date:20120815

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Yue Helen  wrote:
> Should "2012-05-16 Symphony code contributed" be counted? Thanks.
>

Yes, that is an important one.  I've added it now.

-Rob

> Helen
>
> 2012/8/13 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann 
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 13.08.2012 16:25, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> Remmeber this?
>>>
>>> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/**entry/an_apache_openoffice_**timeline
>>>
>>> That was in March.  A lot has happened since then.
>>>
>>> 2012-05-08: Released OpenOffice 3.4
>>> 2012:05-15: 1 million downloads
>>> 2012-06-20: 5 million downloads
>>> 2012-07-31: 10 million downloads
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are some other key milestones we can put here.  If you
>>> have one you would like listed, please post the date and a short label
>>> and I'll add it.
>>>
>>>
>> 2012-06-05 - 06-14: activation of update service for OOo 3.3 (*)
>> 2012-07-12: activation of update service for OOo 3.2 and OOo 3.2.1 (*)
>>
>>
>> * for platforms and languages for whose we have AOO 3.4 release
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>

Re: Two new stats graphs: ooo-dev subscribers and committers

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> Rob,
>   For the defect status, I created r searches and shared them:
>
>
>- All_Closed_Since
>- All_In_Resolved_Since
>- All_Reported_Since
>- All_Verified_Since
>
>
>   I will make out the csv files later.

Great.  My goal is to have the charts be based on CSV files that we
store in Subversion.  That way any of us can update the data with
simple check-in, even using the CMS interface.

-Rob


>   And I'm thinking of a wiki to consolidate those defect/quality status
> summary with weekly/monthly update, as you suggested before. Also will do
> it later this week.
>   Thanks!
>
> - Shenfeng
>
>
> 2012/8/15 Rob Weir 
>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/ooo-dev-subscribers.html
>> >>
>> >> and
>> >>
>> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/committers.html
>> >>
>> >> I'm getting the hang of this, so if there is any other data that is
>> >> easy to extract on a regular basis, I can make charts for these.
>> >>
>>
>> OK.  I fixed the typos that Andrea noted.
>>
>> >
>> > These are great! What can we do to make them more easy to find?
>> >
>>
>> Maybe we can turn the main ooo/stats/index.html page into a directory
>> of stats, each one on its own page?
>>
>> But then the stats project is not prominently linked either.  But
>> there are ways we can fix that as well. If we can get a few good stats
>> pages up it might even be worth having a blog post on them.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The technical requirement is that they need to be formed into a CSV
>> >> file with each row like this:
>> >>
>> >> iso-date, data-1, data-2,data-n
>> >>
>> >> For example see this data file:
>> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/aoo34-downloads.txt
>> >>
>> >> If there are multiple data points for each date, they can be displayed
>> >> on the same or separate charts.
>> >>
>> >> Any suggestions?
>> >>
>> >> Bug find/fix rates?
>> >>
>> >
>> > This one would definitely be good to graph...but I'm not sure how to
>> > approach it.
>> > I just did a search on "bug fix rates" and well...an interesting cast of
>> > ideas
>> >
>>
>> If we can get a report of new bugs by creation date, and closed bugs
>> by fix date, then we can get the data series we need.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Forum posts/subscribers?
>> >>
>> >> Commits?
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> 
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
>> >
>> --
>> > Niels Bohr
>>

Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

Hi,

Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing INFRA-5112 
caused trouble.

The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to www.openoffice.org 
was reverted.

This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.

Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must have 
some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.

Regards,
Dave

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

2012-08-15 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

Hi,

please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.

On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
> in OpenOffice.
> 
> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
> final release based on this snapshot build.
> 
> 
> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
> further languages:
> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
> 
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
> 
> 
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
> following wiki page:
> 
> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
> 
> 
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
> 
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
> 
>Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
> 
> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
> 
>[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>[ ]  0 Don't care
>[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

Re: Two new stats graphs: ooo-dev subscribers and committers

2012-08-15 Thread Shenfeng Liu

Rob,
  It is a great idea to put the CSV files to Subversion!
  Attached is the file I created for issue created and fixed, taking
2011-06-01 as starting point, and counting all the issue types in.
  Please check if you have any comments or suggestion.
  Thanks!

- Shenfeng


2012/8/15 Rob Weir 

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> > Rob,
> >   For the defect status, I created r searches and shared them:
> >
> >
> >- All_Closed_Since
> >- All_In_Resolved_Since
> >- All_Reported_Since
> >- All_Verified_Since
> >
> >
> >   I will make out the csv files later.
>
> Great.  My goal is to have the charts be based on CSV files that we
> store in Subversion.  That way any of us can update the data with
> simple check-in, even using the CMS interface.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> >   And I'm thinking of a wiki to consolidate those defect/quality status
> > summary with weekly/monthly update, as you suggested before. Also will do
> > it later this week.
> >   Thanks!
> >
> > - Shenfeng
> >
> >
> > 2012/8/15 Rob Weir 
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Kay Schenk 
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Rob Weir 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/ooo-dev-subscribers.html
> >> >>
> >> >> and
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/committers.html
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm getting the hang of this, so if there is any other data that is
> >> >> easy to extract on a regular basis, I can make charts for these.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> OK.  I fixed the typos that Andrea noted.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > These are great! What can we do to make them more easy to find?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe we can turn the main ooo/stats/index.html page into a directory
> >> of stats, each one on its own page?
> >>
> >> But then the stats project is not prominently linked either.  But
> >> there are ways we can fix that as well. If we can get a few good stats
> >> pages up it might even be worth having a blog post on them.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The technical requirement is that they need to be formed into a CSV
> >> >> file with each row like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> iso-date, data-1, data-2,data-n
> >> >>
> >> >> For example see this data file:
> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/aoo34-downloads.txt
> >> >>
> >> >> If there are multiple data points for each date, they can be
> displayed
> >> >> on the same or separate charts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any suggestions?
> >> >>
> >> >> Bug find/fix rates?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This one would definitely be good to graph...but I'm not sure how to
> >> > approach it.
> >> > I just did a search on "bug fix rates" and well...an interesting cast
> of
> >> > ideas
> >> >
> >>
> >> If we can get a report of new bugs by creation date, and closed bugs
> >> by fix date, then we can get the data series we need.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Forum posts/subscribers?
> >> >>
> >> >> Commits?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> -Rob
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >>
> 
> >> > MzK
> >> >
> >> > "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
> >> >
> >> --
> >> > Niels Bohr
> >>
>
date,reported,fixed
2011-06-01,0,0
2011-07-01,119,271
2011-08-01,255,288
2011-09-01,326,298
2011-10-01,359,322
2011-11-01,448,373
2011-12-01,547,442
2012-01-01,599,472
2012-02-01,745,540
2012-03-01,888,633
2012-04-01,1050,714
2012-05-01,1185,767
2012-06-01,1564,857
2012-07-01,2013,1065
2012-08-01,2316,1208

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

2012/8/15 Dave Fisher :
>
> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
>>> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
 Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
 the old url
 http://user.services.openoffice.org/
 I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
 log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
>>
>> I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
>> managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
>> originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to 
>> know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely 
>> rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to 
>> forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .
>>
>>> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
>>> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
>>> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
>>> more!
>>
>> If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
>> forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
>> user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use an 
>> "external" redirect as explained above.
>
> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
> directed to the same IP by DNS.
>
> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to the 
> same IP by DNS.
>
> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front 
> and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
>
> Should we do something similar for the user forums?

The internal cross references to existing posts on the forums are in
the order of thousands,(1) so yes, we need some kind of redirection
redirection.

(1) It's a common practice to point to solved threads when the
question was already answered (which is also a really common
situation). If you add to this all the times we say (with links)
"please, read the survival guide", "see here to know how to attach a
file / mark a thread as solved / report an issue"... you get the
picture. PhpBB do not offer by default a way to use relative links: it
can be introduced, of course, but that will not solve the already
existing bulk of absolute links.

Regards
Ricardo

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

2012-08-15 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

On 15.08.2012 16:00, Dave Fisher wrote:

Hi,

Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing
INFRA-5112 caused trouble.

The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to www.openoffice.org
was reverted.

This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.

Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must have
some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.



When I saw the problems on www.openoffice.org in the morning I already suggested 
that this might be related to the established redirects. I reported my 
assumption at #asfinfra in the morning.
If I remembering it correct, Kay S. and Joe S. already observed something like 
this earlier this year.


Unfortunately, I can not provide any volume.
In the past more than 100 million download of OpenOffice.org package had been 
counted by the OpenOffice.org community. I do not know how much OOo installation 
are really active and how the distribution between the different versions are.


What I know is the following:
(1) update38.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.4 Beta and released AOO 
3.4 - a redirect for it has been established at 2012-05-21 and the traffic can 
be handled.
(2) update36.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.3 - a redirect for it has 
been established at 2012-06-04 and the traffic can be handled.
(3) update35|34.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.2.1 and OOo 3.2 - 
redirects for then have been established at 2012-07-12 and the traffic can be 
handled.
(4) update33.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_ 
necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
(5) update32.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.1.1 and OOo 3.1 - a 
redirect has been requested and was established today. Due to the server load it 
has been reverted. Is the traffic data available?
(6) update31.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_ 
necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
(7) update30.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.0.1 and OOo 3.0. Does 
occur any traffic on this URL?
(8) update.services.openoffice.org seems to be used by OOo 2.x version (at least 
my test installation of OOo 2.2 uses it). Is the traffic data available? When I 
remember it correct Kay S. and Joe S. observed the above mentioned problems 
earlier this year with this URL.


Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can provide a view 
on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the servers got in trouble?


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Linux install instructions

2012/8/15 lou ql :
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Andre Fischer  wrote:
>>
>> > On 14.08.2012 15:05, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just noticed this new article.  It seems to have a complete
>> >> description, including uninstalling LO and blocking future updates:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.tecmint.com/**install-apache-openoffice-3-4-**
>> >> 0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-**fedora-17-16/<
>> http://www.tecmint.com/install-apache-openoffice-3-4-0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-fedora-17-16/
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone see any technical errors?  If not we might want to link to
>> it.
>> >>
>> >
>>  well, not all Linux distros use "yum"...this is a RedHat gui for package
>> management. So, as general instructions, h...
>>
>> The current install guide --
>>
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html#linux
>>
>
> This one is applicable for most linux platforms, but it's not so easy as
> the above one to be followed by a non-experienced linux user.
>


You also have this guide on the forums:

http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=50119

Regards
Ricardo

Re: Linux install instructions

2012-08-15 Thread Risto Jääskeläinen

Hello!
First thing first: it is quite well that there are some guides for installation 
Apache OpenOffice to different linux distros.
But as command line is ancient way of communicate with computer and only few PC 
users today like it, second thing is to have prober normal way of install and 
uninstall AOO in linux too. Is there any other way than have it in repository 
and use Synaptic or other such tools?  And there are not allowed any  
incompatibility with other programs like LibreOffice.

It may be my angularity with command line etc. but I notice difficulties when I 
try to keep LibreOffice and AOO in same Linux Mint 13.

Greedings
Risto

RGB ES [rgb.m...@gmail.com] kirjoitti: 

2012/8/15 lou ql :
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Andre Fischer  wrote:
>>
>> > On 14.08.2012 15:05, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just noticed this new article.  It seems to have a complete
>> >> description, including uninstalling LO and blocking future updates:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.tecmint.com/**install-apache-openoffice-3-4-**
>> >> 0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-**fedora-17-16/<
>> 
http://www.tecmint.com/install-apache-openoffice-3-4-0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-fedora-17-16/
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone see any technical errors?  If not we might want to link to
>> it.
>> >>
>> >
>>  well, not all Linux distros use "yum"...this is a RedHat gui for package
>> management. So, as general instructions, h...
>>
>> The current install guide --
>>
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html#linux
>>
>
> This one is applicable for most linux platforms, but it's not so easy as
> the above one to be followed by a non-experienced linux user.
>

You also have this guide on the forums:

http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=50119

Regards
Ricardo

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing 
> INFRA-5112 caused trouble.
>
> The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to www.openoffice.org 
> was reverted.
>
> This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.
>

Can you be specific?  Are they seeing unusual load from the change?
or are they just not willing to make the change unless we first
provide them an estimate?

If you recall, we made this change for OOo 3.3.0, OOo 3.2.1 and OOo
3.2.0 already, and we never provided any estimates.  I don't think we
received any complaints about those.   Have you heard any load
concerns?

In any case, the general trend we see for the upgrades that are
enabled is around 40,000/day.But there was a peak of around
60,000/day for a couple of weeks when they were first enabled.That
is the number who have actually updated.  We don't know what % of
users dismiss the update notification but don't disable it, and so
receive such a notification every week.  I assume this is small.

Also, generally, we have diminishing numbers as we go back to older
versions.  For example, we've seen around 8K/day for US/Windows/3.3.0
upgrades, but only around 1K/day for OOo 3.2.1 upgrades, and around
500/day for OOo 3.2.0 upgrades.  So this would suggest that enabling
the older versions will pick up a few, but I wouldn't expect huge
numbers.

> Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must have 
> some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.
>

Hopefully the above helps.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 15.08.2012 16:00, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing
>> INFRA-5112 caused trouble.
>>
>> The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to
>> www.openoffice.org
>> was reverted.
>>
>> This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.
>>
>> Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must
>> have
>> some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.
>>
>
> When I saw the problems on www.openoffice.org in the morning I already
> suggested that this might be related to the established redirects. I
> reported my assumption at #asfinfra in the morning.
> If I remembering it correct, Kay S. and Joe S. already observed something
> like this earlier this year.
>
> Unfortunately, I can not provide any volume.
> In the past more than 100 million download of OpenOffice.org package had
> been counted by the OpenOffice.org community. I do not know how much OOo
> installation are really active and how the distribution between the
> different versions are.
>
> What I know is the following:
> (1) update38.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.4 Beta and released
> AOO 3.4 - a redirect for it has been established at 2012-05-21 and the
> traffic can be handled.
> (2) update36.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.3 - a redirect for it
> has been established at 2012-06-04 and the traffic can be handled.
> (3) update35|34.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.2.1 and OOo 3.2 -
> redirects for then have been established at 2012-07-12 and the traffic can
> be handled.
> (4) update33.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_
> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
> (5) update32.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.1.1 and OOo 3.1 - a
> redirect has been requested and was established today. Due to the server
> load it has been reverted. Is the traffic data available?
> (6) update31.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_
> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
> (7) update30.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.0.1 and OOo 3.0. Does
> occur any traffic on this URL?
> (8) update.services.openoffice.org seems to be used by OOo 2.x version (at
> least my test installation of OOo 2.2 uses it). Is the traffic data
> available? When I remember it correct Kay S. and Joe S. observed the above
> mentioned problems earlier this year with this URL.
>
> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can provide a
> view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the servers got in
> trouble?
>

That would be good to know.  Once we know we could verify behavior
with a change to a local hosts file.  One scenario that could
conceivably cause a problem would be if some old version of OOo
behaved badly when it gets a 404 error, such as getting into a retry
loop.   We know this did not happen for OOo 3.3.0, 3.2.1 or 3.2.0.
But it is worth confirming with earlier versions, if the HTTP logs
suggest this is happening.

-Rob

> Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Two new stats graphs: ooo-dev subscribers and committers

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
> Rob,
>   It is a great idea to put the CSV files to Subversion!
>   Attached is the file I created for issue created and fixed, taking
> 2011-06-01 as starting point, and counting all the issue types in.
>   Please check if you have any comments or suggestion.
>

Here it is:  http://www.openoffice.org/stats/defects.html

If you have a better description you can edit the HTML to add it.


-Rob


>   Thanks!
>
> - Shenfeng
>
>
> 2012/8/15 Rob Weir 
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Shenfeng Liu  wrote:
>> > Rob,
>> >   For the defect status, I created r searches and shared them:
>> >
>> >
>> >- All_Closed_Since
>> >- All_In_Resolved_Since
>> >- All_Reported_Since
>> >- All_Verified_Since
>> >
>> >
>> >   I will make out the csv files later.
>>
>> Great.  My goal is to have the charts be based on CSV files that we
>> store in Subversion.  That way any of us can update the data with
>> simple check-in, even using the CMS interface.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> >   And I'm thinking of a wiki to consolidate those defect/quality status
>> > summary with weekly/monthly update, as you suggested before. Also will
>> > do
>> > it later this week.
>> >   Thanks!
>> >
>> > - Shenfeng
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/8/15 Rob Weir 
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Kay Schenk 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Rob Weir 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/ooo-dev-subscribers.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/committers.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm getting the hang of this, so if there is any other data that is
>> >> >> easy to extract on a regular basis, I can make charts for these.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> OK.  I fixed the typos that Andrea noted.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > These are great! What can we do to make them more easy to find?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can turn the main ooo/stats/index.html page into a directory
>> >> of stats, each one on its own page?
>> >>
>> >> But then the stats project is not prominently linked either.  But
>> >> there are ways we can fix that as well. If we can get a few good stats
>> >> pages up it might even be worth having a blog post on them.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The technical requirement is that they need to be formed into a CSV
>> >> >> file with each row like this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> iso-date, data-1, data-2,data-n
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For example see this data file:
>> >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/aoo34-downloads.txt
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If there are multiple data points for each date, they can be
>> >> >> displayed
>> >> >> on the same or separate charts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any suggestions?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bug find/fix rates?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > This one would definitely be good to graph...but I'm not sure how to
>> >> > approach it.
>> >> > I just did a search on "bug fix rates" and well...an interesting cast
>> >> > of
>> >> > ideas
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If we can get a report of new bugs by creation date, and closed bugs
>> >> by fix date, then we can get the data series we need.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Forum posts/subscribers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Commits?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Rob
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> > MzK
>> >> >
>> >> > "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
>> >> >
>> >> --
>> >> > Niels Bohr
>> >>
>
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?


On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> On 15.08.2012 16:00, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing
>>> INFRA-5112 caused trouble.
>>> 
>>> The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to
>>> www.openoffice.org
>>> was reverted.
>>> 
>>> This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.
>>> 
>>> Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must
>>> have
>>> some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.
>>> 
>> 
>> When I saw the problems on www.openoffice.org in the morning I already
>> suggested that this might be related to the established redirects. I
>> reported my assumption at #asfinfra in the morning.
>> If I remembering it correct, Kay S. and Joe S. already observed something
>> like this earlier this year.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I can not provide any volume.
>> In the past more than 100 million download of OpenOffice.org package had
>> been counted by the OpenOffice.org community. I do not know how much OOo
>> installation are really active and how the distribution between the
>> different versions are.
>> 
>> What I know is the following:
>> (1) update38.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.4 Beta and released
>> AOO 3.4 - a redirect for it has been established at 2012-05-21 and the
>> traffic can be handled.
>> (2) update36.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.3 - a redirect for it
>> has been established at 2012-06-04 and the traffic can be handled.
>> (3) update35|34.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.2.1 and OOo 3.2 -
>> redirects for then have been established at 2012-07-12 and the traffic can
>> be handled.
>> (4) update33.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_
>> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
>> (5) update32.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.1.1 and OOo 3.1 - a
>> redirect has been requested and was established today. Due to the server
>> load it has been reverted. Is the traffic data available?
>> (6) update31.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is _not_
>> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
>> (7) update30.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.0.1 and OOo 3.0. Does
>> occur any traffic on this URL?
>> (8) update.services.openoffice.org seems to be used by OOo 2.x version (at
>> least my test installation of OOo 2.2 uses it). Is the traffic data
>> available? When I remember it correct Kay S. and Joe S. observed the above
>> mentioned problems earlier this year with this URL.
>> 
>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can provide a
>> view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the servers got in
>> trouble?
>> 
> 
> That would be good to know.  Once we know we could verify behavior
> with a change to a local hosts file.  One scenario that could
> conceivably cause a problem would be if some old version of OOo
> behaved badly when it gets a 404 error, such as getting into a retry
> loop.   We know this did not happen for OOo 3.3.0, 3.2.1 or 3.2.0.
> But it is worth confirming with earlier versions, if the HTTP logs
> suggest this is happening.

We'll have access to full logs tonight / tomorrow.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

2012-08-15 Thread drew jensen

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
> > On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
> >> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
> >>> Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
> >>> the old url
> >>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> >>> I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
> >>> log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
> > 
> > I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
> > managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
> > originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to 
> > know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely 
> > rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to 
> > forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .
> > 
> >> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
> >> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
> >> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
> >> more!
> > 
> > If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
> > forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
> > user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use an 
> > "external" redirect as explained above.
> 
> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
> directed to the same IP by DNS.
> 
> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to the 
> same IP by DNS.
> 
> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front 
> and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
> 
> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> >  Andrea.
> 

Hi,

Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
same for all, list the base URL of the site as
user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.

Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?

Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
problem though.

However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
domain name is - now that might be worth a test..

@imacat - what do you think?

Thanks,

//drew

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services


On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:37 AM, drew jensen wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
> Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
> the old url
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
> log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
>>> 
>>> I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
>>> managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
>>> originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to 
>>> know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely 
>>> rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to 
>>> forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .
>>> 
 Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
 address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
 post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
 more!
>>> 
>>> If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
>>> forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
>>> user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use an 
>>> "external" redirect as explained above.
>> 
>> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
>> directed to the same IP by DNS.
>> 
>> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to 
>> the same IP by DNS.
>> 
>> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front 
>> and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
>> 
>> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
> same for all, list the base URL of the site as
> user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.
> 
> Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?
> 
> Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
> problem though.

It would be proper in combination with a virtual host entry in the ooo-fourms' 
apache2.conf file for wiki.services.openoffice.org and then to redirect all of 
that traffic to wiki.openoffice.org permanently.

> 
> However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
> determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
> domain name is - now that might be worth a test..

> @imacat - what do you think?

Yes, what do you think?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> //drew
> 
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15.08.2012 16:00, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Apologies to the Apache Infra team, the load caused by implementing
> >>> INFRA-5112 caused trouble.
> >>>
> >>> The changes to update*.services.openoffice.org to point to
> >>> www.openoffice.org
> >>> was reverted.
> >>>
> >>> This was due to added load on the Apache Infrastructure.
> >>>
> >>> Before we can proceed with INFRA-5112 and INFRA-5144 we absolutely must
> >>> have
> >>> some estimates about the volume of requests that will be received.
> >>>
> >>
> >> When I saw the problems on www.openoffice.org in the morning I already
> >> suggested that this might be related to the established redirects. I
> >> reported my assumption at #asfinfra in the morning.
> >> If I remembering it correct, Kay S. and Joe S. already observed
> something
> >> like this earlier this year.
> >>
>

Well as we kept going backward from 3.3 on down, I was wondering if we
might run into problems again...

The problem with the 3.0 update was that the "call" was a POST, which is
disallowed on Apache, and yes, brought the Apache web server (all of it,
not just the OO site) to its knees, instead of a GET for the update XML.

So, based on this notice, it seems 3.1 might use a POST also? If so,
there's nothing we can do vis a vis enacting this update for end users.


>> Unfortunately, I can not provide any volume.
> >> In the past more than 100 million download of OpenOffice.org package had
> >> been counted by the OpenOffice.org community. I do not know how much OOo
> >> installation are really active and how the distribution between the
> >> different versions are.
> >>
> >> What I know is the following:
> >> (1) update38.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.4 Beta and
> released
> >> AOO 3.4 - a redirect for it has been established at 2012-05-21 and the
> >> traffic can be handled.
> >> (2) update36.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.3 - a redirect
> for it
> >> has been established at 2012-06-04 and the traffic can be handled.
> >> (3) update35|34.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.2.1 and OOo
> 3.2 -
> >> redirects for then have been established at 2012-07-12 and the traffic
> can
> >> be handled.
> >> (4) update33.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is
> _not_
> >> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
> >> (5) update32.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.1.1 and OOo 3.1
> - a
> >> redirect has been requested and was established today. Due to the server
> >> load it has been reverted. Is the traffic data available?
> >> (6) update31.services.openoffice.org is _not_ used - a redirect is
> _not_
> >> necessary. Does occur any traffic on this URL?
> >> (7) update30.services.openoffice.org is used by OOo 3.0.1 and OOo 3.0.
> Does
> >> occur any traffic on this URL?
> >> (8) update.services.openoffice.org seems to be used by OOo 2.x version
> (at
> >> least my test installation of OOo 2.2 uses it). Is the traffic data
> >> available? When I remember it correct Kay S. and Joe S. observed the
> above
> >> mentioned problems earlier this year with this URL.
> >>
> >> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can provide
> a
> >> view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the servers got in
> >> trouble?
> >>
> >
> > That would be good to know.  Once we know we could verify behavior
> > with a change to a local hosts file.  One scenario that could
> > conceivably cause a problem would be if some old version of OOo
> > behaved badly when it gets a 404 error, such as getting into a retry
> > loop.   We know this did not happen for OOo 3.3.0, 3.2.1 or 3.2.0.
> > But it is worth confirming with earlier versions, if the HTTP logs
> > suggest this is happening.
>
> We'll have access to full logs tonight / tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Best regards, Oliver.
>
>


-- 

MzK

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
--
Niels Bohr

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services


On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> 
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:37 AM, drew jensen wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> 
 On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
>> Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
>> the old url
>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
>> I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
>> log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
 
 I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
 managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
 originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to 
 know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely 
 rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to 
 forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .
 
> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
> more!
 
 If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
 forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
 user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use 
 an "external" redirect as explained above.
>>> 
>>> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
>>> directed to the same IP by DNS.
>>> 
>>> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to 
>>> the same IP by DNS.
>>> 
>>> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in 
>>> front and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
>>> 
>>> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
 
 Regards,
 Andrea.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
>> same for all, list the base URL of the site as
>> user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.
>> 
>> Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?
>> 
>> Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
>> problem though.
> 
> It would be proper in combination with a virtual host entry in the 
> ooo-fourms' apache2.conf file for wiki.services.openoffice.org and then to 
> redirect all of that traffic to wiki.openoffice.org permanently.

   # change wiki.services.openoffice.org/... to wiki.openoffice.org/...
   RewriteCond ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}} ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org$
   RewriteRule ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org/(.*) 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/$1 [NE,L,R=permanent]



> 
>> 
>> However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
>> determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
>> domain name is - now that might be worth a test..
> 
>> @imacat - what do you think?
> 
> Yes, what do you think?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> //drew
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

2012/8/15 drew jensen :
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>> > On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
>> >> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
>> >>> Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
>> >>> the old url
>> >>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
>> >>> I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
>> >>> log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
>> >
>> > I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
>> > managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
>> > originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to 
>> > know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely 
>> > rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to 
>> > forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .
>> >
>> >> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
>> >> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
>> >> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
>> >> more!
>> >
>> > If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
>> > forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
>> > user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use 
>> > an "external" redirect as explained above.
>>
>> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
>> directed to the same IP by DNS.
>>
>> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to 
>> the same IP by DNS.
>>
>> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front 
>> and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
>>
>> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >  Andrea.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
> same for all, list the base URL of the site as
> user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.
>
> Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?
>
> Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
> problem though.
>
> However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
> determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
> domain name is - now that might be worth a test..
>
> @imacat - what do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> //drew
>
>

I'm not an expert, but the problem is that the [url=...]...[/url] tags
only accept absolute paths. It is possible to define relative tags(1),
I just did it for the ES forums and they work perfectly, but that will
not help with the existing situation, only a proper redirect will
help.

(1) http://ittidbit.blogspot.it/2011/09/phpbb-relative-url-howto-bbcode.html

Regards
Ricardo

Re: Linux install instructions

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Risto Jääskeläinen
wrote:

> Hello!
> First thing first: it is quite well that there are some guides for
> installation Apache OpenOffice to different linux distros.
> But as command line is ancient way of communicate with computer and only
> few PC users today like it, second thing is to have prober normal way of
> install and uninstall AOO in linux too. Is there any other way than have it
> in repository and use Synaptic or other such tools?  And there are not
> allowed any  incompatibility with other programs like LibreOffice.
>

I understand! And yet, command line rarely fails me. :)

We probably could write some installation instructions for the more popular
distros that would show users how to install from the deb or rpm packs
USING whatever their GUI package manager is. I've done that as well instead
of command line. It would take some time to research this.



>
> It may be my angularity with command line etc. but I notice difficulties
> when I try to keep LibreOffice and AOO in same Linux Mint 13.
>

Well it IS a hassle to try to do this I would imagine.

I guess what we need to discuss/decide is do we really want to tell people
to uninstall LO before installing AOO?  It would be nice if someone could
investigate and report findings on what their experience is with
maintaining both etc. to include in the installation instructions.


> Greedings
> Risto
>
>
> RGB ES [rgb.m...@gmail.com] kirjoitti:
>
>> 2012/8/15 lou ql :
>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Kay Schenk 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Andre Fischer 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 14.08.2012 15:05, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I just noticed this new article.  It seems to have a complete
>> >> >> description, including uninstalling LO and blocking future updates:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.tecmint.com/install-apache-openoffice-3-4-
>> >> >> 0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-fedora-17-16/<
>> >> http://www.tecmint.com/**install-apache-openoffice-3-4-**
>> 0-on-rhel-centos-6-3-5-8-and-**fedora-17-16/
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does anyone see any technical errors?  If not we might want to link
>> to
>> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>  well, not all Linux distros use "yum"...this is a RedHat gui for
>> package
>> >> management. So, as general instructions, h...
>> >>
>> >> The current install guide --
>> >>
>> >>  
>> >> http://www.openoffice.org/**download/common/instructions.**html#linux
>> >>
>> >
>> > This one is applicable for most linux platforms, but it's not so easy as
>> > the above one to be followed by a non-experienced linux user.
>> >
>>
>>
>> You also have this guide on the forums:
>>
>> http://forum.openoffice.org/**en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=**50119
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

MzK

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
--
Niels Bohr

Re: Linux install instructions

2012/8/15 Kay Schenk :
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Risto Jääskeläinen
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>> First thing first: it is quite well that there are some guides for
>> installation Apache OpenOffice to different linux distros.
>> But as command line is ancient way of communicate with computer and only
>> few PC users today like it, second thing is to have prober normal way of
>> install and uninstall AOO in linux too. Is there any other way than have it
>> in repository and use Synaptic or other such tools?  And there are not
>> allowed any  incompatibility with other programs like LibreOffice.
>>
>
> I understand! And yet, command line rarely fails me. :)
>
> We probably could write some installation instructions for the more popular
> distros that would show users how to install from the deb or rpm packs
> USING whatever their GUI package manager is. I've done that as well instead
> of command line. It would take some time to research this.
>
>
>
>>
>> It may be my angularity with command line etc. but I notice difficulties
>> when I try to keep LibreOffice and AOO in same Linux Mint 13.
>>
>
> Well it IS a hassle to try to do this I would imagine.
>
> I guess what we need to discuss/decide is do we really want to tell people
> to uninstall LO before installing AOO?  It would be nice if someone could
> investigate and report findings on what their experience is with
> maintaining both etc. to include in the installation instructions.

The problem is distro specific: on openSUSE you can have the distro
LibO + AOO + official LibO together without problems, but on ubuntu
and its derivatives, fedora and possibly others you'll have problems
with the distro's LibO. The message should be:

In general, AOO can be installed side by side with LibreOffice (both
suites use different directories). But for some Linux distributions it
is not that easy: when they switched from (the heavily modified
version of) OOo to the (also modified version of) LibO they packaged
their versions of LibO in a way that cause conflicts with OOo or AOO.
Notice that these problems are completely artificial and came from
some decisions made during packaging: on other distros like openSUSE,
this does not happen.

Regards
Ricardo

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>> servers got in trouble?
>>
>
> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>

For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?

-Rob

>> Best regards, Oliver.

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

2012-08-15 Thread drew

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:59 +0200, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/8/15 drew jensen :
> > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
> >> >> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
> >> >>> Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
> >> >>> the old url
> >> >>> http://user.services.openoffice.org/
> >> >>> I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
> >> >>> log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
> >> >
> >> > I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
> >> > managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
> >> > originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way 
> >> > to know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we 
> >> > completely rewrite all URLs in the form 
> >> > user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING 
> >> > .
> >> >
> >> >> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
> >> >> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
> >> >> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
> >> >> more!
> >> >
> >> > If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
> >> > forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
> >> > user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use 
> >> > an "external" redirect as explained above.
> >>
> >> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
> >> directed to the same IP by DNS.
> >>
> >> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to 
> >> the same IP by DNS.
> >>
> >> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in 
> >> front and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
> >>
> >> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >  Andrea.
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
> > same for all, list the base URL of the site as
> > user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.
> >
> > Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?
> >
> > Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
> > problem though.
> >
> > However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
> > determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
> > domain name is - now that might be worth a test..
> >
> > @imacat - what do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > //drew
> >
> >
> 
> I'm not an expert, but the problem is that the [url=...]...[/url] tags
> only accept absolute paths. It is possible to define relative tags(1),
> I just did it for the ES forums and they work perfectly, but that will
> not help with the existing situation, only a proper redirect will
> help.
> 
> (1) http://ittidbit.blogspot.it/2011/09/phpbb-relative-url-howto-bbcode.html
> 
> Regards
> Ricardo
> 

Howdy Ricardo,

OK - well I was thinking about the problem you where having staying
logged in (cookie problem likely) in my last post.

For the existing links in posts.. well, it is just a string in a
database record - one UPDATE script transforming user.service.o.o to
forums.o.o should do the trick, shouldn't it.

//drew

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

2012-08-15 Thread Daniel Shahaf

Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf  
> wrote:
> > Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
> >> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
> >> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
> >> servers got in trouble?
> >>
> >
> > POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
> >
> 
> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?

The access log doesn't say, and the error log has 

% fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e 
's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c

EU:
232046 update30
35548 update34
76543 update35


US:
198996 update30
33450 update34
71117 update35
   0 update36

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?


On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf  
>> wrote:
>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
 Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
 provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
 servers got in trouble?
 
>>> 
>>> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>>> 
>> 
>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
> 
> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has 
> 
> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e 
> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
> 
> EU:
> 232046 update30
> 35548 update34
> 76543 update35
> 
> 
> US:
> 198996 update30
> 33450 update34
> 71117 update35
>   0 update36

We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same way 
because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32

./update/aoo341/check.Update
./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update

It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.

Regards,
Dave

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
>> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf  
>>> wrote:
 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
> servers got in trouble?
>

 POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file

>>>
>>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
>>
>> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
>>
>> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e 
>> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
>>
>> EU:
>> 232046 update30
>> 35548 update34
>> 76543 update35
>>
>>
>> US:
>> 198996 update30
>> 33450 update34
>> 71117 update35
>>   0 update36
>
> We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same way 
> because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>
> ./update/aoo341/check.Update
> ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>
> It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>

But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.

I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
the errors in update30?

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave

[DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?

Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this 
doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?

Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
what is current.

I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that 
I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.

Thanks & Regards,
Dave


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
> 
> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>> in OpenOffice.
>> 
>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>> 
>> 
>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
>> further languages:
>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>> 
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>> 
>> 
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
>> following wiki page:
>> 
>> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>> 
>> 
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>> 
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>> 
>>   Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
>> 
>> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
>> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>> members.
>> 
>>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> 
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf 
> wrote:
>  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
> > Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
> > provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
> > servers got in trouble?
> >
> 
>  POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
> 
> >>>
> >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
> >>
> >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
> >>
> >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
> >>
> >> EU:
> >> 232046 update30
> >> 35548 update34
> >> 76543 update35
> >>
> >>
> >> US:
> >> 198996 update30
> >> 33450 update34
> >> 71117 update35
> >>   0 update36
> >
> > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>

uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
this in the first post here.

And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?

I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?

I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
problems, were they?

The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know what
it's doing.

When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?

>
> > ./update/aoo341/check.Update
> > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >
> > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
> >
>
> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
>
> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
> the errors in update30?
>

Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.

There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used, and
is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages of
testing.

Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I mean
the whole directory.

> -Rob
>
> > Regards,
> > Dave
>

-- 

MzK

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
--
Niels Bohr

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at 
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
> 
> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this 
> doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
> 
> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
> what is current.
> 
> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
> that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.

I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.

Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions

BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.

(I really don't want to -1 this release.)

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
>> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
>> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>> 
>> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>>> in OpenOffice.
>>> 
>>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
>>> further languages:
>>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
>>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
>>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
>>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>>> 
>>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
>>> following wiki page:
>>> 
>>> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>>> (incubating).
>>> 
>>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>> 
>>>  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
>>> 
>>> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
>>> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
>>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
>>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
>>> members.
>>> 
>>>  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>>>  [ ]  0 Don't care
>>>  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?


On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> 
 Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf 
>> wrote:
>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
>>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>>> servers got in trouble?
>>> 
>> 
>> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>> 
> 
> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
 
 The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
 
 % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
>> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
 
 EU:
 232046 update30
 35548 update34
 76543 update35
 
 
 US:
 198996 update30
 33450 update34
 71117 update35
  0 update36
>>> 
>>> We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
>> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>> 
> 
> uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
> this in the first post here.
> 
> And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?

The zone file is now:

; update.services   CNAME www.openoffice.org.




; WARNING WARNING WARNING
; Changing the above entries to point to eos can overload it.  Do not enable
; them unless either eos is prepared for the load or the TTL is suitably
; lowered
update.services   CNAME sd-web4.staroffice.de.
update23.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
update24.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
update30.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
update31.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
update32.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
update33.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.




update34.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
update35.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
update36.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
update38.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.


> 
> I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?

Only yesterday's changes to DNS were reverted.

> 
> I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
> problems, were they?
> 
> The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know what
> it's doing.
> 
> When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
> fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> ./update/aoo341/check.Update
>>> ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>>> ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>>> 
>>> It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>>> 
>> 
>> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
>> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
>> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
>> 
>> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
>> the errors in update30?
>> 
> 
> Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
> do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
> 
> There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used, and
> is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
> won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages of
> testing.
> 
> Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I mean
> the whole directory.
> 
> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> MzK
> 
> "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
>--
> Niels Bohr

Re: Linux install instructions

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM, RGB ES  wrote:

> 2012/8/15 Kay Schenk :
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Risto Jääskeläinen
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello!
> >> First thing first: it is quite well that there are some guides for
> >> installation Apache OpenOffice to different linux distros.
> >> But as command line is ancient way of communicate with computer and only
> >> few PC users today like it, second thing is to have prober normal way of
> >> install and uninstall AOO in linux too. Is there any other way than
> have it
> >> in repository and use Synaptic or other such tools?  And there are not
> >> allowed any  incompatibility with other programs like LibreOffice.
> >>
> >
> > I understand! And yet, command line rarely fails me. :)
> >
> > We probably could write some installation instructions for the more
> popular
> > distros that would show users how to install from the deb or rpm packs
> > USING whatever their GUI package manager is. I've done that as well
> instead
> > of command line. It would take some time to research this.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It may be my angularity with command line etc. but I notice difficulties
> >> when I try to keep LibreOffice and AOO in same Linux Mint 13.
> >>
> >
> > Well it IS a hassle to try to do this I would imagine.
> >
> > I guess what we need to discuss/decide is do we really want to tell
> people
> > to uninstall LO before installing AOO?  It would be nice if someone could
> > investigate and report findings on what their experience is with
> > maintaining both etc. to include in the installation instructions.
>
> The problem is distro specific: on openSUSE you can have the distro
> LibO + AOO + official LibO together without problems, but on ubuntu
> and its derivatives, fedora and possibly others you'll have problems
> with the distro's LibO. The message should be:
>
> In general, AOO can be installed side by side with LibreOffice (both
> suites use different directories). But for some Linux distributions it
> is not that easy: when they switched from (the heavily modified
> version of) OOo to the (also modified version of) LibO they packaged
> their versions of LibO in a way that cause conflicts with OOo or AOO.
> Notice that these problems are completely artificial and came from
> some decisions made during packaging: on other distros like openSUSE,
> this does not happen.
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>

ah, I see...well I am one of the lucky ones I guess. :)

OK, I just put a new page out there --

http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/linux_instructions.html

which is just the linux instructions toward the bottom of the currently
linked Installation Guide.

My hope is that we can augment this new page with more useful information
like

a) the link Rob provided at the beginning of this thread with some
appropriate caption
b) links to other independently packaged AOO for various distros (we had
information for ubuntu at one point -- I don't know what it is now)
c) a link to theforums guide
d) provide additional information like how to use the un-archived AOO
provided packs and use your distro's GUI install to setup a local
repository and install that way (I've done this for opensuse with Yast and
it works nicely)

e) and so on...

So, have at it -- anyone can send in edits for this and since this is
*DRAFT* at this point and not linked from anything, no problems with
applying commits to get this where we want it.

-- 

MzK

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
--
Niels Bohr

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>>
>  Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <
> d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
> >> wrote:
> >> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
> >>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
> >>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
> >>> servers got in trouble?
> >>>
> >>
> >> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
> >>
> >
> > For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
> 
>  The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
> 
>  % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
> >> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
> 
>  EU:
>  232046 update30
>  35548 update34
>  76543 update35
> 
> 
>  US:
>  198996 update30
>  33450 update34
>  71117 update35
>   0 update36
> >>>
> >>> We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
> >> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
> >>
> >
> > uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
> > this in the first post here.
> >
> > And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
>
> The zone file is now:
>
> ; update.services   CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>
>
>
>
> ; WARNING WARNING WARNING
> ; Changing the above entries to point to eos can overload it.  Do not
> enable
> ; them unless either eos is prepared for the load or the TTL is suitably
> ; lowered
> update.services   CNAME sd-web4.staroffice.de.
> update23.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
> update24.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
> update30.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
> update31.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
> update32.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
> update33.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>
>
>
>
> update34.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
> update35.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
> update36.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
> update38.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>
>
> >
> > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
>
> Only yesterday's changes to DNS were reverted.
>

OK, good...it seems we can't go below update34 -- used for  OO 3.2 without
further investigation.

Meanwhile I will delete the

 ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update

so it causes no further confusion...


> >
> > I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
> > problems, were they?
> >
> > The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know
> what
> > it's doing.
> >
> > When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
> > fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> ./update/aoo341/check.Update
> >>> ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>> ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> >>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> >>> ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>> ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >>>
> >>> It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
> >> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
> >> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
> >>
> >> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
> >> the errors in update30?
> >>
> >
> > Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
> > do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
> >
> > There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used,
> and
> > is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
> > won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages
> of
> > testing.
> >
> > Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I
> mean
> > the whole directory.
> >
> >
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> 
> > MzK
> >
> > "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
> >

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

2012-08-15 Thread TJ Frazier

Uh, Dave,
Do you mean s/wiki/forum/?
/tj/

On 8/15/2012 12:55, Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:37 AM, drew jensen wrote:

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:

2012/8/14 RGB ES:

Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
the old url
http://user.services.openoffice.org/
I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off

I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably managed
through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the originating
subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to know that you
are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely rewrite all URLs in
the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to
forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING .

Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
more!

If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on forum.openoffice.org contain
"internal" links that reference user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would
be better to use an "external" redirect as explained above.

Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are
directed to the same IP by DNS.

Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to the
same IP by DNS.

What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front
and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.

Should we do something similar for the user forums?

Regards,
Dave

Regards,
Andrea.

Hi,

Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
same for all, list the base URL of the site as
user.services.openoffice.org, all generated links then use this.

Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?

Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
problem though.

It would be proper in combination with a virtual host entry in the ooo-fourms'
apache2.conf file for wiki.services.openoffice.org and then to redirect all of
that traffic to wiki.openoffice.org permanently.

# change wiki.services.openoffice.org/... to wiki.openoffice.org/...
RewriteCond ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}} ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org$
RewriteRule ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org/(.*)
http://wiki.openoffice.org/$1 [NE,L,R=permanent]

However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
domain name is - now that might be worth a test..

@imacat - what do you think?

Yes, what do you think?

Regards,
Dave

Thanks,

//drew

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> >>>
>>  Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <
>> d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21
>> +0200:
>> >>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>> >>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>> >>> servers got in trouble?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>> >>
>> >
>> > For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
>> 
>>  The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
>> 
>>  % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
>> >> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
>> 
>>  EU:
>>  232046 update30
>>  35548 update34
>>  76543 update35
>> 
>> 
>>  US:
>>  198996 update30
>>  33450 update34
>>  71117 update35
>>   0 update36
>> >>>
>> >>> We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
>> >> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>> >>
>> >
>> > uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
>> > this in the first post here.
>> >
>> > And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
>>
>> The zone file is now:
>>
>> ; update.services   CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ; WARNING WARNING WARNING
>> ; Changing the above entries to point to eos can overload it.  Do not
>> enable
>> ; them unless either eos is prepared for the load or the TTL is suitably
>> ; lowered
>> update.services   CNAME sd-web4.staroffice.de.
>> update23.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>> update24.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>> update30.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>> update31.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>> update32.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>> update33.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> update34.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>> update35.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>> update36.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>> update38.services CNAME www.openoffice.org.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
>>
>> Only yesterday's changes to DNS were reverted.
>>
>
> OK, good...it seems we can't go below update34 -- used for  OO 3.2 without
> further investigation.
>
> Meanwhile I will delete the
>
>  ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>
> so it causes no further confusion...
>

ok, this is gone now...the ones that remain with numbers following updatexx
are in use.

/projects/updatexx/

as well as

/projects/update/ which is used for aoo34



>
>
>> >
>> > I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
>> > problems, were they?
>> >
>> > The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know
>> what
>> > it's doing.
>> >
>> > When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it
>> was
>> > fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> ./update/aoo341/check.Update
>> >>> ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>> ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> >>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> >>> ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>> ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >>>
>> >>> It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
>> >> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
>> >> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
>> >> the errors in update30?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can
>> not
>> > do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
>> >
>> > There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used,
>> and
>> > is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
>> > won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages
>> of
>> > testing.
>> >
>> > S

Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services

Yes.

   # change users.services.openoffice.org/... to forum.openoffice.org/...
   RewriteCond ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}} ^users\.services\.openoffice\.org$
   RewriteRule ^users\.services\.openoffice\.org/(.*) 
http://forum.openoffice.org/$1 [NE,L,R=permanent]

On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:08 PM, TJ Frazier wrote:

> Uh, Dave,
> Do you mean s/wiki/forum/?
> /tj/
> 
> On 8/15/2012 12:55, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:37 AM, drew jensen wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
>> On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote:
>>> 2012/8/14 RGB ES:
 Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on
 the old url
 http://user.services.openoffice.org/
 I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and
 log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off
>> 
>> I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably 
>> managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the 
>> originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way 
>> to know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we 
>> completely rewrite all URLs in the form 
>> user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING 
>> .
>> 
>>> Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new
>>> address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another
>>> post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any
>>> more!
>> 
>> If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on 
>> forum.openoffice.org contain "internal" links that reference 
>> user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use 
>> an "external" redirect as explained above.
> 
> Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are 
> directed to the same IP by DNS.
> 
> Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to 
> the same IP by DNS.
> 
> What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in 
> front and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org.
> 
> Should we do something similar for the user forums?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
> 
 
 Hi,
 
 Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume
 same for all, list the base URL of the site as
 user.services.openoffice.org,  all generated links then use this.
 
 Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address?
 
 Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed
 problem though.
>>> 
>>> It would be proper in combination with a virtual host entry in the 
>>> ooo-fourms' apache2.conf file for wiki.services.openoffice.org and then to 
>>> redirect all of that traffic to wiki.openoffice.org permanently.
>> 
>># change wiki.services.openoffice.org/... to wiki.openoffice.org/...
>>RewriteCond ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}} ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org$
>>RewriteRule ^wiki\.services\.openoffice\.org/(.*) 
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/$1 [NE,L,R=permanent]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software
 determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base
 domain name is - now that might be worth a test..
>>> 
 @imacat - what do you think?
>>> 
>>> Yes, what do you think?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
 
 Thanks,
 
 //drew
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

2012-08-15 Thread drew jensen

On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> 
> > Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
> > at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
> > 
> > Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
> > this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
> > 
> > Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
> > what is current.
> > 
> > I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
> > that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
> 
> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
> WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
> 
> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
> the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
> 
> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.

- but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying
they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep
saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to
this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. 

That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this
project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this
type of differentiation from earlier projects.

//drew

> 
> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> > 
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > 
> >> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> >> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> >> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> >> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
> >> 
> >> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> 
> >>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> >>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
> >>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
> >>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
> >>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
> >>> in OpenOffice.
> >>> 
> >>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
> >>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
> >>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
> >>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
> >>> final release based on this snapshot build.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
> >>> further languages:
> >>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
> >>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
> >>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
> >>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
> >>> 
> >>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> >>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> >>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
> >>> following wiki page:
> >>> 
> >>> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> >>> (incubating).
> >>> 
> >>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
> >>> 
> >>>  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
> >>> 
> >>> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
> >>> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
> >>> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> >>> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> >>> members.
> >>> 
> >>>  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
> >>>  [ ]  0 Don't care
> >>>  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
>>> at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
>>> 
>>> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
>>> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>> 
>>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
>>> what is current.
>>> 
>>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
>>> that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>> 
>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
>> WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>> 
>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
>> the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>> 
>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
> 
> - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying
> they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep
> saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to
> this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. 
> 
> That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this
> project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this
> type of differentiation from earlier projects.

Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be "unofficial 
convenience artifacts".

The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must 
be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must be 
able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered.

So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF 
Member must measure their vote on.

Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure 
that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new 
download_external_dependencies.pl properly.

My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions so 
that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> //drew
> 
>> 
>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
 From: Jürgen Schmidt 
 Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
 To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
 Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 
 Hi,
 
 please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
 
 On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
> in OpenOffice.
> 
> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
> final release based on this snapshot build.
> 
> 
> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
> further languages:
> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
> 
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
> 
> 
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
> following wiki page:
> 
> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
> 
> 
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
> 
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
> 
> Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
> 
> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
> But we invite all pe

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> 
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> 
 Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
 at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
 
 Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
 this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
 
 Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very 
 clear what is current.
 
 I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
 that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>>> 
>>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on 
>>> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>>> 
>>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me 
>>> on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>>> 
>>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>> 
>> - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying
>> they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep
>> saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to
>> this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. 
>> 
>> That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this
>> project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this
>> type of differentiation from earlier projects.
> 
> Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be "unofficial 
> convenience artifacts".

Also this is actually a good distinction and an evolution as it gives possible 
sanction to stuff like:

(LEGAL-144) Request for permission for CloudStack to distribute secondary 
convenience builds containing libvirt-java (LGPL)

> 
> The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must 
> be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must 
> be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered.
> 
> So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF 
> Member must measure their vote on.
> 
> Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure 
> that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new 
> download_external_dependencies.pl properly.
> 
> My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions 
> so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
>> 
>> //drew
>> 
>>> 
>>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
 
 Thanks & Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 Begin forwarded message:
 
> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
> 
> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>> in OpenOffice.
>> 
>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>> 
>> 
>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
>> further languages:
>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>> 
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>> 
>> 
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
>> following wiki page:
>> 
>> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#De

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at 
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
>>
>> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this 
>> doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>
>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
>> what is current.
>>
>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
>> that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>
> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
> WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>
> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
> the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>
> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>

That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
have a different opinion.

-Rob

> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
>>> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
>>> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>>>
>>> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
 Hi all,

 this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
 OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
 after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
 deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
 help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
 in OpenOffice.

 This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
 candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
 one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
 voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
 final release based on this snapshot build.

 This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
 further languages:
 (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
 http://s.apache.org/Huv.
 (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
 Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.

 For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.

 The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
 releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
 review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
 following wiki page:

 hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1

 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
 (incubating).

 The vote starts now and will be open until:

  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.

 After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
 gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
 But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
 to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
 members.

  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
 Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
 at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?

 Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
 this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?

 Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very 
 clear what is current.

 I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
 that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>>>
>>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on 
>>> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me 
>>> on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>>>
>>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>>
>> - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying
>> they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep
>> saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to
>> this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not.
>>
>> That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this
>> project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this
>> type of differentiation from earlier projects.
>
> Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be "unofficial 
> convenience artifacts".
>

A citation, please?

> The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users must 
> be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They must 
> be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered.
>

That phrase is also used in the release management guidelines as an
explanation for why "binary-only" release are not permitted.  But the
same guidelines talk extensively about including binary packages in
releases.

> So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF 
> Member must measure their vote on.
>

Sure.

> Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to assure 
> that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new 
> download_external_dependencies.pl properly.
>

OK.

> My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions 
> so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite.
>

Yes, but please stop with inflammatory statements that have in the
past been repeated by others, outside of the project, as a source of
FUD against the project.  We really don't need more of this.  We all
care about the source.  But let's not diminish the importance or the
status of the binaries.

Regards,

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> //drew
>>
>>>
>>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>

 Thanks & Regards,
 Dave


 Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> Hi,
>
> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>
> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>> in OpenOffice.
>>
>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>>
>>
>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
>> further languages:
>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> >
>> >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
>> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf 
>> wrote:
>>  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21 +0200:
>> > Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>> > provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>> > servers got in trouble?
>> >
>> 
>>  POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
>> >>
>> >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
>> >>
>> >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
>> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
>> >>
>> >> EU:
>> >> 232046 update30
>> >> 35548 update34
>> >> 76543 update35
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> US:
>> >> 198996 update30
>> >> 33450 update34
>> >> 71117 update35
>> >>   0 update36
>> >
>> > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
>> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>>
>
> uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
> this in the first post here.
>
> And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
>
> I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
>
> I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
> problems, were they?
>
> The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know what
> it's doing.
>
> When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
> fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
>
>
>
>>
>> > ./update/aoo341/check.Update
>> > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >
>> > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>> >
>>
>> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
>> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
>> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
>>
>> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
>> the errors in update30?
>>
>
> Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
> do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
>

What is the issue with update 30?  The fact that it does a POST?  I
don't that would rule it out altogether.  But we would need to treat
it specially.  For example, we could redirect to an isolated server,
at Apache or outside, that is able/willing to handle it.  If we run it
for a month or two we should get the bulk of the upgrades.

Or was there some other issue?

> There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used, and
> is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
> won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages of
> testing.
>
> Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I mean
> the whole directory.
>
>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Dave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
> --
> Niels Bohr

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, drew jensen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
 On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
 
> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
> at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
> 
> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
> 
> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very 
> clear what is current.
> 
> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed 
> and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
 
 I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on 
 the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
 
 Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me 
 on the Wiki based on 
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
 
 BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>>> 
>>> - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying
>>> they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep
>>> saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to
>>> this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not.
>>> 
>>> That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this
>>> project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this
>>> type of differentiation from earlier projects.
>> 
>> Binary artifacts are fine, they are just considered to be "unofficial 
>> convenience artifacts".
>> 
> 
> A citation, please?

You would need to be listening to the evolving conversations on general@ and 
legal-discuss@

Documentation is always behind that. Sorry.

> 
>> The ASF's mission is software for the public good. That means that users 
>> must be able to see the source and be able to build it for themselves. They 
>> must be able to inspect the source to see that it is unhindered.
>> 
> 
> That phrase is also used in the release management guidelines as an
> explanation for why "binary-only" release are not permitted.  But the
> same guidelines talk extensively about including binary packages in
> releases.
> 
>> So, the IP must be clear and transparently so. This is what an IPMC and ASF 
>> Member must measure their vote on.
>> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> Sorry, I'm a bit cranky right now. My cpan disappeared while trying to 
>> assure that I had the now required LWP::UserAgent. No one tested the new 
>> download_external_dependencies.pl properly.
>> 
> 
> OK.
> 
>> My real message is that the project needs to clean up the build instructions 
>> so that special knowledge and/or help is not a prerequisite.
>> 
> 
> Yes, but please stop with inflammatory statements that have in the
> past been repeated by others, outside of the project, as a source of
> FUD against the project.  We really don't need more of this.  We all
> care about the source.  But let's not diminish the importance or the
> status of the binaries.

No let's not. The BINARIES are VERY IMPORTANT!

But they are not so important that we neglect to help people build from source.

Now, I better eat and get my blood sugar in shape..

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> //drew
>>> 
 
 (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
>> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
>> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>> 
>> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>>> in OpenOffice.
>>> 
>>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>>> final release based on this snapshot bui

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at 
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
>>
>> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this 
>> doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>
>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
>> what is current.
>>
>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
>> that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>
> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
> WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>
> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
> the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>

Dave,

Did you see this page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-buildflags

That has the build steps and flags used for the binaries we'll be
releasing.  There is no single "right way" to build AOO.  There are
variations that will enable or disable various optional features.  But
if you want the same thing as what is in the release, the above link
has the info you want.

-Rob

> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>
> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
>>> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
>>> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
>>> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>>>
>>> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
 Hi all,

 this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
 OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
 after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
 deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
 help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
 in OpenOffice.

 This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
 candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
 one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
 voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
 final release based on this snapshot build.

 This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
 further languages:
 (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
 http://s.apache.org/Huv.
 (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
 Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.

 For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.

 The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
 releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
 review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
 following wiki page:

 hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1

 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
 (incubating).

 The vote starts now and will be open until:

  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.

 After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
 gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
 But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
 to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
 members.

  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

>>>
>>
>

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <
> d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
> >> wrote:
> >>  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21
> +0200:
> >> > Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
> >> > provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
> >> > servers got in trouble?
> >> >
> >> 
> >>  POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
> >> 
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
> >> >>
> >> >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
> >> >>
> >> >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
> >> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
> >> >>
> >> >> EU:
> >> >> 232046 update30
> >> >> 35548 update34
> >> >> 76543 update35
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> US:
> >> >> 198996 update30
> >> >> 33450 update34
> >> >> 71117 update35
> >> >>   0 update36
> >> >
> >> > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
> >> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
> >>
> >
> > uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
> > this in the first post here.
> >
> > And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
> >
> > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
> >
> > I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
> > problems, were they?
> >
> > The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know
> what
> > it's doing.
> >
> > When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
> > fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > ./update/aoo341/check.Update
> >> > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
> >> > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
> >> >
> >> > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
> >> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
> >> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
> >>
> >> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
> >> the errors in update30?
> >>
> >
> > Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
> > do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
> >
>
> What is the issue with update 30?  The fact that it does a POST?  I
> don't that would rule it out altogether.  But we would need to treat
> it specially.  For example, we could redirect to an isolated server,
> at Apache or outside, that is able/willing to handle it.  If we run it
> for a month or two we should get the bulk of the upgrades.
>
> Or was there some other issue?
>

The Apache web server, of which AOO is a part, does not allow POSTs so when
I had infra enable this and redirect the old update30 to the web server, it
caused MANY errors in a very short period of time (about an hour) and Joe
reverted it rather quickly.  THis was like back in early March or
something when I was playing around. The update feed itself didn't even DO
anything but redirect them to a URL (in theory) it was the POST in the code
for OOo 3.0 that caused all the havoc. When I inquired about this on this
list, I was told yes, this WAS the case for 3.0 but had been fixed with, I
thought 3.2.

Anyway, as far as I know, this is the only issue.

I was pretty wary initially about running the feed through the web server
but was told we should be fine (this after Joe reverted the update30 in
March) -- and I think we have been for the most part. But, yes, we need
another box with a web server that would accept POSTs to deal with this --
3.0, and it looks like 3.1.


> > There IS an update30 directory there but it isn't actually being used,
> and
> > is just a dummy file anyway. Maybe we should just delete this one  so we
> > won't get confused about this one anymore. It was setup in early stages
> of
> > testing.
> >
> > Should I just delete ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update -- I
> mean
> > the whole directory.
> >
> >
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> -

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

2012-08-15 Thread TJ Frazier


On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:


On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:


Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?

Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this 
doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?

Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
what is current.

I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that 
I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.


I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.

Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions

BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.



That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
have a different opinion.

-Rob


Rob,

Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to 
general@inc and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. 
IMHO, he will need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board 
member ...


(Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) )
/tj/



(I really don't want to -1 this release.)

Regards,
Dave



Thanks & Regards,
Dave


Begin forwarded message:


From: Jürgen Schmidt 
Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org

Hi,

please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.

On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
in OpenOffice.

This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
final release based on this snapshot build.


This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
further languages:
(1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
http://s.apache.org/Huv.
(2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.


The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
following wiki page:

hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.

After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
members.

  [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:31 PM, TJ Frazier wrote:

> On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> 
 Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
 at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
 
 Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
 this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
 
 Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very 
 clear what is current.
 
 I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
 that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>>> 
>>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on 
>>> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>>> 
>>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me 
>>> on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>>> 
>>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>>> 
>> 
>> That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
>> policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
>> being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
>> IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
>> talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
>> In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
>> sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
>> on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
>> have a different opinion.
>> 
>> -Rob
> 
> Rob,
> 
> Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc and 
> to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. IMHO, he will need to 
> change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ...

Yes, this was one of the ways that the evolution in what is meant by official 
releases. It is also allowing for more pragmatic consumption of other licenses 
in convenience binaries. This may (or may not) be related to the Oracle vs. 
Google case.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) )
> /tj/
>> 
>>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
 
 Thanks & Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 Begin forwarded message:
 
> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
> 
> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
>> in OpenOffice.
>> 
>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>> 
>> 
>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
>> further languages:
>> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
>> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
>> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
>> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
>> 
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>> 
>> 
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
>> following wiki page:
>> 
>> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>> 
>> 
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>> 
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>> 
>>  Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
>> 
>> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
>> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will b

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing 
>>> at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds?
>>> 
>>> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild 
>>> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>> 
>>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear 
>>> what is current.
>>> 
>>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and 
>>> that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>> 
>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the 
>> WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>> 
>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on 
>> the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Did you see this page:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-buildflags
> 
> That has the build steps and flags used for the binaries we'll be
> releasing.  There is no single "right way" to build AOO.  There are
> variations that will enable or disable various optional features.  But
> if you want the same thing as what is in the release, the above link
> has the info you want.

This should be linked to from the source package README and also on the 4 build 
mwiki pages that are linked to from the source.

I won't know until tomorrow because my cpan config is broken and I now need 
LWP::UserAgent to download the external dependencies.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>> 
>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks & Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
 From: Jürgen Schmidt 
 Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
 To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
 Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 
 Hi,
 
 please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
 
 On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence
> in OpenOffice.
> 
> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release
> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest
> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
> final release based on this snapshot build.
> 
> 
> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some
> further languages:
> (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under
> http://s.apache.org/Huv.
> (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English,
> Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish.
> 
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
> 
> 
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the
> following wiki page:
> 
> hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
> 
> 
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
> 
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
> 
> Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2.
> 
> After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on
> gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours.
> But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like
> to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project
> members.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
> [ ]  0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
 
>>> 
>>

Re: [Call for review]Bug 120236 - when decrease indent for bullet,the bullet will go out of page range

2012-08-15 Thread De Bin Lei

weike, pls check the comments from Oliver.
Thx a lot!

2012/8/15 Liang Weike 

> Hi Debin,
>
> OK. I have added  my comments for this bug in bugzilla.
>
> And your suggestions will be appreciated.
>
>  Hi, Weike,
>> I volunteered to review the fixed.
>> Can you explain more details for the fix in bugzilla?
>> Thx a lot.
>>
>> 2012/8/15 Liang Weike 
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have fixed Bug 120236 and committed the patch.
>>>
>>> Could anyone help me to review it? Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=120236
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Liang Weike
>>>
>>> China Standard Software Co., Ltd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  --
> Regards,
> Liang Weike
>
> China Standard Software Co., Ltd
>
>


-- 
Best regards
Lei De Bin

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
> On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
 Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still
 pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac
 Builds?

 Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild
 this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?

 Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very
 clear what is current.

 I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed
 and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on
>>> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>>>
>>> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me
>>> on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>>>
>>> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>>>
>>
>> That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
>> policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
>> being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
>> IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
>> talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
>> In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
>> sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
>> on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
>> have a different opinion.
>>
>> -Rob
>
>
> Rob,
>
> Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc
> and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. IMHO, he will
> need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ...
>

Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise.   ASF practice,
both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC
wishes to do so.  The general discussion has gone far beyond whether
or not we release binaries or whether they are official.  We're now
discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed.

Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open
source.  But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user
application, something no other Apache project has previously
attempted.  So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to
long-held practices and habits for some Apache members.  But this is
fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the
public good.  I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries
can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be.  If
this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page:

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html

So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since
they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority
than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European
Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use
Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that
"Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries)".  This is
absolutely false.

-Rob

> (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) )
> /tj/
>
>>
>>> (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>

 Thanks & Regards,
 Dave

 Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jürgen Schmidt 
> Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT
> To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
> Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> Hi,
>
> please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks.
>
> On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release
>> after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we
>> deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again
>> help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain
>> confidence
>> in OpenOffice.
>>
>> This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the
>> release
>> candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the
>> latest
>> one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the
>> voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the
>> final release based on this snapshot build.
>>
>>
>> This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to int

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2


On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
>> On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher 
>>> wrote:
 
 
 On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
 
> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still
> pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for 
> Mac
> Builds?
> 
> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild
> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
> 
> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very
> clear what is current.
> 
> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed
> and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
 
 
 I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on
 the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
 
 Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me
 on the Wiki based on 
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
 
 BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
 
>>> 
>>> That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
>>> policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
>>> being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
>>> IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
>>> talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
>>> In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
>>> sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
>>> on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
>>> have a different opinion.
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>> 
>> 
>> Rob,
>> 
>> Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc
>> and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. IMHO, he will
>> need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ...
>> 
> 
> Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise.   ASF practice,
> both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC
> wishes to do so.  The general discussion has gone far beyond whether
> or not we release binaries or whether they are official.  We're now
> discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed.
> 
> Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open
> source.  But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user
> application, something no other Apache project has previously
> attempted.  So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to
> long-held practices and habits for some Apache members.  But this is
> fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the
> public good.  I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries
> can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be.  If
> this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page:
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html
> 
> So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since
> they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority
> than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European
> Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use
> Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that
> "Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries)".  This is
> absolutely false.

Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users.

At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We 
are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and that 
it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. It is 
not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that it is 
valid Apache Release.

We, the PPMC, also VOTE that these binary artifacts are of high quality and 
that they work, but we are relying on others in the project to come up with 
that in aggregate - none of us have every environment - none of us understand 
every language. This is a different standard. We are certifying that the source 
release when built produces these artifacts and that they are useful to users.

We can consider how to treat the word "Official" or "Certified" around platform 
builds that may be called "Apache OpenOffice" as opposed to "Powered by Apache 
OpenOffice". This certainly gets into the area of digital signatures which is 
fast becoming a topic for multiple projects at The ASF. And yes the quality is 
about the control of the build.

Does that help?

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) )
>> /tj/
>> 
>>> 
 (I really don't want to -1 this release.)
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
> 
> Thanks & Regard

NewWikiMainPage

2012-08-15 Thread CetaceaAnn

Hello,
I am trying to determine if there is an OpenOffice equivalent to MS  
Publisher.
Thank you,
Anne K,

[QA][Call-For-Review]UNO automation scriptes about Presentation Shape

2012-08-15 Thread Li Feng Wang

Hi, all,

pls help to review this UNO automation scripts about Presentation Shape.

Attach the patch on https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120527
-- 
Best Wishes, LiFeng Wang

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, TJ Frazier  wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2012 18:52, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Dave Fisher 
 wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still
>> pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for 
>> Mac
>> Builds?
>>
>> Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild
>> this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0?
>>
>> Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very
>> clear what is current.
>>
>> I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed
>> and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build.
>
>
> I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on
> the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1.
>
> Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me
> on the Wiki based on 
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
>
> BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE.
>

 That is your opinion, expressed loudly;  it is not Apache or IPMC
 policy.   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are
 being inspected and these will be part of the official release.  The
 IPMC doc calls the source artifacts "canonical", but the same docs
 talk about binaries being included in the official release as well.
 In fact, it says of binary packages, "For some projects, this makes
 sense. For others, it does not."  Obviously you have your own opinion
 on this, but it is equally true that the vast majority of PPMC members
 have a different opinion.

 -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> Please consider the blistering email from Roy T. Fielding, to general@inc
>>> and to infra, on 3/27, 05:50, opposing "released' binaries. IMHO, he will
>>> need to change his mind. OTOH, he is a founder and board member ...
>>>
>>
>> Current IPMC policy, as documented, states otherwise.   ASF practice,
>> both with TLP's and Podlings, is to release binaries where the PMC
>> wishes to do so.  The general discussion has gone far beyond whether
>> or not we release binaries or whether they are official.  We're now
>> discussing how rather than whether these binaries can be signed.
>>
>> Availability of source code is what makes Apache OpenOffice open
>> source.  But the binaries are what make OpenOffice an end user
>> application, something no other Apache project has previously
>> attempted.  So it is not surprising that this is a challenge to
>> long-held practices and habits for some Apache members.  But this is
>> fully in accord with the Apache mission to publish software for the
>> public good.  I'd like to think that open minds can see how binaries
>> can be just as much of a public benefit as source code can be.  If
>> this is not apparent to anyone, I'd recommend a read of this page:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mission.html
>>
>> So again I would ask that we choose our words more carefully, since
>> they are repeated, out of context, and are ascribed greater authority
>> than we might intend. For example, I read recently on a European
>> Commission websiste that a group of French agencies decided not to use
>> Apache OpenOffice, in part because they were lead to believe that
>> "Apache...doesn’t deliver installable software (binaries)".  This is
>> absolutely false.
>
> Convenience binary artifacts are released for the benefit of users.
>

The phrase "convenience binary" does not exist anywhere on the IPMC website.

What is said is "Many would argue that for open source projects, the
source package is the release: binaries are just for convenience."

But "Many would say" does not a policy make.  The same page also says
of binaries, "For some projects, this makes sense. For others, it does
not."

> At the most basic level when we VOTE we are approving the source release. We 
> are stating that we understand the License and Copyright of the source and 
> that it is in Policy. This is the standard for the IPMC and an Apache Member. 
> It is not a vote that says that the code even works properly it confirms that 
> it is valid Apache Release.
>

The IPMC will be voting for the the release of source and binaries.
This includes verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE in the binaries
are correct.  If you recall we had a delay in our first release due to
errors in these files in the binaries.  If we were not voting for
them, and if they were not official, then we would not have needed to
fix and rebuild before voting.  I've seen the same occur in other
projects, where the binaries where JAR's..  So even from the IPMC
perspect

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <
>> d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21
>> +0200:
>> >> > Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>> >> > provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>> >> > servers got in trouble?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >>  POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
>> >> 
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
>> >> >>
>> >> >> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
>> >> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
>> >> >>
>> >> >> EU:
>> >> >> 232046 update30
>> >> >> 35548 update34
>> >> >> 76543 update35
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> US:
>> >> >> 198996 update30
>> >> >> 33450 update34
>> >> >> 71117 update35
>> >> >>   0 update36
>> >> >
>> >> > We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
>> >> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
>> >>
>> >
>> > uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
>> > this in the first post here.
>> >
>> > And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
>> >
>> > I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
>> >
>> > I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
>> > problems, were they?
>> >
>> > The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know
>> what
>> > it's doing.
>> >
>> > When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
>> > fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > ./update/aoo341/check.Update
>> >> > ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> > ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> > ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> > ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> >> > ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> > ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> >> >
>> >> > It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
>> >> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
>> >> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
>> >> the errors in update30?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
>> > do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
>> >
>>
>> What is the issue with update 30?  The fact that it does a POST?  I
>> don't that would rule it out altogether.  But we would need to treat
>> it specially.  For example, we could redirect to an isolated server,
>> at Apache or outside, that is able/willing to handle it.  If we run it
>> for a month or two we should get the bulk of the upgrades.
>>
>> Or was there some other issue?
>>
>
> The Apache web server, of which AOO is a part, does not allow POSTs so when
> I had infra enable this and redirect the old update30 to the web server, it
> caused MANY errors in a very short period of time (about an hour) and Joe
> reverted it rather quickly.  THis was like back in early March or
> something when I was playing around. The update feed itself didn't even DO
> anything but redirect them to a URL (in theory) it was the POST in the code
> for OOo 3.0 that caused all the havoc. When I inquired about this on this
> list, I was told yes, this WAS the case for 3.0 but had been fixed with, I
> thought 3.2.
>
> Anyway, as far as I know, this is the only issue.
>
> I was pretty wary initially about running the feed through the web server
> but was told we should be fine (this after Joe reverted the update30 in
> March) -- and I think we have been for the most part. But, yes, we need
> another box with a web server that would accept POSTs to deal with this --
> 3.0, and it looks like 3.1.
>

OK.  That's the impression I had as well -- POST was disabled in
general on ASF servers.  We're not going to be able to change that.
But the traffic from permitted POSTs will be far less than the errors
and retries  generated from disallowed POSTs.   So if we can find a
volunteer to host this traffic on their website, then we co

Re: Registration and Update Services - What Will Be The Load?


On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
 
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> 
>>> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 13:11:43 -0400:
 On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <
>>> d...@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 16:32:21
>>> +0200:
>> Is it possible that somebody from the Apache Infrastructure can
>> provide a view on which URL the traffic load was soo high that the
>> servers got in trouble?
>> 
> 
> POST requests to /ProductUpdateService/check.Update file
> 
 
 For which subdomain, which UpdateXX.openoffice.org ?
>>> 
>>> The access log doesn't say, and the error log has
>>> 
>>> % fgrep /ProductUpdateService/check.Update error_log | sed -e
> 's#^.*/content/projects/##' | cut -d/ -f1 | sort | uniq -c
>>> 
>>> EU:
>>> 232046 update30
>>> 35548 update34
>>> 76543 update35
>>> 
>>> 
>>> US:
>>> 198996 update30
>>> 33450 update34
>>> 71117 update35
>>>  0 update36
>> 
>> We don't see update32 because those do not get redirected in the same
> way because there is no ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/update32
> 
 
 uh oh...this should have been setup before  and Oliver said he requested
 this in the first post here.
 
 And you're now saying that all the previous ones have been reverted?
 
 I think we were OK until this last one, right? update32?
 
 I think the others should be re-established as they weren't causing
 problems, were they?
 
 The thing is unless we go back to the code for OOo 3.1, we don't know
>>> what
 it's doing.
 
 When I asked about this when we had issues for OOo 3.0, I was told it was
 fixed in OOo 3.2, so maybe 3.1. has the same issues?
 
 
 
> 
>> ./update/aoo341/check.Update
>> ./update/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> ./update30/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> ./update34/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> ./update35/ProductUpdateService/test.Update
>> ./update36/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> ./update38/ProductUpdateService/check.Update
>> 
>> It looks like 34 and 35 have been trouble, but not as bad as 30.
>> 
> 
> But haven't 34 and 35 been in production since early July?  We've
> certainly seen plenty of downloads triggered by them.  They should not
> be giving any errors, since the requests resolve to files on our site.
> 
> I wonder, could the errors in those be caused by the outage caused by
> the errors in update30?
> 
 
 Rob...update 30  is completely out of the question, and we simply can not
 do it, and reverted it within hours when I first requested it.
 
>>> 
>>> What is the issue with update 30?  The fact that it does a POST?  I
>>> don't that would rule it out altogether.  But we would need to treat
>>> it specially.  For example, we could redirect to an isolated server,
>>> at Apache or outside, that is able/willing to handle it.  If we run it
>>> for a month or two we should get the bulk of the upgrades.
>>> 
>>> Or was there some other issue?
>>> 
>> 
>> The Apache web server, of which AOO is a part, does not allow POSTs so when
>> I had infra enable this and redirect the old update30 to the web server, it
>> caused MANY errors in a very short period of time (about an hour) and Joe
>> reverted it rather quickly.  THis was like back in early March or
>> something when I was playing around. The update feed itself didn't even DO
>> anything but redirect them to a URL (in theory) it was the POST in the code
>> for OOo 3.0 that caused all the havoc. When I inquired about this on this
>> list, I was told yes, this WAS the case for 3.0 but had been fixed with, I
>> thought 3.2.
>> 
>> Anyway, as far as I know, this is the only issue.
>> 
>> I was pretty wary initially about running the feed through the web server
>> but was told we should be fine (this after Joe reverted the update30 in
>> March) -- and I think we have been for the most part. But, yes, we need
>> another box with a web server that would accept POSTs to deal with this --
>> 3.0, and it looks like 3.1.
>> 
> 
> OK.  That's the impression I had as well -- POST was disabled in
> general on ASF servers.  We're not going to be able to change that.
> But the traffic from permitted POSTs will be far less than the errors
> and retries  generated from disallowed PO

Re: [Call for review]Bug 120236 - when decrease indent for bullet,the bullet will go out of page range

2012-08-15 Thread Shenfeng Liu

I added more comments. And add every one in cc list to the new issue
opened: 120585  .

- Shenfeng


2012/8/16 De Bin Lei 

> weike, pls check the comments from Oliver.
> Thx a lot!
>
> 2012/8/15 Liang Weike 
>
> > Hi Debin,
> >
> > OK. I have added  my comments for this bug in bugzilla.
> >
> > And your suggestions will be appreciated.
> >
> >  Hi, Weike,
> >> I volunteered to review the fixed.
> >> Can you explain more details for the fix in bugzilla?
> >> Thx a lot.
> >>
> >> 2012/8/15 Liang Weike 
> >>
> >>  Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have fixed Bug 120236 and committed the patch.
> >>>
> >>> Could anyone help me to review it? Thanks in advance!
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=120236<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120236>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Liang Weike
> >>>
> >>> China Standard Software Co., Ltd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>  --
> > Regards,
> > Liang Weike
> >
> > China Standard Software Co., Ltd
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Lei De Bin
>

Re: NewWikiMainPage

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM,   wrote:
> Hello,
> I am trying to determine if there is an OpenOffice equivalent to MS
> Publisher.

OpenOffice Draw has some desktop publishing features.  You could try
that.  Or depending on your needs another open source option is
Scribus:

http://www.scribus.net/canvas/Scribus

Regards,

-Rob

> Thank you,
> Anne K,

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2