KB/s 1:12:48
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
100%  250MB  61.9KB/s 1:08:59
OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
100%  250MB  62.5KB/s 1:08:15


Now that we added 3 more languages, IMO those multilingual install sets
don't make much sense. I'd propose we drop building them the next week.

I can live with this and I would like to suggest that we build no dev 
snapshots but normal full install sets and language packs to improve the 
testing.


Well we have to make clear that people should be more careful to protect 
their user data etc.


Any opinions?

Juergen

Request for a German-language mailing list

[Regina Henschel]

Hi all

We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has a 
long history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak 
times we had over 40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing list. 
The de site is one of the most visited at the Apache OpenOffice project, 
and the chance is good that we can get new volunteers.


The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers.

The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it 
wouldn't be much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML 
with more than 40 mails a day in Spanish for example.


Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and 
localization, have first to learn how this project is set up. They would 
feel more comfortable on a ML with less traffic and in their own language.


But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at some 
point in time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about splitting the 
community. On the contrary, it's about attracting new people to the project.


We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we 
have already discussed.


But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very 
careful planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this 
would needlessly take up valuable time which could be put to better use. 
At the same time we need an up-and-running list need very soon, because 
the old infrastructure will be shutting down in the near future.


We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition.

This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread 
http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32


Actual traffic on the German-language lists are
d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54
us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179

We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org
We are not strongly determined to "users", but "discuss" would be also 
OK, if that fits better to the common Apache praxis.


Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new list.

Kind regards
Regina

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[FR web forum]

>>>   I don't get it.  Could you please clarify on this?  Did you mean
>>> that we download the PO, run po2oo offline and commit?
>>
>> Yes, something like that.  Usually the PO files live on the pootle server and
>> are transformed during the download to AOO.  As we do not have an active
>> pootle server we can either
Sorry but I don't understand this.
We can't translate strings directly in Pootle interface?

I would like to do it for french on https://translate.apache.org/fr/OOo/
How can I connect to? Is it possible to grant me access?

Thanks you

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[FR web forum]

>I would like to do it for french on https://translate.apache.org/fr/OOo/
>How can I connect to? Is it possible to grant me access?
That's work with my Apache ID account
Well, sorry for the noise

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Michael Bauer]

The pootle server is there and was created mostly due to our request. 
The way to get access is to offer to help and ask for access (as 
Raphael has done).


If you are interested in helping, offer and ask. (hmmm... and be nice 
to Gav, because he's probably the one from infra to give you access)


A.


I wasn't not being nice to anyone :)

If that's the case, then someone needs to stick a note on that page 
cause as you may have guessed, my yarrow rods are in for repairs so I 
could not ask a favourably inclined deity to share this wisdom with me 
:b *Any* such project has a link that tells you how to sign up. But on 
https://translate.apache.org/ you can only login. Slightly odd though 
that account creation itself is manual. Normally on a Pootle server 
anyone can create an account but you need an admin to give you rights to 
do stuff on it.


Nice to see that all the languages are there now though!

Michael

NIS reporting WS.Reputation.1 on Windows developer snapshots [was: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test]

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

On 02.03.2012 11:22, Joost Andrae wrote:

Hi,

after downloading the multi language OOo-Dev 3.4.0_m1 build (r1293550) for
Windows from
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1293550/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_nl.exe
Norton Internet Security found WS.Reputation.1 and removed the installation set
from my system.



Greg Roberts also reported such an issue.

My system used to create the Windows developer snapshots has Symantec Endpoint 
Protection running in an excepted mode for such protection system.

No virus are detected on my system.

I have additionally checked the created installation sets with newly installed 
Kaspersky Internet Security 2012. Result: no virus.


It looks like that Norton Internet Security found a "false positive" here.

May be more people can check with their protection systems the provided 
installation sets.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Raphael Bircher]

Am 02.03.12 12:46, schrieb Michael Bauer:
The pootle server is there and was created mostly due to our request. 
The way to get access is to offer to help and ask for access (as 
Raphael has done).


If you are interested in helping, offer and ask. (hmmm... and be nice 
to Gav, because he's probably the one from infra to give you access)


A.


I wasn't not being nice to anyone :)

If that's the case, then someone needs to stick a note on that page 
cause as you may have guessed, my yarrow rods are in for repairs so I 
could not ask a favourably inclined deity to share this wisdom with me 
:b *Any* such project has a link that tells you how to sign up. But on 
https://translate.apache.org/ you can only login. Slightly odd though 
that account creation itself is manual. Normally on a Pootle server 
anyone can create an account but you need an admin to give you rights 
to do stuff on it.
This is managed over the Apache Account Management. If you are commiter, 
you should be able to login with your Apache ID


Nice to see that all the languages are there now though!

Michael

Thanks for Making Pootle Running

[imacat]

Dear whoever,

I saw that Apache OpenOffice Pootle is up and running, with the
previously translated messages imported.  We were waiting for this for
too long.  Whoever this credits to, we owe you our thanks.

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Andre Fischer]

On 02.03.2012 12:20, FR web forum wrote:




   I don't get it.  Could you please clarify on this?  Did you mean
that we download the PO, run po2oo offline and commit?


Yes, something like that.  Usually the PO files live on the pootle server and
are transformed during the download to AOO.  As we do not have an active
pootle server we can either

Sorry but I don't understand this.
We can't translate strings directly in Pootle interface?


I was talking of transforming files from one data format into another 
(PO -> SDF) not about translating strings in these files.




I would like to do it for french on https://translate.apache.org/fr/OOo/
How can I connect to? Is it possible to grant me access?

Thanks you

Re: Request for a German-language mailing list

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

+1 from my side for a German mailing list.

Best regards, Oliver.

On 02.03.2012 12:11, Regina Henschel wrote:

Hi all

We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has a long
history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak times we had over
40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing list. The de site is one of the
most visited at the Apache OpenOffice project, and the chance is good that we
can get new volunteers.

The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers.

The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it wouldn't be
much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML with more than 40
mails a day in Spanish for example.

Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and localization,
have first to learn how this project is set up. They would feel more comfortable
on a ML with less traffic and in their own language.

But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at some point in
time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about splitting the community. On the
contrary, it's about attracting new people to the project.

We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we have
already discussed.

But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very careful
planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this would needlessly
take up valuable time which could be put to better use. At the same time we need
an up-and-running list need very soon, because the old infrastructure will be
shutting down in the near future.

We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition.

This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread
http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32

Actual traffic on the German-language lists are
d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54
us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179

We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org
We are not strongly determined to "users", but "discuss" would be also OK, if
that fits better to the common Apache praxis.

Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new list.

Kind regards
Regina

Re: Thanks for Making Pootle Running

[Andre Fischer]

On 02.03.2012 12:56, imacat wrote:

Dear whoever,

 I saw that Apache OpenOffice Pootle is up and running, with the
previously translated messages imported.  We were waiting for this for
too long.  Whoever this credits to, we owe you our thanks.


The credits go to Raphael Bircher.

Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test (Norton quarantine)

[TJ Frazier]

On 3/2/2012 05:22, Joost Andrae wrote:

Hi,

after downloading the multi language OOo-Dev 3.4.0_m1 build (r1293550)
for Windows from
http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1293550/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_nl.exe
Norton Internet Security found WS.Reputation.1 and removed the
installation set from my system.

Kind regards, Joost




Hi Joost,

Norton AntiVirus gave me the same problem on my WV system. This is 
related to the "Norton Insight" feature, which I have now turned off. 
Meanwhile, the file is not deleted, merely quarantined by NIS. You can 
restore it by following the "quarantine" link and looking for options.


I will try to follow up on this with Norton; maybe they have a better 
suggestion.


/tj/

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Andre Fischer]

Hi Raphael,

I have two questions regarding the uploaded data:

1. If I understand you correctly then you uploaded (or are uploading) 
the backup data of the old pootle server.  What about languages that are 
in extras/l10n but not in the backup?  Are you planning to upload them 
too?  Do you need help?


2. What template are you using?  Did you run localize on our source tree?

Regards,
Andre

On 02.03.2012 09:47, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 02.03.12 09:21, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 02.03.2012 02:19, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Hi at all

I just import the date... takes same time but it works now.


That is great news. Could you describe in a few words how you did
that, either here on the list or in the wiki ([1])? I would like to
understand how it works.

I will documenting this later, but it's verry easy.

One Problem I have with the helpcontent2. I don't know if I can add this
without problem to the OOo Project without crashing the ui content. I
will try this on the VM now. Workaround would be to create a additional
project ooo_help (or samething like that).

If we put it under OOo (if possible) then we will have Help content and
UI all in one project, I don't know if that is a good idea. Please give
feedback about it.

Gruss Raphael

Re: NIS reporting WS.Reputation.1 on Windows developer snapshots [was: Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test]

[Greg Roberts]

This NIS "error" is a standard trust error and can be solved by publishing a 
release message to the Virus vendors and they will add the necessary updates to 
their respected definations packages.
Greg-
 



From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:53 AM
Subject: NIS reporting WS.Reputation.1 on Windows developer snapshots [was: Re: 
Calling all volunteers: It is time to test]

Hi,

On 02.03.2012 11:22, Joost Andrae wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> after downloading the multi language OOo-Dev 3.4.0_m1 build (r1293550) for
> Windows from
> http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1293550/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_nl.exe
> Norton Internet Security found WS.Reputation.1 and removed the installation 
> set
> from my system.
> 

Greg Roberts also reported such an issue.

My system used to create the Windows developer snapshots has Symantec Endpoint 
Protection running in an excepted mode for such protection system.
No virus are detected on my system.

I have additionally checked the created installation sets with newly installed 
Kaspersky Internet Security 2012. Result: no virus.

It looks like that Norton Internet Security found a "false positive" here.

May be more people can check with their protection systems the provided 
installation sets.

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 10:18 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 02.03.2012 09:47, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Am 02.03.12 09:21, schrieb Andre Fischer:

On 02.03.2012 02:19, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Hi at all

I just import the date... takes same time but it works now.


That is great news. Could you describe in a few words how you did
that, either here on the list or in the wiki ([1])? I would like to
understand how it works.

I will documenting this later, but it's verry easy.


Sounds good.



One Problem I have with the helpcontent2. I don't know if I can add this
without problem to the OOo Project without crashing the ui content. I
will try this on the VM now. Workaround would be to create a additional
project ooo_help (or samething like that).

If we put it under OOo (if possible) then we will have Help content and
UI all in one project, I don't know if that is a good idea. Please give
feedback about it.


As far as I understand it help content always was a separate project on
the pootle server. Not necessarily for technical reasons but more for
the moral of the translators. Help contains so many more strings than UI
that even if you finished translating UI, pottle would tell you that
only a small fraction of the whole set of strings (help + UI) where
finished.

I would vote for separating help from UI.


+1

Juergen




-Andre



Gruss Raphael

[RELEASE]: Bug 117995 - Checkbox disappears when changing content of input text field

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

Issue 117995 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=117995 - is from my 
point of view no release blocker as this issue already occurs at least in OOo 3.1

There also seems to exist a workaround - see issue comments.

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [RELEASE]: Bug 117995 - Checkbox disappears when changing content of input text field

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 1:38 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

Issue 117995 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=117995 - is
from my point of view no release blocker as this issue already occurs at
least in OOo 3.1
There also seems to exist a workaround - see issue comments.


I agree that this should be no show stopper

Juergen

Bug 118013 - lines do not center on large pages

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

Issue 118013 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118013 - is not a 
release blocker for AOO 3.4 from my point of view.
I have reproduced the defect in OOo 3.1 and OOo 3.3. Also in OOo 2.2 the 
alignment does not work correctly.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Bug 118013 - lines do not center on large pages

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 1:58 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

Issue 118013 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118013 - is
not a release blocker for AOO 3.4 from my point of view.
I have reproduced the defect in OOo 3.1 and OOo 3.3. Also in OOo 2.2 the
alignment does not work correctly.



I agree no show stopper

Juergen

[RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

Issue 118037 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 - should be 
closed as WONTFIX or INVALID from my point of view. Thus, for me it is also no 
AOO 3.4 release blocker.


Best regards, Oliver.

[RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

Issue - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118098 - is no AOO 3.4 
release blocker from my point of view. I have reproduced this defect in OOo 3.1 
and OOo 3.4


Best regards, Oliver.

P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but I am 
trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need to fix for 
our AOO 3.4 release.

[RELEASE] Bug 118962 - Reload operation will broke the sheet link when link sheet to .xls file

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

issue 118962 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118962 - is no 
release blocker for AOO 3.4 in my honest opinion.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 2:38 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

Issue - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118098 - is no AOO
3.4 release blocker from my point of view. I have reproduced this defect
in OOo 3.1 and OOo 3.4


I agree again

Juergen



Best regards, Oliver.

P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

authors list - translation of open office calc chapters into the german language

[hs]

Hi everybody,
dear Ooo-dev,

could you please inscribe me as author so that I can continue / start
to send in translated chapters of calc and find people to help me with
last / finishing touches.

Thanks for your efforts,

Sincerly,

Heiko Strauss

h...@nachhilferunde.de

allem...@web.de



-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
h...@nachhilferunde.de
mailto:h...@nachhilferunde.de

Re: Heads Up POOTLE data are on the way

[Michael Bauer]

I would vote for separating help from UI.

-Andre 
Yes, you have my full backing there. I note that my previous proposal of 
"staged releases" has turned into a lead balloon :/


Michael

Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[FR web forum]

Hello,
On Pootle > svx / source / intro.po
We have the #1 string with:
Copyright © 2000, 2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.\n
This product was created by %OOOVENDOR, based on OpenOffice.org.\n
OpenOffice.org acknowledges all community members, especially those mentioned 
at\n
http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.

What is the right text?
Thanks

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Michael Bauer]

This is managed over the Apache Account Management. If you are 
commiter, you should be able to login with your Apache ID
Raphael, I'm not. Well, as far as I know. Mice can code better than me 
and I don't intend to commit anything but translations and the odd 
locale data xml at the most. And I suspect there will be a lot of people 
like me (eventually). Should they *all* become Apache committers? I 
admit to not knowing what rights exactly that bestows on a user but it 
sounds rather dangerous to me, giving people who are likely to only 
translate the rights to commit other stuff at the same time.


But maybe I just misunderstood you?

Michael

Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Rob Weir]

Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
"WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
"reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
software that you are about to install according to a range of
factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.

We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
position, since that installer will also be new,etc.

A few things we should consider doing:

1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"

2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
installer:

https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/

3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
at some point.

My recommendation:

Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 4.0.

Regards,

-Rob

Re: Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 3:49 PM, FR web forum wrote:

Hello,
On Pootle>  svx / source / intro.po
We have the #1 string with:
Copyright © 2000, 2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.\n
This product was created by %OOOVENDOR, based on OpenOffice.org.\n
OpenOffice.org acknowledges all community members, especially those mentioned 
at\n
http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.

What is the right text?



Copyright © 2012 Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
This product was created by Apache Software Foundation, based on Apache 
OpenOffice.
Apache OpenOffice acknowledges all community members, especially those 
mentioned at http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.

###

I think we shouldn't do too much right now without having the latest 
English resources available for translation.


We have to create an English source po file as soon as possible based on 
the current source tree.


Juergen

Re: Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 4:01 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 3/2/12 3:49 PM, FR web forum wrote:

Hello,
On Pootle> svx / source / intro.po
We have the #1 string with:
Copyright © 2000, 2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
reserved.\n
This product was created by %OOOVENDOR, based on OpenOffice.org.\n
OpenOffice.org acknowledges all community members, especially those
mentioned at\n
http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.

What is the right text?



Copyright © 2012 Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
This product was created by Apache Software Foundation, based on Apache
OpenOffice.
Apache OpenOffice acknowledges all community members, especially those
mentioned at http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.
###


Forget this, it is from the About box.

But again right now I think it is not the best time to start with 
translation until we have ensured that the English sources are up-to-date.


Juergen



I think we shouldn't do too much right now without having the latest
English resources available for translation.

We have to create an English source po file as soon as possible based on
the current source tree.

Juergen

Re: Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 4:05 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 3/2/12 4:01 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 3/2/12 3:49 PM, FR web forum wrote:

Hello,
On Pootle> svx / source / intro.po
We have the #1 string with:
Copyright © 2000, 2011 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
reserved.\n
This product was created by %OOOVENDOR, based on OpenOffice.org.\n
OpenOffice.org acknowledges all community members, especially those
mentioned at\n
http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.

What is the right text?



Copyright © 2012 Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.
This product was created by Apache Software Foundation, based on Apache
OpenOffice.
Apache OpenOffice acknowledges all community members, especially those
mentioned at http://www.openoffice.org/welcome/credits.html.
###


Forget this, it is from the About box.
ok, time for coffee, I was completely confused. It is the about box 
string. g




But again right now I think it is not the best time to start with
translation until we have ensured that the English sources are up-to-date.



But this is still true, let us check the English sources first


Juergen


Juergen



I think we shouldn't do too much right now without having the latest
English resources available for translation.

We have to create an English source po file as soon as possible based on
the current source tree.

Juergen

Re: Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[FR web forum]

>But this is still true, let us check the English sources first
OK I'll wait

Other string in scp2 / source / ooo.po #322
folderitem_ooo.ulf#STR_FI_TOOLTIP_SOFFICE.LngText.text
The office productivity suite compatible to the open 
and standardized ODF document format. Supported by Oracle.

Maybe we should to replace Oracle by a %STRING variable?

Re: Pootle: 3.4 about box translation

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 3/2/12 4:34 PM, FR web forum wrote:

But this is still true, let us check the English sources first

OK I'll wait

Other string in scp2 / source / ooo.po #322
folderitem_ooo.ulf#STR_FI_TOOLTIP_SOFFICE.LngText.text
The office productivity suite compatible to the open
and standardized ODF document format. Supported by Oracle.

Maybe we should to replace Oracle by a %STRING variable?


Or simply change it to "... Supported by the Apache Software Foundation"

or "... Supported by %OOOVENDOR"

This is used ion the about string as well.

We will work with high prio to update the English resources asap.

Juergen

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think in particular this AOO (Apache OpenOffice) more at the market, or in 
> public, must be present.
>
> Because now the release/publication of the final version of Apache OpenOffice 
> 3.4 approaches it is a matter press announcements to prepare for it.
>
> 1.
> Is an international press announcement already in preparation?
> This would be good as a basis for national or local press announcements.
>
> 2.
> How is the "Lazy Consensus" for national or local press announcements?
> I think that this in the national communities must be created, because 
> national particularities are to be considered (i mean in the minds of local 
> users).
>

Apache has some rules and restrictions related to press releases,
etc., from podlings under incubation.   See this page:

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html

My reading of this is we cannot just assume "lazy consensus" but we
need to reach out to pr...@apache.org and coordinate with them on any
formal publicity activities.

However, there are also a range of informal activities that do not
require this additional review, like blog posts, announcements to the
ooo-announce list, social media campaigns, etc.  These could be
discussed on the list.

-Rob

>
>
> greetings
> Jörg
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: release platforms, products and languages

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
 wrote:
> On 3/2/12 9:23 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>
>> Hi imcat,
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:02:32AM +0800, imacat wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2012/03/01 00:21, Ariel Constenla-Haile said:

 I've uploaded hu, ru, and zh-TW langpacks for Linux 32 and 64 bits.

 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots#AOO3.4UnofficialDeveloperSnapshots-langpacks
>>>
>>>
>>>     Hmm...  On a second thought, I do not think it is fair to have a
>>> "mutli-lingual full installation sets" and "language packs" for other
>>> languages.  What's the reason behind the decision that some languages
>>> are in the "mutli-lingual full installation sets" and others in the
>>> "language packs"?
>>
>>
>> I didn't build an updated multilingual install set because it takes too
>> much time for me to upload those files:
>> http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/r1293550/scp.log
>>
>>
>> OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
>> 100%  260MB  61.9KB/s 1:11:38
>>
>> OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
>> 100%  259MB  60.8KB/s 1:12:48
>>
>> OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
>>    100%  250MB  61.9KB/s 1:08:59
>>
>> OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US_de_es_fr_it_ja_nl_pt-BR_zh-CN.tar.gz
>>    100%  250MB  62.5KB/s 1:08:15
>>
>>
>> Now that we added 3 more languages, IMO those multilingual install sets
>> don't make much sense. I'd propose we drop building them the next week.
>>
> I can live with this and I would like to suggest that we build no dev
> snapshots but normal full install sets and language packs to improve the
> testing.
>

+1

> Well we have to make clear that people should be more careful to protect
> their user data etc.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Juergen

Re: Request for a German-language mailing list

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Regina Henschel  wrote:
> Hi all
>
> We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has a long
> history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak times we had
> over 40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing list. The de site is
> one of the most visited at the Apache OpenOffice project, and the chance is
> good that we can get new volunteers.
>
> The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers.
>
> The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it wouldn't be
> much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML with more than 40
> mails a day in Spanish for example.
>
> Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and
> localization, have first to learn how this project is set up. They would
> feel more comfortable on a ML with less traffic and in their own language.
>
> But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at some
> point in time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about splitting the
> community. On the contrary, it's about attracting new people to the project.
>
> We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we have
> already discussed.
>
> But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very careful
> planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this would needlessly
> take up valuable time which could be put to better use. At the same time we
> need an up-and-running list need very soon, because the old infrastructure
> will be shutting down in the near future.
>
> We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition.
>
> This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread
> http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32
>
> Actual traffic on the German-language lists are
> d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54
> us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179
>
> We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org
> We are not strongly determined to "users", but "discuss" would be also OK,
> if that fits better to the common Apache praxis.
>

For native language lists we currently have two:

ooo-general-ja

and

ooo-utenti-it

("utenti" is Italian for "users")

So I think ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org would be fine.  It would
also be fine if you wanted to translate "users" into German.

Note: after we graduate from the incubator, the lists will be renamed like this:

ooo-...@incubator.apache.org ==> f...@openoffice.apache.org

So your list would eventually become users...@openoffice.apache.org

Regards,

-Rob

> Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new list.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>

Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Issue 118037 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 - should
> be closed as WONTFIX or INVALID from my point of view. Thus, for me it is
> also no AOO 3.4 release blocker.
>

Instead of closing,would it make sense to just turn this into an
enhancement request and remove the release blocker flag?  That way it
will still show up in BZ as a feature that someone might volunteer to
implement in a future release.

What is the convention for dealing with things like this?  I agree it
is "WONTFIX" for 3.4.  But can't we just leave it open for possible
fix in future releases?

-Rob

> Best regards, Oliver.

Bundling extensions as blobs

[Herbert Duerr]

OpenOffice extensions are widely employed to extend its core 
functionality. Downloading and installing extensions is no problem for 
experienced users, but for novice users the extra steps required could 
appear as a gratuitous nuisance. So when creating install sets builders 
can serve their target audience better by bundling popular extensions 
such as galleries, templates, etc.


Some of these extensions are platform specific, some are language 
specific, some should be integrated directly into the core package and 
for some this would be not such a good idea.


So there are a lot of different use cases that need to be covered. It 
was already possible to bundle extensions as pre-registered and unzipped 
files by working in the scp2 module. This is not too convenient and due 
to legal concerns it is not possible in general.


On this note I extended the spectrum of possibilities by providing a 
configuration option named --with-bundled-extension-blobs. As the name 
suggests it allows to bundle extensions exactly as the same blobs which 
were approved for re-distribution. When OpenOffice is run they then get 
installed automatically.


E.g. if there are some cute galleries that are interesting for some 
audience you could bundle them by giving the configuration option
--with-bundled-extension-blobs="kitty-gallery.oxt puppy-gallery.oxt" and 
providing the corresponding files in the ext_sources directory.
When the resulting package gets installed these files will be copied 1:1 
into one of the programs shared directories from where they will be 
automatically picked up. Without requiring the user to do any bothersome 
steps they can then be directly used in OpenOffice.


I hope you find this useful,
Herbert

Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Greg Roberts]

Rob,
 
I agree with this plan with some additional detail into action point 1. The 
user can't just "run anyways" as the virus software will quarantine and remove 
the software until you get the reputation promoted. The user must manually go 
into the error log and override then restore the threat manually. I think this 
is a little to much to ask of a normal user of applications designed to be used 
by grandma Jones in Kansas. They just don't have the technical aptitude to 
perform this kind of operation. But for the folks that are testing and 
developing this plan would work prior to release.
 
Greg



From: Rob Weir 
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:00 AM
Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.  This is not a virus.
"WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
"reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
software that you are about to install according to a range of
factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.

We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
position, since that installer will also be new,etc.

A few things we should consider doing:

1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"

2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
installer:

https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/

3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.  Apache already
requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
at some point.

My recommendation:

Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 4.0.

Regards,

-Rob

[TAGS] Use them, please

[Andrew Rist]

Just a quick request to everyone starting threads - Use tags in your 
Subject!


As more and more stuff is happening on the list, using tags in the 
subject would help to keep things organized.


Right now there are two sets of threads going on that are obvious

[TEST]

and

[NLS] or is it [T9N] or even [I18N]?

Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Dave Fisher]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
> software that you are about to install according to a range of
> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
> 
> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
> 
> A few things we should consider doing:
> 
> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
> 
> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
> This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
> this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
> installer:
> 
> https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/
> 
> 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
> requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
> We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
> Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
> at some point.

This is likely to be a release requirement. Remember all artifacts in an Apache 
Release must be signed and installers are artifacts. (This touches  your 
discussion on the other thread about what is AOO, what is powered by, and what 
is "White Label")

I believe that signing process is being worked on elsewhere in the foundation 
in a way that can make this an easy part of the release process. I've a little 
experience with signing installers a few years ago, but I won't have many 
cycles for it for a few weeks. I'll look in my ML archives and ask the question 
on the appropriate Incubator ML about our participation in these tests.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> My recommendation:
> 
> Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 
> 4.0.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob

Re: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test

[Larry Gusaas]

On 2012-02-29 8:18 AM  Rob Weir wrote:

Once you have installed, launch OpenOffice and look at the Help/About
box.  If the revision shown there matches the build you installed
(e..g, "r1293550") then the install was a success. Please send a short
note to theooo-...@incubator.apache.org  telling us what platform and
scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to
LibreOffice, etc.).  This will help us understand what scenarios have
already been attempted and which have not.


Using MacBook with OS X version 10.6.8

Downloaded OOo_3.4.0_MacOS_x86_install_en-US.dmg
Successfully installed replacing installation of OOo 3.3

Installation deleted all of the extensions in my user profile. Quit OOo and replaced extension 
folder in my profile from my backup copy. Restarted OOo 3.4 and extensions deleted again. Will 
try installed individual extensions later today.


All .odt files I opened worked. Was able to work with and save in Writer. The one database I 
have works. Will do further testing later.


--
_

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - 
Edgard Varese

Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
>> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
>> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
>> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
>> software that you are about to install according to a range of
>> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
>> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
>> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
>>
>> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
>> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
>> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
>>
>> A few things we should consider doing:
>>
>> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
>> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
>>
>> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
>> This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
>> this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
>> installer:
>>
>> https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/
>>
>> 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
>> requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
>> We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
>> Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
>> at some point.
>
> This is likely to be a release requirement. Remember all artifacts in an 
> Apache Release must be signed and installers are artifacts. (This touches  
> your discussion on the other thread about what is AOO, what is powered by, 
> and what is "White Label")
>

Right.  But all that is required are *detached* signatures.  These are
fine for human verification, but they don't help in this case.

> I believe that signing process is being worked on elsewhere in the foundation 
> in a way that can make this an easy part of the release process. I've a 
> little experience with signing installers a few years ago, but I won't have 
> many cycles for it for a few weeks. I'll look in my ML archives and ask the 
> question on the appropriate Incubator ML about our participation in these 
> tests.
>

With current approach, it is based on "web of trust". So Release
Manager, and other PMC members verify and sign.   But normal code
signing on Windows is more hierarchical, and based on a trusted root
CA, etc.  Is the plan to have each PMC have its own signing cert?  In
this case the IPMC?

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> My recommendation:
>>
>> Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 
>> 4.0.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Andrew Rist]

On 3/2/2012 6:52 AM, Michael Bauer wrote:
This is managed over the Apache Account Management. If you are 
commiter, you should be able to login with your Apache ID
Raphael, I'm not. 

That can be changed.
Well, as far as I know. Mice can code better than me and I don't 
intend to commit anything but translations and the odd locale data xml 
at the most. 
This is not as much about contributing code (c, java, etc) as it is 
about contributing to the project.  As such, translations are one of the 
important areas where the community enhances the product.   This is one 
area where the community and the open source model can shine - 
delivering support for far more languages than that leading proprietary 
office suite.
And I suspect there will be a lot of people like me (eventually).   
Should they *all* become Apache committers? 
I think for the project, it is best to bring in everyone who is involved 
in the project.  So I think the answer is yes - it would be good to 
bring in all of our active translators as committers in the project.  
This provides a two way benefit - there is recognition of contribution 
and a building of community.


One thing we should discuss here is the process for moving from 
'contributor' to 'committer'.  For the code, this is fairly straight 
forward.  A developer can get a copy of the code from the SVN 
repository,  create/compile/test their changes, propose a patch by 
attaching it to an email or bug.
This patch is then committed to the tree by a committer, and when a 
developer has shown his/her mettle by proposing several useful patches 
they can be offered committer rights (and eventually membership in the 
PPMC - the management committee of the project).


We need to figure out a similar process for translations.  So - pushing 
this back in you direction - what would be the equivalent of proposing a 
patch?

Can this be done without logging into the pootle server?

Suggestions?  How do we bring the translators onboard??

I admit to not knowing what rights exactly that bestows on a user but 
it sounds rather dangerous to me, giving people who are likely to only 
translate the rights to commit other stuff at the same time.
sometimes a little danger is good? (also - anything that can be 
broken in in the code can be unbroken - by reverting the change)


But maybe I just misunderstood you?

Michael

Andrew

Pootle Anonymous Privilege

[imacat]

Dear all,

I revised the zh-TW translation on http://translate.apache.org/,
updated/added 709 messages, and found that I have not logged in. ^^;
Well, that's OK for me.  But it's a little scary that anyone can submit
the translation without logging in.  Shouldn't we limit the privilege of
the anonymous users?

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Dave Fisher]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
>>> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
>>> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
>>> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
>>> software that you are about to install according to a range of
>>> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
>>> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
>>> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
>>> 
>>> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
>>> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
>>> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
>>> 
>>> A few things we should consider doing:
>>> 
>>> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
>>> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
>>> 
>>> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
>>> This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
>>> this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
>>> installer:
>>> 
>>> https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/
>>> 
>>> 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
>>> requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
>>> We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
>>> Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
>>> at some point.
>> 
>> This is likely to be a release requirement. Remember all artifacts in an 
>> Apache Release must be signed and installers are artifacts. (This touches  
>> your discussion on the other thread about what is AOO, what is powered by, 
>> and what is "White Label")
>> 
> 
> Right.  But all that is required are *detached* signatures.  These are
> fine for human verification, but they don't help in this case.
> 
>> I believe that signing process is being worked on elsewhere in the 
>> foundation in a way that can make this an easy part of the release process. 
>> I've a little experience with signing installers a few years ago, but I 
>> won't have many cycles for it for a few weeks. I'll look in my ML archives 
>> and ask the question on the appropriate Incubator ML about our participation 
>> in these tests.
>> 
> 
> With current approach, it is based on "web of trust". So Release
> Manager, and other PMC members verify and sign.   But normal code
> signing on Windows is more hierarchical, and based on a trusted root
> CA, etc.  Is the plan to have each PMC have its own signing cert?  In
> this case the IPMC?

I'll need to confirm the status with Infrastructure, but I think that an ASF 
wide certificate was being considered. There was a lot of debate and it is hard 
to know without followup what happened. I'll ask now.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> My recommendation:
>>> 
>>> Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 
>>> 4.0.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>> 

Re: AOO Logo for FreeBSD

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello Maho;

On 03/02/12 02:18, Maho NAKATA wrote:

Hi Pedro,

Looks good, However,


that's a little tough at this time. I also kept the small BSD
daemon separated on purpose so that there is no

for the BSD daemon picture, we need explict permission from Kirk McKusick.
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/daemon.html



I suspect he will authorize it since he provided the image I
used ;-).

I think it will also be good to have the PPMC OK it but I still have
a couple of changes to make and I have to verify how it looks
in the software.

The one big question is whether I have to include copyright
notices and what is the minimal they should say.

Pedro.

Re: [BUILD]AOO build error in solaris

[L'oiseau de mer]

I want to ask about libxmlsec can be disabled in configure? i findn't
this option.
Maybe it have other solve method?

2012/3/1 L'oiseau de mer :
> Recently i try to build AOO , and configure parametre are
>  "--disable-build-mozilla --disable-cups --with-system-python
> --enable-presenter-console --enable-wiki-publisher --enable-minimizer
> --enable-pdfimport --enable-category-b"
>
> And prebuild-mozlib is use this version:
> http://www.openoffice.org/tools/moz_prebuild/OOo3.2/
>
> But now i meet a problem in build libxmlsec:
> =
> Entering /BuildArea/ooo/main/libxmlsec
>
> cp: cannot stat
> `./unxsoli4.pro/misc/build/xmlsec1-1.2.14/src/nss/.libs/libxmlsec1-nss.a':
> No such file or directory
> dmake:  Error code 1, while making
> './unxsoli4.pro/misc/build/so_predeliver_so_xmlsec1'
> ---* tg_merge.mk *---
>
> 1 module(s):
>        libxmlsec
> need(s) to be rebuilt
> =
>
> And then i enter this dir
> "unxsoli4.pro/misc/build/xmlsec1-1.2.14/src/nss/", then try to exec
> make , i see this problem:
> libtool: link: /opt/solarisstudio12.3/bin/cc -G -h libxmlsec1-nss.so.1
> -o .libs/libxmlsec1-nss.so.1.2.14  .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-app.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-bignum.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-ciphers.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-crypto.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-digests.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-hmac.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-pkikeys.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-signatures.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-symkeys.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-x509.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-x509vfy.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keysstore.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keytrans.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_des.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_aes.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-akmngr.o .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keywrapers.o
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-tokens.o   ../.libs/libxmlsec1.a
> -L/BuildArea/ooo/main/solver/340/unxsoli4.pro/lib -L/usr/lib/mps
> -lnss3 -lsmime3 -lssl3 -lnssutil3 -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -ldl -lposix4
> -lxslt -lxml2 -lpthread -lz -lsocket -lnsl -lm -lc
> ld: fatal: symbol 'xmlSecNssTransformKWDes3GetKlass' is multiply-defined:
>        (file .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_des.o type=FUNC; file
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keywrapers.o type=FUNC);
> ld: fatal: symbol 'xmlSecNssTransformKWAes128GetKlass' is multiply-defined:
>        (file .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_aes.o type=FUNC; file
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keywrapers.o type=FUNC);
> ld: fatal: symbol 'xmlSecNssTransformKWAes192GetKlass' is multiply-defined:
>        (file .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_aes.o type=FUNC; file
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keywrapers.o type=FUNC);
> ld: fatal: symbol 'xmlSecNssTransformKWAes256GetKlass' is multiply-defined:
>        (file .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-kw_aes.o type=FUNC; file
> .libs/libxmlsec1_nss_la-keywrapers.o type=FUNC);
> ld: fatal: file processing errors. No output written to
> .libs/libxmlsec1-nss.so.1.2.14
> make: *** [libxmlsec1-nss.la] Error 2

RE: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I agree with Oliver that it is INVALID.

This means using metadata in valid ODF files as a way of discriminating against 
the producer.  That sucks.  The generator marker is explicitly not for this 
purpose.  

How unsupported features are dealt with when opening such a file is a different 
matter and a much larger issue.  It also arises with documents from up-level 
versions of the same product (even when all use the same version of ODF).

The handling of extensions (i.e., not defined in ODF) from another producer 
raises similar considerations.  It all depends on whether the extension-usage 
occurs in a document, not whether the document is from a particular producer.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 08:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice 
files

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Issue 118037 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 - should
> be closed as WONTFIX or INVALID from my point of view. Thus, for me it is
> also no AOO 3.4 release blocker.
>

Instead of closing,would it make sense to just turn this into an
enhancement request and remove the release blocker flag?  That way it
will still show up in BZ as a feature that someone might volunteer to
implement in a future release.

What is the convention for dealing with things like this?  I agree it
is "WONTFIX" for 3.4.  But can't we just leave it open for possible
fix in future releases?

-Rob

> Best regards, Oliver.

RE: Test results: AOO run on Windows 8

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I can also confirm that the OOO-dev 3.4 x86_install_en-US r1293550 downloaded 
2012-02-28 installs perfectly on a fresh Windows 8 Consumer Preview (64 bit) 
running under VirtualBox 4.1.8 on Windows 7 (64 bit).  The registration of 
start-menu entries is automatically turned into tiles on the Windows 8 Start 
page (see image -- the choice of dark blue default appears to be from my start 
page preferences).  There were no error messages during install (other than 
warnings because the package was a download on a network share and also not 
signed).  No errors occurred on first-run.  

I successfully opened a WordPad-created ODT file containing a drawing and a 
small screen capture and resaved it.  I was not able to Save As ... to a 
network share provided via the VM configuration.  That may have nothing to do 
with AOO.  I did the install from a network share.

  - Dennis

The one annoyance is the continuing involvement of the user in choosing where 
the setup files are expanded.  This extra step is even more dissonant on 
Windows 8 than on Windows XP through Windows 7, and putting such junk on the 
user's desktop is just awful.  (In the image from that step, I have manually 
changed the Destination Folder.)

-Original Message-
From: Zhe Liu [mailto:aliu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 21:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test results: AOO run on Windows 8

Awesome!  Thanks for your work!


2012/3/2  :
> Machine: Oracle VM VirtualBox 4.1.6  on LinuxMint
> OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview (64 bit)
> AOO version: OOO340m1 (Build:9586) 2012-02-27 Rev.1293550
> Other programs: LibreOffice 3.5
>
> AOO installation: OK
> Writer: writing, saving, closing and reopen, all OK
> Calc: calculating, charting, saving, closing and reopen, all OK
> Impress:  saving, closing and reopen, all OK
>
> Testing with one item (for example one chart) in each case.
>
> I have tested some OpenOffice version on virtual new  W7 and it gave quite
> accurate prediction then.  So this test predict that AOO is working on W8 at
> least to some extent.
>
> Regards
> Risto



-- 
Best Regards
>From aliu...@gmail.com

RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The web-based downloader in Internet Explorer 9 also warns about the .exe files 
(not the tar.gz or Zip ones).  The message is clearly a no-reputation-yet 
warning.  

This is an on-line check.  When the file is known to be regularly downloaded, 
the report will change automatically.  

I have seen no AV warnings about the downloaded files themselves, although 
there is a standard OS warning on use of such files when they were downloaded 
from the internet and/or are not signed.  (In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, it is 
necessary to click "details" to see that there is a "Run anyhow" selection.)  

I saw no AV warnings after the installation on any systems having Microsoft 
Malware detection and regularly-updated Windows Security Essentials.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 07:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
"WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
"reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
software that you are about to install according to a range of
factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.

We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
position, since that installer will also be new,etc.

A few things we should consider doing:

1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"

2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
installer:

https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/

3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
at some point.

My recommendation:

Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 4.0.

Regards,

-Rob

RE: Test results: AOO run on Windows 8

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Sorry.  I forgot that ooo-dev does not accept .png attachments.  I'll update 
the Windows installation deployment-experience-QA narrative and images on the 
Wiki at some point 
.  There 
is much improvement.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:12
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Test results: AOO run on Windows 8

I can also confirm that the OOO-dev 3.4 x86_install_en-US r1293550 downloaded 
2012-02-28 installs perfectly on a fresh Windows 8 Consumer Preview (64 bit) 
running under VirtualBox 4.1.8 on Windows 7 (64 bit).  The registration of 
start-menu entries is automatically turned into tiles on the Windows 8 Start 
page (see image -- the choice of dark blue default appears to be from my start 
page preferences).  There were no error messages during install (other than 
warnings because the package was a download on a network share and also not 
signed).  No errors occurred on first-run.  

I successfully opened a WordPad-created ODT file containing a drawing and a 
small screen capture and resaved it.  I was not able to Save As ... to a 
network share provided via the VM configuration.  That may have nothing to do 
with AOO.  I did the install from a network share.

  - Dennis

The one annoyance is the continuing involvement of the user in choosing where 
the setup files are expanded.  This extra step is even more dissonant on 
Windows 8 than on Windows XP through Windows 7, and putting such junk on the 
user's desktop is just awful.  (In the image from that step, I have manually 
changed the Destination Folder.)

-Original Message-
From: Zhe Liu [mailto:aliu...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 21:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test results: AOO run on Windows 8

Awesome!  Thanks for your work!


2012/3/2  :
> Machine: Oracle VM VirtualBox 4.1.6  on LinuxMint
> OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview (64 bit)
> AOO version: OOO340m1 (Build:9586) 2012-02-27 Rev.1293550
> Other programs: LibreOffice 3.5
>
> AOO installation: OK
> Writer: writing, saving, closing and reopen, all OK
> Calc: calculating, charting, saving, closing and reopen, all OK
> Impress:  saving, closing and reopen, all OK
>
> Testing with one item (for example one chart) in each case.
>
> I have tested some OpenOffice version on virtual new  W7 and it gave quite
> accurate prediction then.  So this test predict that AOO is working on W8 at
> least to some extent.
>
> Regards
> Risto



-- 
Best Regards
>From aliu...@gmail.com

Please do not work at Pootle atm

[Raphael Bircher]

Hi at all

No panic, I will make this night a new initial import. The reason is, 
that we are not sure if the data from the old pootle server are 
compleet. So we want to be sure, and so I will import the data from the SDF.


I will import only the language wich we release for the moment. I hope, 
i can do this work util tomorrow


Then we can realy start.

Greetings Raphael
--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/

Re: OpenOffice.org email forwarder shutdown: That time is now

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> In case you missed it on the other thread, we heard from Andrew that
> the remaining Oracle servers that supported the legacy OOo project
> will be shut down starting on March 15th. This includes the mailing
> list and the mail forwarder.
>
> We dealt with the mailing lists before, sending notes to the active
> ones that the project had moved over to Apache and gave them the new
> addresses.  I subscribe to many of these lists and they have been
> silent for months.  I moderate one and it is all spam, and has been
> for months.  If you are seeing any openoffice.org list that still has
> real traffic on it, then please speak up.  We need to identify any
> active remaining lists and send them the information here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Email+Migration+Post
>
> At the same time we need to notify users that the openoffice.org email
> forwarding service is being retired as of March 15th.  I had already
> drafted a note for this, and it was previously reviewed.  I've just
> updated it to put in the actual shutdown date:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/%28Draft%29+Public+Statement+on+Email+Forwarding
>
> If there are no objections, my plan is to:
>
> 1) Move that wiki page into a blog post, clean up for formatting and publish 
> it
>

The blog post is out:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/retirement_of_openoffice_org_email

Also on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/#!/rcweir/statuses/175664277552766977

And Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/110021943609888508798/posts/WnwA84zDZiJ


> 2) On Monday morning send a note out to ooo-announce, referring to
> that blog post for details.
>

I'm holding off until Monday for the ooo-announce post.  It is more
likely to be read if sent out on a Monday than a Friday.


Are there any other places we should post this information to?
Legacy dev/user/discuss lists?  phpBB Forums?  Any NLC's?  If anyone
can help broadening the reach of this information, it would help avoid
surprises when March 15th comes.

> 3) Open a JIRA issue with Infra on a custom bounce notification
>

Done:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4506
> I could use help with:
>
> 1) Reaching out to NL groups that might not read or understand the
> above announcement
>
> 2) Updating our migration status wiki page
> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status).
>  This is referred to in the post as giving "current" information, but
> it is no longer current.
>
> 3) Responding to questions that this note may receive on the ooo-users list.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob

RE: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Simon Phipps]

On Mar 2, 2012 7:12 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
wrote:
>
> I agree with Oliver that it is INVALID.
>
> This means using metadata in valid ODF files as a way of
> discriminating against the producer.  That sucks.  The
> generator marker is explicitly not for this purpose.

This is a very important point and I agree entirely with Dennis here.
Warnings where there has been a format translation are one thing, but this
is another entirely.

S.

[BUILD] Linux32 build and Ubuntu 11 & 12

[Andrew Rist]

Here is the final blocker for building on Ubuntu 11 & 12  (the other 
change is switching to ld.gold)
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/buildlogs/linux32/log/unxlngi6.pro.build.html 
&

http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/buildlogs/linux32/main/sccomp/unxlngi6.pro/misc/logs/source.solver.txt

   g++ -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions 
-Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-new -Wl,--dynamic-list-cpp-typeinfo 
-Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,-rpath,'$ORIGIN:$ORIGIN/../ure-link/lib' -shared 
-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--version-script ../../unxlngi6.pro/misc/component_solver.map 
-L../../unxlngi6.pro/lib -L../lib 
-L/home/buildslave20/slave20/openoffice-linux32-nightly/build/main/solenv/unxlngi6/lib
 
-L/home/buildslave20/slave20/openoffice-linux32-nightly/build/main/solver/340/unxlngi6.pro/lib
 
-L/home/buildslave20/slave20/openoffice-linux32-nightly/build/main/solenv/unxlngi6/lib
 -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/lib -L/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/i386 
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/i386/client 
-L/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/i386/native_threads 
-L/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu ../../unxlngi6.pro/slo/solver.o 
../../unxlngi6.pro/slo/solver_version.o -o ../../unxlngi6.pro/lib/libsolver.so 
-lcomphelpgcc3 -luno_cppuhelpergcc3 -luno_cppu -luno_sal -ltl -lCoinMP 
-lCoinUtils -lClp -lCbc -lOsi -lOsiClp -lCgl -lCbcSolver -Wl,--as-needed -ldl 
-lpthread -lm -Wl,--no-as-needed -Wl,-Bdynamic -lstlport_gcc
   Checking DLL ../../unxlngi6.pro/lib/check_libsolver.so ...: ERROR: 
/home/buildslave20/slave20/openoffice-linux32-nightly/build/main/solver/340/unxlngi6.pro/lib/libCoinMP.so.1:
 undefined symbol: _ZN9CoinError12printErrors_E
   dmake:  Error code 1, while making '../../unxlngi6.pro/lib/libsolver.so'

RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Out of curiosity I just did another download of the OOo-dev 3.4 Windows "MSI" 
r1293550 to see if the popularity contest had been won yet.  

Not yet.

  The Internet Explorer 9 download warning is 
"OOo-Dev-OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe is not commonly downloaded and 
could harm your computer."  The file is already downloaded at that point, 
however.  The options are Delete, Actions, and View downloads (opening a 
separate tool that shows downloads and status).  The Actions option includes 
"Don't run this program (recommended)", "Delete", and "Run Anyway."  

  A "Run Anyway" or a later execution of the downloaded .exe will provoke an 
User Account Control message (on default configurations, even for administrator 
accounts) that warns that the file is from an unknown source (that is, the .EXE 
is not signed) and that it was downloaded from the Internet. 

I also did a custom scan of the single download file using Microsoft Security 
Essentials.  The scan (which is programmed to dig into these files) identified 
51916 individual items and no threats.

All of this is tolerable and arguably appropriate for developer snapshots.  
Users who use these builds need to rely on their own judgment about the 
trustworthiness of the origin and the content of those files.  

Note that it is the .exe that needs to be signed.  This should not be confused 
with a .msi file, although I assume those can be signed also.  Apache 
OpenOffice does not use .msi as the packaged binary that is downloaded.  (It 
appears that LibreOffice has changed that.)  It strikes me that using external 
digest values (md5 and sh1 digests) on the download requires a super-user skill 
set and should not be the only thing relied upon for project binary releases.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:19
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

The web-based downloader in Internet Explorer 9 also warns about the .exe files 
(not the tar.gz or Zip ones).  The message is clearly a no-reputation-yet 
warning.  

This is an on-line check.  When the file is known to be regularly downloaded, 
the report will change automatically.  

I have seen no AV warnings about the downloaded files themselves, although 
there is a standard OS warning on use of such files when they were downloaded 
from the internet and/or are not signed.  (In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, it is 
necessary to click "details" to see that there is a "Run anyhow" selection.)  

I saw no AV warnings after the installation on any systems having Microsoft 
Malware detection and regularly-updated Windows Security Essentials.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 07:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
"WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
"reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
software that you are about to install according to a range of
factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.

We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
position, since that installer will also be new,etc.

A few things we should consider doing:

1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"

2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
installer:

https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/

3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
at some point.

My recommendation:

Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 4.0.

Regards,

-Rob

Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 03/02/2012 05:08 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
  wrote:

Hi,

Issue 118037 - https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 - should
be closed as WONTFIX or INVALID from my point of view. Thus, for me it is
also no AOO 3.4 release blocker.



Instead of closing,would it make sense to just turn this into an
enhancement request and remove the release blocker flag?  That way it
will still show up in BZ as a feature that someone might volunteer to
implement in a future release.

What is the convention for dealing with things like this?  I agree it
is "WONTFIX" for 3.4.  But can't we just leave it open for possible
fix in future releases?


I don't like to do a kind of transform of issues that wanted to have a 
and now b. Of course in this kind both things are connected to each 
other. And it may OK when you just have to modify a bit the, e.g, 
summary line.


But when you have to change the fields and mainly the summary line 
completely, then you also turn the history of the issue completely.


Therefore I would prefer to create a new issue.

But maybe it doesn't matter what I'm writing as you have already changed 
the issue and produced the facts. ;-)


My 2 ct

Marcus

[BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Marcus (OOo)]

In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks, 
new releases, etc.)


-and-

To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.

Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use? 
When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first 
on the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".


What do you think?

Marcus



Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: Request for a German-language mailing list

[Marcus (OOo)]

+1

Marcus



Am 03/02/2012 12:11 PM, schrieb Regina Henschel:

Hi all

We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has a
long history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak
times we had over 40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing list.
The de site is one of the most visited at the Apache OpenOffice project,
and the chance is good that we can get new volunteers.

The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers.

The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it
wouldn't be much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML
with more than 40 mails a day in Spanish for example.

Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and
localization, have first to learn how this project is set up. They would
feel more comfortable on a ML with less traffic and in their own language.

But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at some
point in time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about splitting the
community. On the contrary, it's about attracting new people to the
project.

We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we
have already discussed.

But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very
careful planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this
would needlessly take up valuable time which could be put to better use.
At the same time we need an up-and-running list need very soon, because
the old infrastructure will be shutting down in the near future.

We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition.

This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread
http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32

Actual traffic on the German-language lists are
d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54
us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179

We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org
We are not strongly determined to "users", but "discuss" would be also
OK, if that fits better to the common Apache praxis.

Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new list.

Kind regards
Regina

Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> Out of curiosity I just did another download of the OOo-dev 3.4 Windows "MSI" 
> r1293550 to see if the popularity contest had been won yet.
>
> Not yet.
>
>  The Internet Explorer 9 download warning is 
> "OOo-Dev-OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe is not commonly downloaded and 
> could harm your computer."  The file is already downloaded at that point, 
> however.  The options are Delete, Actions, and View downloads (opening a 
> separate tool that shows downloads and status).  The Actions option includes 
> "Don't run this program (recommended)", "Delete", and "Run Anyway."
>
>  A "Run Anyway" or a later execution of the downloaded .exe will provoke an 
> User Account Control message (on default configurations, even for 
> administrator accounts) that warns that the file is from an unknown source 
> (that is, the .EXE is not signed) and that it was downloaded from the 
> Internet.
>
> I also did a custom scan of the single download file using Microsoft Security 
> Essentials.  The scan (which is programmed to dig into these files) 
> identified 51916 individual items and no threats.
>
> All of this is tolerable and arguably appropriate for developer snapshots.  
> Users who use these builds need to rely on their own judgment about the 
> trustworthiness of the origin and the content of those files.
>
> Note that it is the .exe that needs to be signed.  This should not be 
> confused with a .msi file, although I assume those can be signed also.  
> Apache OpenOffice does not use .msi as the packaged binary that is 
> downloaded.  (It appears that LibreOffice has changed that.)  It strikes me 
> that using external digest values (md5 and sh1 digests) on the download 
> requires a super-user skill set and should not be the only thing relied upon 
> for project binary releases.
>

Yes,MSI's can be installed and are required to be signed for some
distribution paths.  Generally you want to sign what you distribute.
Don't expect the I.E. or your anti-virus is going to deflate a 200 MB
archive to see if some EXE inside is signed.  (And then what about the
DLL's?)  We should be signing the whole enchilada.

-Rob

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:19
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do
>
> The web-based downloader in Internet Explorer 9 also warns about the .exe 
> files (not the tar.gz or Zip ones).  The message is clearly a 
> no-reputation-yet warning.
>
> This is an on-line check.  When the file is known to be regularly downloaded, 
> the report will change automatically.
>
> I have seen no AV warnings about the downloaded files themselves, although 
> there is a standard OS warning on use of such files when they were downloaded 
> from the internet and/or are not signed.  (In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, it 
> is necessary to click "details" to see that there is a "Run anyhow" 
> selection.)
>
> I saw no AV warnings after the installation on any systems having Microsoft 
> Malware detection and regularly-updated Windows Security Essentials.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 07:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do
>
> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
> software that you are about to install according to a range of
> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
>
> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
>
> A few things we should consider doing:
>
> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
>
> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
> This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
> this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
> installer:
>
> https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/
>
> 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
> requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
> We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
> Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
> at some point.
>
> My recommendation:
>
> Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. fo

[RELEASE] Signing Artifacts [Was Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do]

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Dennis,

I am changing the subject to give this discussion the visibility it should have.

I think it would be highly desirable to digitally sign AOO 3.4 artifacts.

On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Out of curiosity I just did another download of the OOo-dev 3.4 Windows "MSI" 
> r1293550 to see if the popularity contest had been won yet.  
> 
> Not yet.
> 
>  The Internet Explorer 9 download warning is 
> "OOo-Dev-OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe is not commonly downloaded and 
> could harm your computer."  The file is already downloaded at that point, 
> however.  The options are Delete, Actions, and View downloads (opening a 
> separate tool that shows downloads and status).  The Actions option includes 
> "Don't run this program (recommended)", "Delete", and "Run Anyway."  
> 
>  A "Run Anyway" or a later execution of the downloaded .exe will provoke an 
> User Account Control message (on default configurations, even for 
> administrator accounts) that warns that the file is from an unknown source 
> (that is, the .EXE is not signed) and that it was downloaded from the 
> Internet. 
> 
> I also did a custom scan of the single download file using Microsoft Security 
> Essentials.  The scan (which is programmed to dig into these files) 
> identified 51916 individual items and no threats.
> 
> All of this is tolerable and arguably appropriate for developer snapshots.  
> Users who use these builds need to rely on their own judgment about the 
> trustworthiness of the origin and the content of those files.  
> 
> Note that it is the .exe that needs to be signed.  This should not be 
> confused with a .msi file, although I assume those can be signed also.  
> Apache OpenOffice does not use .msi as the packaged binary that is 
> downloaded.  (It appears that LibreOffice has changed that.)  It strikes me 
> that using external digest values (md5 and sh1 digests) on the download 
> requires a super-user skill set and should not be the only thing relied upon 
> for project binary releases.

(Side note about Releases) All PPMC members who vote for a release will be 
expected to understand how to use md5/sha1 digest values and to have checked 
the signatures of ALL artifacts. It is a release blocker to have missing or 
incorrect signatures.

Soon, all will understand that this is NOT something to ask Grandma or Joe Bob 
to do.

So, signatures from a trusted entity like the ASF will go along way towards 
gaining trust. The gist of the signing service discussion was when to apply 
digital signatures to Development, Test and Production Artifacts. It was 
mentioned that Dev and Test Artifacts could have expiring certificates.

So, I will explore this and if viable return with documentation for the Release 
Manager.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:19
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do
> 
> The web-based downloader in Internet Explorer 9 also warns about the .exe 
> files (not the tar.gz or Zip ones).  The message is clearly a 
> no-reputation-yet warning.  
> 
> This is an on-line check.  When the file is known to be regularly downloaded, 
> the report will change automatically.  
> 
> I have seen no AV warnings about the downloaded files themselves, although 
> there is a standard OS warning on use of such files when they were downloaded 
> from the internet and/or are not signed.  (In Windows 8 Consumer Preview, it 
> is necessary to click "details" to see that there is a "Run anyhow" 
> selection.)  
> 
> I saw no AV warnings after the installation on any systems having Microsoft 
> Malware detection and regularly-updated Windows Security Essentials.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 07:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do
> 
> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
> software that you are about to install according to a range of
> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
> 
> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
> 
> A few things we should consider doing:
> 
> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
> 
> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" 

Re: [BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks, new
> releases, etc.)
>
> -and-
>
> To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.
>
> Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use?
> When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first on
> the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".
>

Right now only those in the "relman" group can +grant or -deny the
"release blocker" flag.  There are only 8 people in that group right
now.

Anyone in the "canconfirm" group is able to request this flag.  Not
everyone is a member of "canconfirm".  There are only 559 members,
mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance.
It also includes everyone with an Apache email address.

So I think we're doing what you are suggesting.  We're discussing the
bugs where someone has requested "release blocker" status, and then
decided whether to grant or deny that status.

> What do you think?
>

Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right?

-Rob

> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:
>>
>> P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
>> I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
>> to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello Rob, *,

 Rob Weir schrieb:
> Apache has some rules and restrictions related to press releases,
> etc., from podlings under incubation.   See this page:
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html

OK I have read this.

I have read the particular point "publicity activities":
"Podlings MUST coordinate with the Apache Public Relations Committee on all 
publicity activities by a podling."

question:
Is it possible to "Apache Public Relations Committee" a draft of a German press 
release to be transmitted so that confirms this?
 
> My reading of this is we cannot just assume "lazy consensus" but we
> need to reach out to pr...@apache.org and coordinate with them on any
> formal publicity activities.

Do I understand correctly that we e.g. _german_ press reports are to discuss 
pr...@apache.org? Who understands German at pr...@apache.org? I understand that 
you have "coordinate" said, but "coordinate" needs discuss. 

And for e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, we need german-language press 
releases.

Here is an example of a press release from de-OOo from the year 2010:
http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2010-06/message/15

> However, there are also a range of informal activities that do not
> require this additional review, like blog posts, announcements to the
> ooo-announce list, social media campaigns, etc.  These could be
> discussed on the list.

OK, but that's not what i mean and what we need first for the national 
information of users.

Let me say it clearly:

AOO is in a difficult situation and we should do everything to keep ex-OOo 
users and attract new users for AOO.

AOO is initially a product for end users and not for it-specialists and end 
users need information such as in magazines (for example 
http://www.heise.de/ct/inhalt/), and magazines need national-language press 
releases.



greetings
Jörg

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello Rob, *,
>
>  Rob Weir schrieb:
>> Apache has some rules and restrictions related to press releases,
>> etc., from podlings under incubation.   See this page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>
> OK I have read this.
>
> I have read the particular point "publicity activities":
> "Podlings MUST coordinate with the Apache Public Relations Committee on all 
> publicity activities by a podling."
>
> question:
> Is it possible to "Apache Public Relations Committee" a draft of a German 
> press release to be transmitted so that confirms this?
>

You say press release, but who do you think is issuing the press
release? What entity?  Are you talking about a real press release that
goes out via a wire service?  Or just an something on our website that
says "Press Release" on it?

In general, if a press release is coming from this project, it needs
to be get the approval of our PMC and of Apache.  This is true
regardless of what language it is in.

>> My reading of this is we cannot just assume "lazy consensus" but we
>> need to reach out to pr...@apache.org and coordinate with them on any
>> formal publicity activities.
>
> Do I understand correctly that we e.g. _german_ press reports are to discuss 
> pr...@apache.org? Who understands German at pr...@apache.org? I understand 
> that you have "coordinate" said, but "coordinate" needs discuss.
>

Again, the approval process is the same, regardless of language.

Also, the purpose of the review and approval is not to fine tune your
German grammar. But Apache does have an interest in making sure that
trademarks are used correctly and that required podling disclaimers
are included, etc.

And most of all, Press@ is here to help.  They have expertise and
contacts that can help us get out our message.

> And for e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, we need german-language press 
> releases.
>

When we release AOO 3.4 it will be on many more languages.  We'll need
to coordinate the press activities.

> Here is an example of a press release from de-OOo from the year 2010:
> http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2010-06/message/15
>
>> However, there are also a range of informal activities that do not
>> require this additional review, like blog posts, announcements to the
>> ooo-announce list, social media campaigns, etc.  These could be
>> discussed on the list.
>
> OK, but that's not what i mean and what we need first for the national 
> information of users.
>
> Let me say it clearly:
>
> AOO is in a difficult situation and we should do everything to keep ex-OOo 
> users and attract new users for AOO.
>
> AOO is initially a product for end users and not for it-specialists and end 
> users need information such as in magazines (for example 
> http://www.heise.de/ct/inhalt/), and magazines need national-language press 
> releases.
>

I don't see a problem with that.  This is the challenge in all
languages, right?   We just need to work through the existing process
for podling publicity.  Once we graduate then we'll have more
flexibility.

-Rob

>
>
> greetings
> Jörg
>

Re: [BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 03/02/2012 10:49 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks, new
releases, etc.)

-and-

To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.

Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use?
When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first on
the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".



Right now only those in the "relman" group can +grant or -deny the
"release blocker" flag.  There are only 8 people in that group right
now.


OK, then it was maybe just a subjective feeling that the flag was more 
stressed than necessary in the last few days/weeks. Or there is at least 
a difference between the "?" and the "+" / "-" status.


Marcus




Anyone in the "canconfirm" group is able to request this flag.  Not
everyone is a member of "canconfirm".  There are only 559 members,
mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance.
It also includes everyone with an Apache email address.

So I think we're doing what you are suggesting.  We're discussing the
bugs where someone has requested "release blocker" status, and then
decided whether to grant or deny that status.


What do you think?



Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right?

-Rob


Marcus



Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:


P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: [BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 03/02/2012 10:49 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
>>>
>>> In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks,
>>> new
>>> releases, etc.)
>>>
>>> -and-
>>>
>>> To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use?
>>> When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first
>>> on
>>> the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".
>>>
>>
>> Right now only those in the "relman" group can +grant or -deny the
>> "release blocker" flag.  There are only 8 people in that group right
>> now.
>
>
> OK, then it was maybe just a subjective feeling that the flag was more
> stressed than necessary in the last few days/weeks. Or there is at least a
> difference between the "?" and the "+" / "-" status.
>

Many of us are working together for the first time.  So it is likely
that we don't even all agree on what a "release blocker" means.  If we
agreed on criteria, then I think there would be fewer issues like
this. But maybe having these discussions is how we converge on an
understanding of what a blocking issue is?

-Rob

> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>> Anyone in the "canconfirm" group is able to request this flag.  Not
>> everyone is a member of "canconfirm".  There are only 559 members,
>> mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance.
>> It also includes everyone with an Apache email address.
>>
>> So I think we're doing what you are suggesting.  We're discussing the
>> bugs where someone has requested "release blocker" status, and then
>> decided whether to grant or deny that status.
>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:


 P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
 I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
 to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: OpenOffice.org email forwarder shutdown: That time is now

[RGB ES]

2012/3/2 Rob Weir :
> Are there any other places we should post this information to?
> Legacy dev/user/discuss lists?  phpBB Forums?  Any NLC's?  If anyone
> can help broadening the reach of this information, it would help avoid
> surprises when March 15th comes.
>
Already discussed on the EN, ES and IT forums... since November ;)

On the ES forums I sent messages to the few users registered with
@openoffice.org addresses and I'm sure the IT admin did the same.
Regards
Ricardo

Re: [BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Marcus (OOo)]

Am 03/02/2012 11:30 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

Am 03/02/2012 10:49 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:


On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)wrote:


In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks,
new
releases, etc.)

-and-

To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.

Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use?
When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first
on
the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".



Right now only those in the "relman" group can +grant or -deny the
"release blocker" flag.  There are only 8 people in that group right
now.



OK, then it was maybe just a subjective feeling that the flag was more
stressed than necessary in the last few days/weeks. Or there is at least a
difference between the "?" and the "+" / "-" status.



Many of us are working together for the first time.  So it is likely
that we don't even all agree on what a "release blocker" means.  If we
agreed on criteria, then I think there would be fewer issues like
this. But maybe having these discussions is how we converge on an
understanding of what a blocking issue is?


Then there is short way out: ;-)

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Stopper

When we can agree on these criteria, the sorting of release blocker will 
be easier and faster.


Marcus




Anyone in the "canconfirm" group is able to request this flag.  Not
everyone is a member of "canconfirm".  There are only 559 members,
mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance.
It also includes everyone with an Apache email address.

So I think we're doing what you are suggesting.  We're discussing the
bugs where someone has requested "release blocker" status, and then
decided whether to grant or deny that status.


What do you think?



Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right?

-Rob


Marcus



Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:



P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118037 - oo should warn opening/saving libreoffice files

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 02/03/2012 Simon Phipps wrote:

On Mar 2, 2012 7:12 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:

This means using metadata in valid ODF files as a way of
discriminating against the producer.  That sucks.  The
generator marker is explicitly not for this purpose.

This is a very important point and I agree entirely with Dennis here.
Warnings where there has been a format translation are one thing, but this
is another entirely.


We should also remember that even two 100% compliant ODF 
producers/consumers (i.e., programs that write and interpret ODF in 
total conformance with the standard) may behave differently since the 
standard allows "implementation-defined" behavior.


For example, summing empty cells in OpenOffice Calc returns zero, while 
the same operation in other ODF-capable suites yields an error. And ODF 
allows this to be implementation-defined and both are right, so warnings 
related to the producer are even less meaningful.


(I understand that, in the case being discussed -named ranges-, it was 
concluded that this is just a not-yet-implemented feature in OpenOffice, 
but I'm speaking in general).


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [BZ] Disable the "release blocker" flag to be used only by everyone (was Re: [RELEASE] Bug 118098 - Text box filled with zeroes)

[Dave Fisher]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

> Am 03/02/2012 11:30 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
>>> Am 03/02/2012 10:49 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> 
 On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Marcus (OOo)
 wrote:
> 
> In order prevent this cleanup task again and again (for the next weeks,
> new
> releases, etc.)
> 
> -and-
> 
> To take the discussions into this ML and out of our BZ.
> 
> Is it possible to disable the "release blocker" flag for everyone's use?
> When only a few people can set the flag to "+" then we can discuss first
> on
> the ML and when we have consensus it will be set to "+".
> 
 
 Right now only those in the "relman" group can +grant or -deny the
 "release blocker" flag.  There are only 8 people in that group right
 now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> OK, then it was maybe just a subjective feeling that the flag was more
>>> stressed than necessary in the last few days/weeks. Or there is at least a
>>> difference between the "?" and the "+" / "-" status.
>>> 
>> 
>> Many of us are working together for the first time.  So it is likely
>> that we don't even all agree on what a "release blocker" means.  If we
>> agreed on criteria, then I think there would be fewer issues like
>> this. But maybe having these discussions is how we converge on an
>> understanding of what a blocking issue is?
> 
> Then there is short way out: ;-)
> 
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Stopper
> 
> When we can agree on these criteria, the sorting of release blocker will be 
> easier and faster.

Looks like reasonable criteria to me.

BTW - the part under "How to promote/nominate a Stopper issue" will need to be 
rewritten.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
 Anyone in the "canconfirm" group is able to request this flag.  Not
 everyone is a member of "canconfirm".  There are only 559 members,
 mainly those who had elevated permissions in the legacy BZ instance.
 It also includes everyone with an Apache email address.
 
 So I think we're doing what you are suggesting.  We're discussing the
 bugs where someone has requested "release blocker" status, and then
 decided whether to grant or deny that status.
 
> What do you think?
> 
 
 Discuss now, discuss later, it is all the same thing, right?
 
 -Rob
 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 03/02/2012 02:38 PM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:
>> 
>> 
>> P.S.: Sorry for the noise regarding our potential release blockers, but
>> I am trying to get an overview about the release blockers which we need
>> to fix for our AOO 3.4 release.

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello,

 Rob Weir wrote:
> > question:
> > Is it possible to "Apache Public Relations Committee" a 
> draft of a German press release to be transmitted so that 
> confirms this?
> >
> 
> You say press release, but who do you think is issuing the press
> release? What entity? 

"Apache OpenOffice" (or 'incubator AOO'), but there must also be a national 
entity for national or local press releases. 

> Are you talking about a real press release that
> goes out via a wire service?

No.

> Or just an something on our website that
> says "Press Release" on it?

Not only. I also mean e.g. press releases in the form of Emails.

> Also, the purpose of the review and approval is not to fine tune your
> German grammar. But Apache does have an interest in making sure that
> trademarks are used correctly and that required podling disclaimers
> are included, etc.

Yes, this ist also reasonable.

> And most of all, Press@ is here to help.  They have expertise and
> contacts that can help us get out our message.

And what can the german AOO-community do? Can we send drafts of press releases 
to Press@... to discuss it?

> > And for e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, we need 
> german-language press releases.
> >
> 
> When we release AOO 3.4 it will be on many more languages.  We'll need
> to coordinate the press activities.

Yes, clear. 
But what about national issues, e.g. the future of (OOo) / AOO in the Munich 
city council? You know the LiMux project:
  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux

> I don't see a problem with that.

I see a problem if for month users being not informed enough and (OOo)/AOO 
constantly users loses. You not?

And I see a problem if it is for beginners so difficult to understand the 
workings of Apache. Many of us who are not developers want to work for the 
success of AOO, but do not always understand ways of working.

> This is the challenge in all
> languages, right? 

This special press message, yes, but not all.


greetings
Jörg

Re: Request for a German-language mailing list

[Jürgen Lange]

+1 for the mailing list

Jürgen (another one)


Am 02.03.2012 12:11, schrieb Regina Henschel:

Hi all

We from the german-nlc would like to make a new start. The de-nlc has 
a long history and was one of the strongest OOo nlc projects. At peak 
times we had over 40 Mails per day coming over the de-dev mailing 
list. The de site is one of the most visited at the Apache OpenOffice 
project, and the chance is good that we can get new volunteers.


The problem is, without a mailing list it's hard to involve newcomers.

The English list es not really a viable alternative - same as it 
wouldn't be much good to force English native speakers to follow a ML 
with more than 40 mails a day in Spanish for example.


Non-programmers, who can do great work in QA, documentation and 
localization, have first to learn how this project is set up. They 
would feel more comfortable on a ML with less traffic and in their own 
language.


But I'm sure many of those who join a German-language list will at 
some point in time also come to the ooo-dev. So it's not about 
splitting the community. On the contrary, it's about attracting new 
people to the project.


We could of course setup a list outside of Apache - an alternative we 
have already discussed.


But we need to be closer to Apache. A group outside would need very 
careful planning and coordination with the Apache project, and this 
would needlessly take up valuable time which could be put to better 
use. At the same time we need an up-and-running list need very soon, 
because the old infrastructure will be shutting down in the near future.


We would very much like to know, what you think of our proposition.

This proposal has been discussed on d...@de.openoffice.org, see thread 
http://openoffice.org/projects/de/lists/dev/archive/2012-02/message/32


Actual traffic on the German-language lists are
d...@de.openoffice.org: January 12, February 54
us...@de.openoffice.org: January 249, February 179

We request a list ooo-users...@incubator.apache.org
We are not strongly determined to "users", but "discuss" would be also 
OK, if that fits better to the common Apache praxis.


Raphael Bircher and Michael Stehmann have agreed to moderate the new 
list.


Kind regards
Regina

RE: Pootle Anonymous Privilege

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: imacat [mailto:ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw]
> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 4:11 AM
> To: Apache OpenOffice Developers
> Subject: Pootle Anonymous Privilege
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I revised the zh-TW translation on http://translate.apache.org/,
> updated/added 709 messages, and found that I have not logged in. ^^; Well,
> that's OK for me.  But it's a little scary that anyone can submit the
translation
> without logging in.  Shouldn't we limit the privilege of the anonymous
users?

It is the expected and wanted behaviour , anyone without an account and not
logged 
in are quite welcome to submit suggestions and translations.

It is the logged in Apache Committers that can then review and apply those.

Thanks for getting started!

See
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+a
uth+levels 
for more info on the privileges applied.

Gav...

> 
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' 

RE: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Bauer [mailto:f...@akerbeltz.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 12:53 AM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?
> 
> > This is managed over the Apache Account Management. If you are
> > commiter, you should be able to login with your Apache ID
> Raphael, I'm not. Well, as far as I know. Mice can code better than me and I
> don't intend to commit anything but translations and the odd locale data xml
> at the most. And I suspect there will be a lot of people like me (eventually).
> Should they *all* become Apache committers? I admit to not knowing what
> rights exactly that bestows on a user but it sounds rather dangerous to me,
> giving people who are likely to only translate the rights to commit other 
> stuff
> at the same time.
> 
> But maybe I just misunderstood you?

See 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels
 
for more info on the privileges applied.

You need not be logged in to submit translation suggestions.
Therefore, no need to be a committer to do so either.

HTH

Gav...

> 
> Michael

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Michael Bauer]

02/03/2012 23:41, sgrìobh Gavin McDonald:

See 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels
for more info on the privileges applied.

You need not be logged in to submit translation suggestions.
Therefore, no need to be a committer to do so either.

HTH

Gav...
Gavin, the nature of the best is that for small languages, you usually 
have a team of one. If I add "Suggestions" then there is no-one who will 
accept them or, if I get the right priviledges, I have to accept them at 
a later point myself. Or indeed, if someone suggests a junk translation, 
then how will a committer who is unfamiliar with the language going to 
know?


I'd have to be at least a Project Admin level (looking at your table (by 
the way, should that be "higher perms" instead of "giving higger 
perms"?). Not because I want to commit but apart from the above reason, 
because I'm not doing anything unless I can make backups (sorry, but I 
*almost* got burnt very badly when OOO went down) and because I need to 
be able to overwrite some of the old stuff (I was in the middle of a 
major review of a lot of junk that ended up in the Gaelic translation).


If that's not an option, then I have to seriously think about 
participation in AOO.


Michael

Re: Pootle Anonymous Privilege

[Dave Fisher]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:

> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: imacat [mailto:ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw]
>> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 4:11 AM
>> To: Apache OpenOffice Developers
>> Subject: Pootle Anonymous Privilege
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>>I revised the zh-TW translation on http://translate.apache.org/,
>> updated/added 709 messages, and found that I have not logged in. ^^; Well,
>> that's OK for me.  But it's a little scary that anyone can submit the
> translation
>> without logging in.  Shouldn't we limit the privilege of the anonymous
> users?
> 
> It is the expected and wanted behaviour , anyone without an account and not
> logged 
> in are quite welcome to submit suggestions and translations.
> 
> It is the logged in Apache Committers that can then review and apply those.
> 
> Thanks for getting started!
> 
> See
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+a
> uth+levels 
> for more info on the privileges applied.

That answers my questions, very cool.

One more question. Is the name of anonymous individual given with the 
suggestion? If so then the PPMC member accepting suggestions can learn quickly 
who might merit committer status.

Thanks & Regards,
Dave

> 
> Gav...
> 
>> 
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> imacat ^_*' 
> 
> 

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Dave Fisher]

On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Michael Bauer wrote:

> 02/03/2012 23:41, sgrìobh Gavin McDonald:
>> See 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels
>> for more info on the privileges applied.
>> 
>> You need not be logged in to submit translation suggestions.
>> Therefore, no need to be a committer to do so either.
>> 
>> HTH
>> 
>> Gav...
> Gavin, the nature of the best is that for small languages, you usually have a 
> team of one. If I add "Suggestions" then there is no-one who will accept them 
> or, if I get the right priviledges, I have to accept them at a later point 
> myself. Or indeed, if someone suggests a junk translation, then how will a 
> committer who is unfamiliar with the language going to know?
> 
> I'd have to be at least a Project Admin level (looking at your table (by the 
> way, should that be "higher perms" instead of "giving higger perms"?). Not 
> because I want to commit but apart from the above reason, because I'm not 
> doing anything unless I can make backups (sorry, but I *almost* got burnt 
> very badly when OOO went down) and because I need to be able to overwrite 
> some of the old stuff (I was in the middle of a major review of a lot of junk 
> that ended up in the Gaelic translation).
> 
> If that's not an option, then I have to seriously think about participation 
> in AOO.

Well I think that the PPMC needs to seriously think about how to handle very 
small NL projects like Gaelic - Scottish. While yours is a specific case, it 
does point out a general problem.

How does AOO help smaller NL communities that do not already have committers 
bootstrap productive translation of their language. How does the PPMC provide 
proper oversight in considering someone's merit without work here at Apache? 
This may be a case where we will need members of the PPMC to vouch for 
someone's prior work. I don't want to abandon smaller languages. Perhaps we 
need to have a test, perhaps help translating news for the website and/or 
bootstrapping / restarting NL parts of the website. I would be willing to help 
guide work on NL parts of www.openoffice.org.

What do you think? What does the PPMC think? What does the community think?

Regards,
Dave



> 
> Michael

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  Rob Weir wrote:
>> > question:
>> > Is it possible to "Apache Public Relations Committee" a
>> draft of a German press release to be transmitted so that
>> confirms this?
>> >
>>
>> You say press release, but who do you think is issuing the press
>> release? What entity?
>
> "Apache OpenOffice" (or 'incubator AOO'), but there must also be a national 
> entity for national or local press releases.
>

 I don't see the need for fragmentation.

The project speaks in one voice.  With the help of volunteers we can
speak in many languages.  But we cannot have sub-groups within the
project making press releases on behalf of the project,   All press
releases come from the entire project, and require review and approval
from the PMC, as well as Apache.

Think of it this way: OpenOffice supports multiple languages.  But we
don't have independent groups compiling and releases OpenOffice.  We
work together to have a single, multilingual product.

>> Are you talking about a real press release that
>> goes out via a wire service?
>
> No.
>
>> Or just an something on our website that
>> says "Press Release" on it?
>
> Not only. I also mean e.g. press releases in the form of Emails.
>
>> Also, the purpose of the review and approval is not to fine tune your
>> German grammar. But Apache does have an interest in making sure that
>> trademarks are used correctly and that required podling disclaimers
>> are included, etc.
>
> Yes, this ist also reasonable.
>
>> And most of all, Press@ is here to help.  They have expertise and
>> contacts that can help us get out our message.
>
> And what can the german AOO-community do? Can we send drafts of press 
> releases to Press@... to discuss it?
>

Send the draft first to this list first, to get PPMC approval, then we
can engage Press@.

>> > And for e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, we need
>> german-language press releases.
>> >
>>
>> When we release AOO 3.4 it will be on many more languages.  We'll need
>> to coordinate the press activities.
>
> Yes, clear.
> But what about national issues, e.g. the future of (OOo) / AOO in the Munich 
> city council? You know the LiMux project:
>  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
>

I'm familiar with LiMux, yes.   Is this something that the project
needs to speak on?  If so, let's have a draft of the press release.
Whether the issue is national, local, or international, it really
doesn't make a difference.  The issue is that the press release is on
behalf of the Apache OpenOffice project.   If it is in our name, then
it needs review.

An alternative would be to have a press release from some other
organization, like a local German users group or something like that.
But it would need to pick a different name.  It could not claim to
speak for "Apache OpenOffice".

>> I don't see a problem with that.
>
> I see a problem if for month users being not informed enough and (OOo)/AOO 
> constantly users loses. You not?
>

No one is denying that we would benefit from more information.

> And I see a problem if it is for beginners so difficult to understand the 
> workings of Apache. Many of us who are not developers want to work for the 
> success of AOO, but do not always understand ways of working.
>

Maybe it would help to think of it this way:

There are many ways in which we can make information available about
the project.  They differ in level of formality.

At the least level of formality is what we can all do as individuals,
speaking for ourselves.  These include posts to social networking
sites, personal blog posts, interviews with the press, speaking at
conferences, responding to misinformation in news articles, etc.   So
long as you don't claim to be speaking on behalf of Apache or Apache
OpenOffice, you are free to do these kinds of informal communications.

In the same way, other organizations in the ecosystem can speak for
themselves, as organizations.  So if the FreeBSD project wants to
issue a press release about their port of OpenOffice., that is fine.
They just need to make sure they use the Apache trademarks correctly
and don't claim to be speaking on behlaf of Apache of the Apache
OpenOffice project.  They speak on behalf of their own organization.

Same thing for users groups, local open source clubs, etc.  They are
free to get involved in local issues, push for OpenOffice adoption,
etc.  But they may not issue statements or releases on behalf of
Apache or Apache OpenOffice.

Going up the level of formality, we have an Apache OpenOffice website,
and blog and an announcements mailing list.  These can be used for
communications from the Apache OpenOffice project.  When something is
signed "on behalf of the Apache OpenOffice PMC", that means it has
been reviewed by our Project Management Committee and we approved its
release.

And at the higher level are formal statements in the form of press
releases.  As a podling we have some restrictions, including the
requirement 

Re: Pootle Anonymous Privilege

[Rob Weir]

An Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: imacat [mailto:ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw]
>>> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 4:11 AM
>>> To: Apache OpenOffice Developers
>>> Subject: Pootle Anonymous Privilege
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>    I revised the zh-TW translation on http://translate.apache.org/,
>>> updated/added 709 messages, and found that I have not logged in. ^^; Well,
>>> that's OK for me.  But it's a little scary that anyone can submit the
>> translation
>>> without logging in.  Shouldn't we limit the privilege of the anonymous
>> users?
>>
>> It is the expected and wanted behaviour , anyone without an account and not
>> logged
>> in are quite welcome to submit suggestions and translations.
>>
>> It is the logged in Apache Committers that can then review and apply those.
>>
>> Thanks for getting started!
>>
>> See
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+a
>> uth+levels
>> for more info on the privileges applied.
>
> That answers my questions, very cool.
>

It is a great step forward, and we're getting quite close.

> One more question. Is the name of anonymous individual given with the 
> suggestion? If so then the PPMC member accepting suggestions can learn 
> quickly who might merit committer status.
>

As far as I can tell, they are just not logged in.  It isn't like they
are logged in with a pseudonym.

Unless I'm missing something, this is not going to work as-is.  We
need some way for contributors to get recognition for their
contributions, and that depends on having accurate records.

I'd also question the IP side of this.  What is to prevent someone
today from anonymously entering  thousands of LGPLed strings from
LibreOffice?   We need at least a confirmed email address and a click
through agreement, similar to what we have on wiki, BZ, etc.


-Rob

> Thanks & Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Gav...
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> imacat ^_*' 
>>
>>
>

RE: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Gavin McDonald]

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Bauer [mailto:f...@akerbeltz.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 10:22 AM
> To: ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?
> 
> 02/03/2012 23:41, sgrìobh Gavin McDonald:
> > See
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+ser
> > vice+auth+levels for more info on the privileges applied.
> >
> > You need not be logged in to submit translation suggestions.
> > Therefore, no need to be a committer to do so either.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Gav...

> Gavin, the nature of the best is that for small languages, you usually have a
> team of one. If I add "Suggestions" then there is no-one who will accept
> them or, if I get the right priviledges, I have to accept them at a later 
> point
> myself. Or indeed, if someone suggests a junk translation, then how will a
> committer who is unfamiliar with the language going to know?
> 
> I'd have to be at least a Project Admin level (looking at your table (by the
> way, should that be "higher perms" instead of "giving higger perms"?). Not
> because I want to commit but apart from the above reason, because I'm not
> doing anything unless I can make backups (sorry, but I
> *almost* got burnt very badly when OOO went down) and because I need to
> be able to overwrite some of the old stuff (I was in the middle of a major
> review of a lot of junk that ended up in the Gaelic translation).
> 
> If that's not an option, then I have to seriously think about participation in
> AOO.

It is not up to me who the project grants committer status to, that has to be 
earned
and not given away like candy.

It is up to me that the pootle application is tied to LDAP and that our LDAP 
currently only
allows for committers. I can't see that changing any time soon.

So there is a path to what you desire to be able to help with, the project 
deciding on who and
when to make someone a committer is the only hurdle, not myself. I would hope 
they don't 
take too long noticing committer material.

HTH

Gav...

> 
> Michael

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Rob Weir]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Michael Bauer wrote:
>
>> 02/03/2012 23:41, sgrìobh Gavin McDonald:
>>> See 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels
>>> for more info on the privileges applied.
>>>
>>> You need not be logged in to submit translation suggestions.
>>> Therefore, no need to be a committer to do so either.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Gav...
>> Gavin, the nature of the best is that for small languages, you usually have 
>> a team of one. If I add "Suggestions" then there is no-one who will accept 
>> them or, if I get the right priviledges, I have to accept them at a later 
>> point myself. Or indeed, if someone suggests a junk translation, then how 
>> will a committer who is unfamiliar with the language going to know?
>>
>> I'd have to be at least a Project Admin level (looking at your table (by the 
>> way, should that be "higher perms" instead of "giving higger perms"?). Not 
>> because I want to commit but apart from the above reason, because I'm not 
>> doing anything unless I can make backups (sorry, but I *almost* got burnt 
>> very badly when OOO went down) and because I need to be able to overwrite 
>> some of the old stuff (I was in the middle of a major review of a lot of 
>> junk that ended up in the Gaelic translation).
>>
>> If that's not an option, then I have to seriously think about participation 
>> in AOO.
>
> Well I think that the PPMC needs to seriously think about how to handle very 
> small NL projects like Gaelic - Scottish. While yours is a specific case, it 
> does point out a general problem.
>
> How does AOO help smaller NL communities that do not already have committers 
> bootstrap productive translation of their language. How does the PPMC provide 
> proper oversight in considering someone's merit without work here at Apache? 
> This may be a case where we will need members of the PPMC to vouch for 
> someone's prior work. I don't want to abandon smaller languages. Perhaps we 
> need to have a test, perhaps help translating news for the website and/or 
> bootstrapping / restarting NL parts of the website. I would be willing to 
> help guide work on NL parts of www.openoffice.org.
>

So we have what, 100 languages or more?  And in each release we add or
change a few dozen or a hundred strings?

Suppose we did something along your lines, of having a way of
measuring contribution, vetting the quality of the work, etc.  Would
it make sense to more than double the number of committers and PPMC
members for this?  Does it really make sense to have 200 PPMC members,
more than half -- a deciding bloc in release and PMC Chair votes -- be
translators?

And do we really want to require 100+ ICLA's and deal with the
likelihood that not everyone will sign?

And then, once we've done al that, how can we as a PMC vote to approve
the release of a translation that only 0.5% of us can verify?

I wonder if we need another model entirely.  For example, do
translations as extensions and make it easier for translators to work
at their own pace and release when they want.  But the translations
would not be Apache releases.  They would be published via the
Extensions repository.

-Rob

> What do you think? What does the PPMC think? What does the community think?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>>
>> Michael
>

[TEST] r1293550 on Fedora Linux x86-64

[Carl Marcum]

I tested the full install of AOO 3.4 r1293550 (OOO340m1 build:9586) on 
existing OOo 3.3.0 (OOO330m20 build:9567) which was also manually 
installed (not system provided).


System is Fedora 16 x86-64 with Gnome 3.

Short version is:
Install of RPMS success, then desktop integration gave a few conflicts 
but also succeeded.

ex.
file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/openoffice.org3-text.desktop from 
install of openoffice.org3.4-redhat-menus-3.4-9586.noarch conflicts with 
file from package openoffice.org3.3-redhat-menus-3.3-9556.noarch

... etc.

Desktop integration links in /usr/share/applications were updated or 
replaced and do correctly launch 3,4 which is installed into basis3.4 
beside basis3.3 under /opt/openoffice.org/.


Longer version is:
Installed RPMS from en-US directory from download with:
sudo rpm -Uvh RPMS/*.rpm

and desktop-integration:
sudo rpm -Uvh 
RPMS/desktop-integration/openoffice.org3.4-redhat-menus-3.4-9586.noarch.rpm


Best regards,
Carl

Re: Pootle Anonymous Privilege

[imacat]

On 2012/03/03 07:40, Gavin McDonald said:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: imacat [mailto:ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw]
>> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012 4:11 AM
>> To: Apache OpenOffice Developers
>> Subject: Pootle Anonymous Privilege
>> I revised the zh-TW translation on http://translate.apache.org/,
>> updated/added 709 messages, and found that I have not logged in. ^^; Well,
>> that's OK for me.  But it's a little scary that anyone can submit the
> translation
>> without logging in.  Shouldn't we limit the privilege of the anonymous
> users?
> 
> It is the expected and wanted behaviour , anyone without an account and not
> logged 
> in are quite welcome to submit suggestions and translations.
> It is the logged in Apache Committers that can then review and apply those.

Thank you for the answer.  I think I failed to clear my question.
^^;  I mean, I "applied" all the translation without logging in.

As for my experience with Pootle, I believe there are at least two
types of privileges:  Reviewers can see the "submit" and the "suggest"
buttons, and the translators can see only the "suggest" button.
Apparently now anonymous user can see both buttons, and can apply the
translations directly.

So, if that is the wanted behavior, do you mean we should review and
apply "offline"?

-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: How can we get OpenOffice started with Pootle?

[Andrew Rist]

On 3/2/2012 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:


So we have what, 100 languages or more?  And in each release we add or
change a few dozen or a hundred strings?

Suppose we did something along your lines, of having a way of
measuring contribution, vetting the quality of the work, etc.  Would
it make sense to more than double the number of committers and PPMC
members for this?  Does it really make sense to have 200 PPMC members,
more than half -- a deciding bloc in release and PMC Chair votes -- be
translators?

And do we really want to require 100+ ICLA's and deal with the
likelihood that not everyone will sign?

hmmm...
Do we really want 100 committers, contributing to every release, who 
represent 100 different languages, from all over the globe, who in 
addition to translating UI and help could also be very useful in 
translating press releases and announcements into their native 
languages, and representing Apache OpenOffice in their particular community?


In a word...

yes




And then, once we've done al that, how can we as a PMC vote to approve
the release of a translation that only 0.5% of us can verify?
not everyone has to be on the PMC - that's a different issue from 
committership.

Re: press announcement for AOO 3.4

[Ross Gardler]

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Mar 2, 2012 11:28 PM, "Jörg Schmidt"  wrote:
>
>

...

> And I see a problem if it is for beginners so difficult to understand the
workings of
> Apache. Many of us who are not developers want to work for the success of
AOO,
> but do not always understand ways of working.

True, that's why there is an incubation process with mentors. Thanks for
asking the questions others will surely have. Rob has covered this well,
the most important things to understand are:

- if you or an organisation wishes to speak publicly about AOO you can do
so but you cannot claim to represent the project, only your engagement
within it.

- if you need the project to make an official statement of some kind the
best thing to do is to write a draft and send it here for review and
approval. For official press releases it also needs to be approved by press@

- don't worry about language, the ASF is very large, we can cope with many
languages and press@ will seek help if necessary

- for official press releases press@ will send it out on the wires for us,
for statements from the project the blog is available (although the blog is
English, the PPMC needs to think about what to do here)

Ross