date:20120817


On 17/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

We've had several prods from our mentors suggesting that we are ready
to graduate.


I agree it would be good to do so, since it will automatically reduce 
complex and unclear terminology ("incubator", "podling") that has been 
misused outside the project and it will make governance easier.



I'd recommend everyone take a look at this timeline [2] for what the
graduation process looks like.  You can see it is three steps:
1) Optional Community vote [3]
2) Preparation of a Charter and Resolution [4]
3) Vote by the IPMC to recommend the Charter/Resolution to the ASF Board.
4) Approval by the ASF Board.


If the Charter needs to contain complex statements about scope and 
mission of the project, it will take some time (but this is not the 
case, if I understand the the examples correctly).


It also seems, from the links, that the project will need to elect a 
chair, and this would be quite time-consuming too.


So I wouldn't be sure that we can have everything ready by the September 
Board meeting.



I'd like to start the first step, with the optional, but highly
recommended, community vote, stating our belief that we are ready to
graduate.


I agree. If we have consensus that we are ready to graduate, let's start 
with a formal vote about it, and then proceed step by step with the process.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] AOO Ready to Graduate

2012-08-17 Thread Graham Lauder

> Am Freitag, 17. August 2012 um 17:55 schrieb Rob Weir:
> > We've had several prods from our mentors suggesting that we are ready
> > to graduate. But I think there was general recognition that with
> > graduation comes a little hump in extra work, both for the project as
> > well as the IPMC and Infra, especially related to mailing list and
> > website changes [1]. We wanted to avoid piling that on top of the
> > already considerable work required to get AOO 3.4.1 released.
> > 
> > The AOO 3.4.1 release is now being voted on. So I think it is a good
> > time for us to start this process.
> > 
> > I'd recommend everyone take a look at this timeline [2] for what the
> > graduation process looks like. You can see it is three steps:
> > 
> > 1) Optional Community vote [3]
> > 
> > 2) Preparation of a Charter and Resolution [4]
> > 
> > 3) Vote by the IPMC to recommend the Charter/Resolution to the ASF Board.
> > 
> > 4) Approval by the ASF Board.
> > 
> > As I understand it the ASF Board meeting on the 3rd Wednesday of each
> > month. So the next meeting should be September 19th. If we start
> > now, we should have plenty of time to work through this process in
> > time for that meeting.
> > 
> > I'd like to start the first step, with the optional, but highly
> > recommended, community vote, stating our belief that we are ready to
> > graduate.
> 
> I agree and yes let us start with the process.
> 
> Juergen
> 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > -Rob
> > 
> > 
> > [1]
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#project-first-steps
> > 
> > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process
> > 
> > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-community-vote
> > 
> > [4] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution


+1, let's get it underway

Cheers
G

Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?

2012-08-17 Thread Keith N. McKenna


Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 08/02/2012 02:12 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:37 PM, drew  wrote:

On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew
jensen  wrote:

On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 09:09 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

Hi Kay;

I did some basic update to the FreeBSD porting site sometime ago:

http://www.openoffice.org/porting/freebsd/


The site doesn't seem linked from the top-level porting site though.

I would prefer to spend my time on the code rather than on the
release
announcement, however feel free to mention explicitly the FreeBSD
port.
Just to make it clear: we still have some cleanup to do but the
port is
fully operational and FreeBSD users are fully aware that it's
available
on FreeBSD releases.

Pedro.


Hi Pedro,

Then for BSD it should be enough to just point to the page you
updated,
yes?



IMHO, we should consolidate all the porting links onto that one page.
That way it gives one clear place to link to in the announcement, but
also a single place we can link to from other places in the future.
For example, we should probably eventually have a link to the porting
page from the download page.

-Rob


hmmm - well, I'm just getting around to looking at things for this
evening.

Looking at the page(s) now... *chuckling*..

This might not be the right place for what I thought was the task - a
list of existing known ports which are not part of the official AOO
release regiment.

The porting page and it's associated pages seem more about the act of
creating a port, with

http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html

and
http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_implement.html

which starts off by pointing to this page:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Porting_Efforts

and that offers links to places such as
http://www.openoffice.org/udk/cpp/man/cpp_bridges.html


So do we really want a page for listing existing non-official ports that
are known, a simple information service for our users without and
explicitly stating such, endorsing the work - or do we want a resource
for those wanting to perform a port to a new platform - for the
announcement(s) that is.



Yes. ;-)

Maybe the existing porting page remains as a developer-focused page?
It needs to be updated, of course, but maybe not as urgent.

Then we also need a user-facing page about existing ports.  Maybe that
could be a new page in the /download directory?


There is already a page which points to 3rd party software / packages:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html

Kay has created this to compensate the old distribution webpage which
was totally outdated.

So, what about to extend this new page with a "Ports" section from
FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2 and others?


For the announcement the user-facing one would be the most
appropriate, yes?


I think so.

Marcus



Morning All;

Just checking in on this thread to see if there has been any consensus 
on how we should do this or if we should. As we are fast approaching 
release of 3.4.1 I would like to get this into the Release Notes.


As a stated bore I believe that it is important to get the information 
out that these operating systems are not forgotten and that Apache 
OpenOffice is available.


Regards
Keith

Re: [DISCUSS] AOO Ready to Graduate

2012-08-17 Thread Juergen Schmidt

Am Freitag, 17. August 2012 um 17:55 schrieb Rob Weir:
> We've had several prods from our mentors suggesting that we are ready
> to graduate. But I think there was general recognition that with
> graduation comes a little hump in extra work, both for the project as
> well as the IPMC and Infra, especially related to mailing list and
> website changes [1]. We wanted to avoid piling that on top of the
> already considerable work required to get AOO 3.4.1 released.
> 
> The AOO 3.4.1 release is now being voted on. So I think it is a good
> time for us to start this process.
> 
> I'd recommend everyone take a look at this timeline [2] for what the
> graduation process looks like. You can see it is three steps:
> 
> 1) Optional Community vote [3]
> 
> 2) Preparation of a Charter and Resolution [4]
> 
> 3) Vote by the IPMC to recommend the Charter/Resolution to the ASF Board.
> 
> 4) Approval by the ASF Board.
> 
> As I understand it the ASF Board meeting on the 3rd Wednesday of each
> month. So the next meeting should be September 19th. If we start
> now, we should have plenty of time to work through this process in
> time for that meeting.
> 
> I'd like to start the first step, with the optional, but highly
> recommended, community vote, stating our belief that we are ready to
> graduate.
> 
> 

I agree and yes let us start with the process. 

Juergen 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#project-first-steps
> 
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process
> 
> [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-community-vote
> 
> [4] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution

Re: RAT Reports

2012-08-17 Thread Juergen Schmidt

Am Freitag, 17. August 2012 um 19:49 schrieb Dave Fisher:
> Hi,
>  
> Jürgen has created standalone ant script for RAT.
no I haven't created it. Thanks Gavin and Daniel I was able to find it on the 
build bots.
> This has trouble on Mac OSX - it is likely a RAT bug involving symlinks.
>  
>  

It seems that the exclude filter doesn't work as expected on Mac and Windows. 
That have to be checked...

Juergen
>  
> Andrew has fixed the buildbot to produce a usable RAT report. See 
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html
>  
> There are issues to address here that involve AOO 3.5:
>  
> (1) The XCU files for UOF need Apache Headers.
>  
> (2) Can patches have license headers? I think not.
> Most likely main/redland/raptor/raptor-1.4.18.patch.fixes needs to be added 
> to rat-excludes.  
>  
> (3) There are test case files that should have Apache Headers.
>  
> This is normal "spillage" that the project should inspect periodically and 
> before each release.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>  
>

[DEVTOOLS] Netbeans Integration Status

2012-08-17 Thread Carl Marcum


Hi All,

I've worked more on updating the netbeans plugin to update the tests to 
the netbeans 7 way.


The ant target 'test' now runs the unit tests, although there is more 
work on getting them all to pass.


The ant target 'test-qa-functional' also runs. Even more work getting 
them all to pass is needed .


I'm going to be taking some time to learn more about the netbeans 
platform itself to move this forward.


Best regards,
Carl

Re: [UX] DISCUSS - Survey Tool Recommendation

2012-08-17 Thread Graham Lauder

> > On 16/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:
> > >> I've been looking at various survey tools and would like to recommend
> > >> that we deploy the open source survey tool, *LimeSurvey.*
> > 
> > Perfect. It is a good tool and it is in continuity with what the project
> > used to use, see my old e-mail at
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201206.mbox/%3
> > C4 feecc9a.3020...@apache.org%3E
> > 
> > > 1) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache at their existing
> > > domain name
> > > 
> > > 2) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache and some pays $15 or
> > > so to get a better domain name for it, like www.oosurvey.net
> > > 
> > > 3) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache but we redirect the
> > > subdomain "survey.openoffice.org" to point to the external server
> > 
> > As I wrote in the same e-mail, Graham had written he had a working
> > LimeSurvey installation that he could make available to the project:
> > http://s.apache.org/wZ . So I'd try with that first, and I'd probably
> > prefer option 3 to keep all services under one namespace.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >Andrea.
> 
> Just having long loud discussions with the host at the moment because the
> site is broken, looks like an update has gone bad.  As soon as it's sorted
> we can be in to it.
> 
> We should probably still do the survey design on the wiki however.
> 
> Cheers
> G

Good grief, server meltdown and they're talking about 72 hours before it's up 
again.

Re: [DRAFT] AOO 3.4.1 Release Announcement for Review

2012-08-17 Thread RGB ES

2012/8/16 Rob Weir :
> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=announcing_apache_openoffice_3_4
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Some updates I know we'll need are:
>
> 1) The 11 million downloads claim will go to 12 or 13 depending on
> when we release
>
> 2) The defect fix count should be updated.  Does anyone have an
> accurate count?  I think we want to count only net bugs fixed compared
> to AOO 3.4.0, not bugs that we both introduced and fixed in AOO 3.4.1.
>
> Perhaps we can take comments for a day or so, and I'll update to
> reflect feedback.  At that point volunteers might prepare
> translations.   Any translations we have at release time I can link to
> from the blog post.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob

There is now on staging on the ES site a translation for the release
announcement, ready to be published. I can edit it later if changes
are made on the original.

Regards
Ricardo

RE: [DRAFT] AOO 3.4.1 Release Announcement for Review

2012-08-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton

If I log in with my Roller account, I can see the preview.

It appears that the URL is actually
.

 - Dennis

PS: Screen with empty content is what appears any time you refer to a post in 
preview that does not actually exist [;<).

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 14:53
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DRAFT] AOO 3.4.1 Release Announcement for Review

On 16/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=announcing_apache_openoffice_3_4
> Comments are welcome.

I had a quick look about 24 hours ago and the text seemed fine. But I 
cannot access the URL now (well, I can, but I only see the "Apache 
OpenOffice (incubating)" title and an empty page).

> Perhaps we can take comments for a day or so, and I'll update to
> reflect feedback.  At that point volunteers might prepare
> translations.   Any translations we have at release time I can link to
> from the blog post.

Sure; if we have the English text available, volunteers are ready to 
translate the text into Italian (and probably more languages). What is 
the recommended URL to use for translated versions?

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: [DRAFT] AOO 3.4.1 Release Announcement for Review


On 16/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=announcing_apache_openoffice_3_4
Comments are welcome.


I had a quick look about 24 hours ago and the text seemed fine. But I 
cannot access the URL now (well, I can, but I only see the "Apache 
OpenOffice (incubating)" title and an empty page).



Perhaps we can take comments for a day or so, and I'll update to
reflect feedback.  At that point volunteers might prepare
translations.   Any translations we have at release time I can link to
from the blog post.


Sure; if we have the English text available, volunteers are ready to 
translate the text into Italian (and probably more languages). What is 
the recommended URL to use for translated versions?


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [UX] DISCUSS - Survey Tool Recommendation

2012-08-17 Thread Graham Lauder

> On 16/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:
> >> I've been looking at various survey tools and would like to recommend
> >> that we deploy the open source survey tool, *LimeSurvey.*
> 
> Perfect. It is a good tool and it is in continuity with what the project
> used to use, see my old e-mail at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4
> feecc9a.3020...@apache.org%3E
> 
> > 1) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache at their existing
> > domain name
> > 
> > 2) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache and some pays $15 or
> > so to get a better domain name for it, like www.oosurvey.net
> > 
> > 3) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache but we redirect the
> > subdomain "survey.openoffice.org" to point to the external server
> 
> As I wrote in the same e-mail, Graham had written he had a working
> LimeSurvey installation that he could make available to the project:
> http://s.apache.org/wZ . So I'd try with that first, and I'd probably
> prefer option 3 to keep all services under one namespace.
> 
> Regards,
>Andrea.


Just having long loud discussions with the host at the moment because the site 
is broken, looks like an update has gone bad.  As soon as it's sorted we can 
be in to it.

We should probably still do the survey design on the wiki however.

Cheers
G

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

2012-08-17 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> 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...
> >
>
>
+1 from me

I don't know how often I have tested and built this release but I am
satisfied now. The RAT scans today costs me some nerves but anyway 

I did my standard tests on the binaries on MacOS, Windows and Lniux
(64bit). It looked ok to me.

I build the src release on MacOS and used the same switches as for the
brinary release. I repeat this step after I have repackaged the src release.

Well I am a developer and no QA engineer or volunteer tester who have
always a differnet view on these things but for me everything works as
expected.

No downloads of externals from the svn repo ;-)

I am now tired and looking forward to a nice short weekend trip with my
wife.

Juergen

Re: Registration


On 15/08/2012 Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 14, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Ready at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5144


I'll look into this one tomorrow. There will be two parts.
(1) DNS redirect to www.openoffice.org
(2) httpd.conf rewrite to redirect to thankyou.html.


A further problem that Infra brought up is that the address to be 
redirected is https://registration2.services.openoffice.org and that to 
redirect HTTPS we need to retrieve (or buy) a matching SSL certificate.


Does anyone have access to the SSL certificate originally used for 
registration2.services.openoffice.org ? Read the issue (link above) for 
more details.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation

2012-08-17 Thread Roberto Galoppini

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Jürgen,
> 
>  On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
> > release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in
> place
> > if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
> >
> > ToDo's
> > 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
> > improvements have to be integrated
> > 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
> > 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
> > 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
> > archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download
> via
> > Sourceforge?
> > 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various
> social
> > medias
> > 5. ... what else?
> 
> 
>  We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
>  repository:
> 
>  1) Presentation Minimizer
>  2) Presenter Console
>  3) MediaWiki Publisher
> >>>
> >>> These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to
> VOTE on and inspect these binaries did we?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some extensions were included in the binaries, installed automatically
> >> as part of the main product install.  They look like integrated parts
> >> of the UI.  You can see Presentation Manager in Impress, under
> >> Tools/Minimize Presentation.  I'm pretty sure the Presenter Console
> >> requires two displays, so I can't see it.
> >>
> >> The question is how we take the extensions in standalone form and put
> >> them in other common repositories?
> >>
> >> Would this be analogous to what Java-based projects do with Maven?
> >> They build and release a larger source and binary distribution for
> >> their release, and that release distribution might contain several
> >> related libraries.  And after the release is made a volunteer uploads
> >> the individual libraries to the central maven repository,
> >>
> >> How is that done with Maven central repository?  Does the project do
> >> that officially?  Or someone just does that individually?
> >
> > We do it officially in Apache POI. See
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/poi/trunk/maven/.
> >
> > We've voted on these artifacts as well.
> >
> > I think that if we have Extensions that are packaged separately they can
> be distributed in similar manner to the source, sdk, and binary distros.
> They do need a VOTE thread and then verifiable.
> >
>
> I don't think they are packaged separately, at least not at the source
> level.  In other words, we don't have a source package for them that
> is separate from the full AOO 3.4.1. source packages.   And I doubt
> that in binary form they are self-contained release artifacts, each
> with their own LICENSE and NOTICE files.
>
> Although this could technically be done, to turn these into real
> release artifacts, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort of doing
> this, especially if anyone one of us can just upload the extensions to
> the repository without further effort.


Just in case, that's what is needed to be done.

Chose an account name, to be associated to an email address (not shown)
here:
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/user/register

Let us know on ooo-dev the account name, we'll associate the following
extensions to that account.

http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/PresentationMinimizer
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/presenter-screen
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/wikipublisher

Doing so those extensions won't be associated to Oracle nor Sun, as of
today.

Roberto


> In any case, for these
> extensions I think the plan is to more fully integrate them into the
> product in the future.
>
> > We can follow the AOO341 release with an Extensions Release.
> >
>
> Certainly not objections if someone wants to do that.
>
> -Rob
>
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on
> Apache Mirrors as part of the release.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
>  I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are
> officially
>  supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
>  user?
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> 
>  Regards
>  --
>  Ariel Constenla-Haile
>  La Plata, Argentina
> >>>
> >
>

-- 

This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It 
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disse

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

2012-08-17 Thread Kay Schenk




On 08/17/2012 03:55 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

On 16.08.2012 14:42, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi

On 15.08.2012 19:05, 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



I am currently investigating the server logs and will post my results
later.



The trouble causing HTTP POST requests found in the server logs does not
seem to be related to the update function in former OOo versions.
I have investigated the update function HTTP requests from various
former OOo versions in the server logs. All of them provide content for
the HTTP UserAgent field. All of found HTTP POST request does not have
such data.
Looking at some sample HTTP requests from one IP address reveals that
the HTTP requests from the update function are unrelated to the HTTP
POST requests.
I investigated the HTTP traffic of update function from former OOo
versions (OOo 2.2, OOo 2.3, OOo 2.3.1, OOo 2.4, OOo 3.x). None of these
showed an HTTP POST request.
I evaluated some server logs from days before the established redirects
from INFRA-5112. Here, I could not found any of such HTTP POST requests.
My conclusion is that there were another function in OOo which causes
these HTTP POST requests. OOo 3.2, OOo 3.2.1, OOo 3.3 does not seem to
have such a function, because the redirects for their update functions
had been established a couple of weeks ago and I did not found any HTTP
POST requests.


how curious...  thanks for the update and continued good luck with the 
investigation




In order to figure out what is going on here, I will follow up with
Apache infrastructure. I will report on ooo-dev, when I know more.

Best regards, Oliver.


--

MzK

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

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation


On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
 
 On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
 
> Hi Jürgen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
>> release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
>> if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
>> 
>> ToDo's
>> 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
>> improvements have to be integrated
>> 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
>> 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
>> 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
>> archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
>> Sourceforge?
>> 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
>> medias
>> 5. ... what else?
> 
> 
> We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
> repository:
> 
> 1) Presentation Minimizer
> 2) Presenter Console
> 3) MediaWiki Publisher
 
 These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to 
 VOTE on and inspect these binaries did we?
 
>>> 
>>> Some extensions were included in the binaries, installed automatically
>>> as part of the main product install.  They look like integrated parts
>>> of the UI.  You can see Presentation Manager in Impress, under
>>> Tools/Minimize Presentation.  I'm pretty sure the Presenter Console
>>> requires two displays, so I can't see it.
>>> 
>>> The question is how we take the extensions in standalone form and put
>>> them in other common repositories?
>>> 
>>> Would this be analogous to what Java-based projects do with Maven?
>>> They build and release a larger source and binary distribution for
>>> their release, and that release distribution might contain several
>>> related libraries.  And after the release is made a volunteer uploads
>>> the individual libraries to the central maven repository,
>>> 
>>> How is that done with Maven central repository?  Does the project do
>>> that officially?  Or someone just does that individually?
>> 
>> We do it officially in Apache POI. See 
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/poi/trunk/maven/.
>> 
>> We've voted on these artifacts as well.
>> 
>> I think that if we have Extensions that are packaged separately they can be 
>> distributed in similar manner to the source, sdk, and binary distros. They 
>> do need a VOTE thread and then verifiable.
>> 
> 
> I don't think they are packaged separately, at least not at the source
> level.  In other words, we don't have a source package for them that
> is separate from the full AOO 3.4.1. source packages.   And I doubt
> that in binary form they are self-contained release artifacts, each
> with their own LICENSE and NOTICE files.
> 
> Although this could technically be done, to turn these into real
> release artifacts, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort of doing
> this, especially if anyone one of us can just upload the extensions to
> the repository without further effort.   In any case, for these
> extensions I think the plan is to more fully integrate them into the
> product in the future.

Since the extensions can get separated out of the build then those artifacts 
should be exposed as three more binary artifacts with hashes for verification 
and VOTE.


> 
>> We can follow the AOO341 release with an Extensions Release.
>> 
> 
> Certainly not objections if someone wants to do that.

None here - just that we'll need to agree to release.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Rob
>>> 
 In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on Apache 
 Mirrors as part of the release.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 
> 
> 
> I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
> supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
> user?
 
 
> 
> 
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
 
>>

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>>
 Hi Jürgen,

 On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
> release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
> if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
>
> ToDo's
> 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
> improvements have to be integrated
> 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
> 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
> 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
> archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
> Sourceforge?
> 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
> medias
> 5. ... what else?


 We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
 repository:

 1) Presentation Minimizer
 2) Presenter Console
 3) MediaWiki Publisher
>>>
>>> These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to VOTE 
>>> on and inspect these binaries did we?
>>>
>>
>> Some extensions were included in the binaries, installed automatically
>> as part of the main product install.  They look like integrated parts
>> of the UI.  You can see Presentation Manager in Impress, under
>> Tools/Minimize Presentation.  I'm pretty sure the Presenter Console
>> requires two displays, so I can't see it.
>>
>> The question is how we take the extensions in standalone form and put
>> them in other common repositories?
>>
>> Would this be analogous to what Java-based projects do with Maven?
>> They build and release a larger source and binary distribution for
>> their release, and that release distribution might contain several
>> related libraries.  And after the release is made a volunteer uploads
>> the individual libraries to the central maven repository,
>>
>> How is that done with Maven central repository?  Does the project do
>> that officially?  Or someone just does that individually?
>
> We do it officially in Apache POI. See 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/poi/trunk/maven/.
>
> We've voted on these artifacts as well.
>
> I think that if we have Extensions that are packaged separately they can be 
> distributed in similar manner to the source, sdk, and binary distros. They do 
> need a VOTE thread and then verifiable.
>

I don't think they are packaged separately, at least not at the source
level.  In other words, we don't have a source package for them that
is separate from the full AOO 3.4.1. source packages.   And I doubt
that in binary form they are self-contained release artifacts, each
with their own LICENSE and NOTICE files.

Although this could technically be done, to turn these into real
release artifacts, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort of doing
this, especially if anyone one of us can just upload the extensions to
the repository without further effort.   In any case, for these
extensions I think the plan is to more fully integrate them into the
product in the future.

> We can follow the AOO341 release with an Extensions Release.
>

Certainly not objections if someone wants to do that.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on Apache 
>>> Mirrors as part of the release.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>


 I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
 supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
 user?
>>>
>>>


 Regards
 --
 Ariel Constenla-Haile
 La Plata, Argentina
>>>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation


On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jürgen,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
 Hi,
 
 as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
 release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
 if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
 
 ToDo's
 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
 improvements have to be integrated
 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
 archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
 Sourceforge?
 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
 medias
 5. ... what else?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
>>> repository:
>>> 
>>> 1) Presentation Minimizer
>>> 2) Presenter Console
>>> 3) MediaWiki Publisher
>> 
>> These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to VOTE 
>> on and inspect these binaries did we?
>> 
> 
> Some extensions were included in the binaries, installed automatically
> as part of the main product install.  They look like integrated parts
> of the UI.  You can see Presentation Manager in Impress, under
> Tools/Minimize Presentation.  I'm pretty sure the Presenter Console
> requires two displays, so I can't see it.
> 
> The question is how we take the extensions in standalone form and put
> them in other common repositories?
> 
> Would this be analogous to what Java-based projects do with Maven?
> They build and release a larger source and binary distribution for
> their release, and that release distribution might contain several
> related libraries.  And after the release is made a volunteer uploads
> the individual libraries to the central maven repository,
> 
> How is that done with Maven central repository?  Does the project do
> that officially?  Or someone just does that individually?

We do it officially in Apache POI. See 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/poi/trunk/maven/.

We've voted on these artifacts as well.

I think that if we have Extensions that are packaged separately they can be 
distributed in similar manner to the source, sdk, and binary distros. They do 
need a VOTE thread and then verifiable.

We can follow the AOO341 release with an Extensions Release.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> -Rob
> 
>> In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on Apache 
>> Mirrors as part of the release.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
>>> supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
>>> user?
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>>> La Plata, Argentina
>>

Re: For AOO 3.5: rectify an omission in AOO 3.4

2012-08-17 Thread Rory O'Farrell

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:16:36 +0100
Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

> 
> In AOO 3.4 Impress and Draw, it is possible to name a slide/page.  Such names 
> are shown in Navigator, but are omitted on the Pages pane.  They were 
> available in earlier OOo versions (prob 3.3, but I can't check as I have no 
> running OOo 3.3 or earlier) and can be useful at various times in Handouts, 
> Slide Sorting, and even in presentation preparation.  Could we please have 
> this reinstated?
> 
> Discussion at
> http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55711

This may possibly be associated with bug
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=42866


-- 
Rory O'Farrell

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>
>> Hi Jürgen,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
>>> release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
>>> if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
>>>
>>> ToDo's
>>> 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
>>> improvements have to be integrated
>>> 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
>>> 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
>>> 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
>>> archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
>>> Sourceforge?
>>> 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
>>> medias
>>> 5. ... what else?
>>
>>
>> We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
>> repository:
>>
>> 1) Presentation Minimizer
>> 2) Presenter Console
>> 3) MediaWiki Publisher
>
> These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to VOTE 
> on and inspect these binaries did we?
>

Some extensions were included in the binaries, installed automatically
as part of the main product install.  They look like integrated parts
of the UI.  You can see Presentation Manager in Impress, under
Tools/Minimize Presentation.  I'm pretty sure the Presenter Console
requires two displays, so I can't see it.

The question is how we take the extensions in standalone form and put
them in other common repositories?

Would this be analogous to what Java-based projects do with Maven?
They build and release a larger source and binary distribution for
their release, and that release distribution might contain several
related libraries.  And after the release is made a volunteer uploads
the individual libraries to the central maven repository,

How is that done with Maven central repository?  Does the project do
that officially?  Or someone just does that individually?

-Rob

> In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on Apache 
> Mirrors as part of the release.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>> I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
>> supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
>> user?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> La Plata, Argentina
>

Re: [RELEASE]: release preparation


On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

> Hi Jürgen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
>> release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
>> if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
>> 
>> ToDo's
>> 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
>> improvements have to be integrated
>> 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
>> 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
>> 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
>> archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
>> Sourceforge?
>> 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
>> medias
>> 5. ... what else?
> 
> 
> We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
> repository:
> 
> 1) Presentation Minimizer
> 2) Presenter Console
> 3) MediaWiki Publisher

These are in the source package, but we did not have an opportunity to VOTE on 
and inspect these binaries did we?

In addition to being on the extensions site they'll need to be on Apache 
Mirrors as part of the release.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> 
> I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
> supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
> user?


> 
> 
> Regards
> -- 
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

RAT Reports

Hi,

Jürgen has created standalone ant script for RAT. This has trouble on Mac OSX - 
it is likely a RAT bug involving symlinks.

Andrew has fixed the buildbot to produce a usable RAT report. See 
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html

There are issues to address here that involve AOO 3.5:

(1) The XCU files for UOF need Apache Headers.

(2) Can patches have license headers? I think not.
Most likely main/redland/raptor/raptor-1.4.18.patch.fixes needs to be 
added to rat-excludes. 

(3) There are test case files that should have Apache Headers.

This is normal "spillage" that the project should inspect periodically and 
before each release.

Best Regards,
Dave

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

  [X] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)

IPMC VOTE.

Regards,
Dave

On Aug 15, 2012, at 5:02 AM, 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: [RELEASE]: release preparation

2012-08-17 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

Hi Jürgen,

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:35:34PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as you have probably noticed I have started a VOTE for our AOO 3.4.1
> release. We should prepare everything for next week to have it in place
> if the 2 VOTEs (PPMC + IPMC) will pass successful.
> 
> ToDo's
> 1. Release Notes, already available. Potentially some updates or
> improvements have to be integrated
> 2. upload of the binaries on dist -> prepared and ready to start
> 3. changing the download page, adapt download logic -> ???
> 3.1 changed logic for the former 3.4 download -> they move to
> archive.apache.org -> do we need to change something, we download via
> Sourceforge?
> 4. prepare announcement for the announcement list and the various social
> medias
> 5. ... what else?


We should upload the three official extensions to the extensions
repository:

1) Presentation Minimizer
2) Presenter Console
3) MediaWiki Publisher


I guess they shouldn't be uploaded by an individual: they are officially
supported; so would it be possible to create an "Apache OO i Project"
user?


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpebVuP7HO1g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [UX] DISCUSS - Survey Tool Recommendation


On 16/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

I've been looking at various survey tools and would like to recommend that
we deploy the open source survey tool, *LimeSurvey.*


Perfect. It is a good tool and it is in continuity with what the project 
used to use, see my old e-mail at

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201206.mbox/%3c4feecc9a.3020...@apache.org%3E


1) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache at their existing domain name

2) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache and some pays $15 or
so to get a better domain name for it, like www.oosurvey.net

3) A volunteer hosts the survey outside of Apache but we redirect the
subdomain "survey.openoffice.org" to point to the external server


As I wrote in the same e-mail, Graham had written he had a working
LimeSurvey installation that he could make available to the project:
http://s.apache.org/wZ . So I'd try with that first, and I'd probably 
prefer option 3 to keep all services under one namespace.


Regards,
  Andrea.

[RELEASE]: update on RAT scans for AOO 3.4.1

2012-08-17 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

Hi,

I would like to give a short update regarding the RAT scans and the
problems with our build bots.

The build bots didn't worked reliable in the past but we are working on
it. The RAT scans on the build bots signaled potential problems that we
have analyzed.

The good news we are save here and let me explain why.

After figuring out that the nice RAT tool worked only on Linux
reliable, I was able to run a successful RAT scan on the src release.
You can find it under
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-3.4.1_rat/aoo-3.4.1_rat-output.html

The scan initially found 3 files that I will explain now:

Unapproved Licenses:
aoo-3.4.1/main/desktop/source/app/desktop.hrc.rej
aoo-3.4.1/main/desktop/source/app/desktop.src.rej
aoo-3.4.1/main/solenv/bin/download_external_dependencies.pl

The 2 *.rej files were packed by mistake because I forgot to delete
them. They are not part of the svn repo but were produced by svn. They
don't have influence on the build or the resulting binaries

download_external_dependencies.pl
This file was introduced new to solve the download issues of external
packages and an appropriate header is missing. The file was created by
Andre and is of course under ALv2. Already fixed on trunk!

Regarding the 2 *.rej files I have packaged the src files again, signed
and upload them to clean up the RAT scan to include the
*.pl file only. Important to know that it was a simple replacking on the
same revison -> NO NEW REVISION -> NO NEW BUILD of the binaries is
necessary.

The RAT scan is updated and includes now only the
download_external_dependencies.pl

I hope you agree that this is ok and that we don't have to rebuild the
binaries.


How to run the RAT scan on your own.

1. download
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-3.4.1_rat/openofficeorg.xml
http://people.apache.org/~jsc/aoo-3.4.1_rat/rat-output.xsl

and the RAT tool from http://creadur.apache.org/rat/download_rat.cgi

Furthermore you need a saxon xslt processor. It will be built during the
normal build of the office and you can find it main/saxon/.
But you can of course download it on your own.

1. adapt the paths in openofficeorg.xml to the aoo source and the RAT
tool. And potentially the path to the out put file.

2. run the RAT scan
ant -f openofficeorg.xml

3. convert the rat-output.xml to html
java -jar saxon9.jar -t -s:./rat-output.xml -xsl:./rat-output.xsl
-o:./aoo-3.4.1_rat-output.html

For the future we will ensure that our build bots work correct and that
the RAT output remains clean.

The VOTE continues as planned!

Thanks

Juergen

For AOO 3.5: rectify an omission in AOO 3.4

2012-08-17 Thread Rory O'Farrell


In AOO 3.4 Impress and Draw, it is possible to name a slide/page.  Such names 
are shown in Navigator, but are omitted on the Pages pane.  They were available 
in earlier OOo versions (prob 3.3, but I can't check as I have no running OOo 
3.3 or earlier) and can be useful at various times in Handouts, Slide Sorting, 
and even in presentation preparation.  Could we please have this reinstated?

Discussion at
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=55711

-- 
Rory O'Farrell

Re: Extend release vote till after testing? (was: Re: [QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing))

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM, drew  wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
>> > vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
>> > finished till Monday.
>> >
>> > Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?
>> >
>>
>> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does
>> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your
>> test or anyone else's tests.
>>
>> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC
>> process.Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper
>> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage.  Even if a showstopper
>> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we
>> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here.
>>
>
> Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the
> current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait?
>

My opinion:

1) There is no limit to how much testing we can do on a release.  Any
decision to end testing is arbitrary.  We could always take more time
and do more kinds of tests, in more variations.

2) The proposal of this release candidate and the timing of it should
not be surprising to any member of the community.  It has been the
primary topic of conversation on this list for nearly a month.

3) Just as it is the responsibility of every programmer to get their
code submitted in time for the RC, and for every translator to get
their translations submitted in time for the RC, it is the
responsibility of ever tester to get their tests done in time.

4) If anyone thought that there were critical tests that must be
performed, but these tests could not be performed before the release
vote ended, then they should have spoken up quite a long time ago.

5) We're currently holding back fixes from our users, some quite
critical, by delaying the release.

We gain absolutely nothing by delaying the vote.  If we delay and
nothing is found then we've wasted time.  If we don't delay and we
find a bug then we go back and cut a new Release Candidate.  But we
should we assume that further testing is going to find a show stopping
bug?  That doesn't make sense to me.

> I would wait.
>

And what if I said I had even more tests that I wanted to run, but
they would take two weeks more?

-Rob

> Thanks
>
> ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps.
>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > //drew
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
>> >> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
>> >> 1. BVT passed [1]
>> >> 2. PVT is done [2]
>> >> 3. Automation FVT passed [3]
>> >> 4. Installation test complete [4]
>> >> 5. General testing is done [5]
>> >> 6. Native build testing [6]
>> >>
>> >> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
>> >> Monday.
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>> >> [2]
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
>> >> [3]
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>> >> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
>> >> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
>> >> [6]
>> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Extend release vote till after testing?

2012-08-17 Thread drew jensen

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 18:26 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/17/12 6:07 PM, drew wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew  wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
> >>> vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
> >>> finished till Monday.
> >>>
> >>> Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does
> >> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your
> >> test or anyone else's tests.
> >>
> >> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC
> >> process.Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper
> >> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage.  Even if a showstopper
> >> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we
> >> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here.
> >>
> > 
> > Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the
> > current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait?
> > 
> > I would wait.
> 
> no need to wait, if you feel comfortable with your testing/verification
> cast your vote.
> 
> Juergen
> 

Well, I thought given the head email here and what I was seeing
regarding the RAT scan that, in this specific case, it might make sense
to push out the extra 24 hours - but I don't feel strongly about it.

//drew

> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps.
> > 
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> //drew
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
>  We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
>  1. BVT passed [1]
>  2. PVT is done [2]
>  3. Automation FVT passed [3]
>  4. Installation test complete [4]
>  5. General testing is done [5]
>  6. Native build testing [6]
> 
>  We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report 
>  next
>  Monday.
> 
>  [1]
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>  [2]
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
>  [3]
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>  [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
>  [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
>  [6]
>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
>

Re: build guide on download page?

2012-08-17 Thread Kay Schenk

On 08/17/2012 03:09 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 17.08.2012 00:36, Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 16, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On 08/16/2012 12:57 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 08/16/2012 06:34 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

I think it might be a good idea to include a link to build
information on
the download page.

We could probably put this right under the heading for the source
section...

http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk

Given the recent discussion on the [VOTE] thread for 3.4.1, it
would be
great if we could get the build instructions better integrated in
*one*
place and we can add this link to the source download section.

Comments? Volunteers?

Good idea. We just need to decide which webpage to link to.

I've seen in another thread that Dave had some problems to build
AOO. It
seems we have (at least) 2 webpages that describe how to build on your
own. So ...

Marcus

Right, so here is a question/idea.

Andre pointed Dave to this wiki page --

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO

we also have a bunch of build flags for each environment listed on:

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

Should we either 1) incorporate the build flags on Building_Guide_AOO
page

or 2) link to them from the Building_Guide_AOO page

Link to them - the one's used on the builds include some choices that
the various builders have made which don't exactly match the
instructions on the various guides. For example, Jürgen has put
downloaded prerequisites.

Building_Guide_AOO already contains the more important switches (eg
--enable-category-b, --enable-bundled-dictionaries) and explains why
these are not on by default.
I restricted the choice to a minimum to not confuse the reader.

These are good examples.

Also, I will change the link on the source page in the project site
to go to Building_Guide_AOO instead of the one that is there now.

Rob placed a message on the old Building Guide page, but perhaps it
will be overlooked.

There are four pages in the wiki linked to from the README.

Windows:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows

Linux:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Linux

Mac OS X:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
Solaris:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Solaris

If these are no longer current then each should have a prominent link
to the correct page:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO.

I made this change on trunk.

The README is at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/README

There are also build instructions in there, so that needs some cleanup.

Long story short, why don't we plan on putting a link to
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO

at the top of source section in other.html and deal with build flags
separately...

Yes, agreed. But link to the development builds from the
Building_Guide_AOO.

A reference to all of the build flags would help too.

Yes, we need that.

My idea for Building_Guide_AOO was to have one page that explains the
outline of how to build AOO, not to contain every single detail as that
would just obscure the big picture. I also tried to avoid repeating the
basics on many platform specific pages so that the building guide
remains maintainable. See how the pages linked above have diverged and
are out-of-date.

But I am beginning to see the benefit of having simpler recipes for the
major platforms. Less explaining, just step by step descriptions that
get you from downloading/checking out the source code to a running
office. I will start this for Linux (Ubuntu 12.04) and Mac (if I get it
to run in a virtual machine) but any help is welcome.

-Andre

yes, that would be good.

OK, I just made several changes which I hope will help with this.

* changed the general Build Guide page on the wiki (we had a link to the
AOO Build guide but I made it more prominent and arranged the order a bit)

* fixed links on the Source link in the project web site
* added a link to the revised build guide page on the Developer Snapshot
page under the "source" areas

yes, I also think the platform specific areas on the general build page
on the wiki should be changed (or not used) if they're not up to date.

Also, I think it would be VERY helpful to explain some aspects -- system
integration vs not, build with Mozilla or not, etc. Maybe this is
already explained somewhere but I don't know where.

ok, back later

Thanks,
Dave

MzK

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

--
-

Re: Extend release vote till after testing?

2012-08-17 Thread Jürgen Schmidt

On 8/17/12 6:07 PM, drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
>>> vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
>>> finished till Monday.
>>>
>>> Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does
>> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your
>> test or anyone else's tests.
>>
>> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC
>> process.Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper
>> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage.  Even if a showstopper
>> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we
>> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here.
>>
> 
> Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the
> current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait?
> 
> I would wait.

no need to wait, if you feel comfortable with your testing/verification
cast your vote.

Juergen


> 
> Thanks
> 
> ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps.
> 
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> //drew
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
 We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
 1. BVT passed [1]
 2. PVT is done [2]
 3. Automation FVT passed [3]
 4. Installation test complete [4]
 5. General testing is done [5]
 6. Native build testing [6]

 We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
 Monday.

 [1]
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
 [2]
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
 [3]
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
 [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
 [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
 [6]
 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>

Re: [QA] TestLink Usage Guide


Li Feng Wang wrote:

   I wrote a Wiki about TestLink Usage Guide,
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestLink
   Hope to help you use TestLink.


Thanks, very good information. A couple of remarks:

1) Can testcases be translated? Of course one can create a scenario 
where, say, all tests are translated into Italian; but maintaining and 
updating translations will be much easier if TestLink supports 
translations out of the box.


2) Can we establish a policy to use the "Export" function to archive 
testcases in the OpenOffice SVN repository at regular intervals? This 
will clarify any "intellectual property" issues and it will avoid 
disasters similar to what happened with TCM, where we had hundreds of 
testcases (translated into multiple languages) that were lost when 
Oracle turned off TCM (or the server hosting it, or the DNS record for it).


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Extend release vote till after testing? (was: Re: [QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing))

2012-08-17 Thread drew

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
> > vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
> > finished till Monday.
> >
> > Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?
> >
> 
> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does
> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your
> test or anyone else's tests.
> 
> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC
> process.Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper
> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage.  Even if a showstopper
> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we
> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here.
> 

Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the
current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait?

I would wait.

Thanks

ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps.

> -Rob
> 
> > Thanks
> >
> > //drew
> >
> > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
> >> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
> >> 1. BVT passed [1]
> >> 2. PVT is done [2]
> >> 3. Automation FVT passed [3]
> >> 4. Installation test complete [4]
> >> 5. General testing is done [5]
> >> 6. Native build testing [6]
> >>
> >> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
> >> Monday.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
> >> [2]
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
> >> [3]
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
> >> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
> >> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
> >> [6]
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
> >
> >
>

Re: Extend release vote till after testing? (was: Re: [QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing))

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
> vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
> finished till Monday.
>
> Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?
>

Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does
not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your
test or anyone else's tests.

I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC
process.Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper
issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage.  Even if a showstopper
issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we
can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here.

-Rob

> Thanks
>
> //drew
>
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
>> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
>> 1. BVT passed [1]
>> 2. PVT is done [2]
>> 3. Automation FVT passed [3]
>> 4. Installation test complete [4]
>> 5. General testing is done [5]
>> 6. Native build testing [6]
>>
>> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
>> Monday.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>> [2]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
>> [3]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
>> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
>> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
>> [6]
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
>
>

[DISCUSS] AOO Ready to Graduate

We've had several prods from our mentors suggesting that we are ready
to graduate.  But I think there was general recognition that with
graduation comes a little hump in extra work, both for the project as
well as the IPMC and Infra, especially related to mailing list and
website changes [1].  We wanted to avoid piling that on top of the
already considerable work required to get AOO 3.4.1 released.

The AOO 3.4.1 release is now being voted on.  So I think it is a good
time for us to start this process.

I'd recommend everyone take a look at this timeline [2] for what the
graduation process looks like.  You can see it is three steps:

1) Optional Community vote [3]

2) Preparation of a Charter and Resolution [4]

3) Vote by the IPMC to recommend the Charter/Resolution to the ASF Board.

4) Approval by the ASF Board.

As I understand it the ASF Board meeting on the 3rd Wednesday of each
month.  So the next meeting should be September 19th.  If we start
now, we should have plenty of time to work through this process in
time for that meeting.

I'd like to start the first step, with the optional, but highly
recommended, community vote, stating our belief that we are ready to
graduate.

Regards,

-Rob


[1]  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#project-first-steps

[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#process

[3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-community-vote

[4] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#tlp-resolution

Extend release vote till after testing? (was: Re: [QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing))

2012-08-17 Thread drew

Hi,

My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the
vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not
finished till Monday.

Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished?

Thanks

//drew

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote:
> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
> 1. BVT passed [1]
> 2. PVT is done [2]
> 3. Automation FVT passed [3]
> 4. Installation test complete [4]
> 5. General testing is done [5]
> 6. Native build testing [6]
> 
> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
> Monday.
> 
> [1]
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
> [2]
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
> [3]
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
> [6]
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing

[QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing)

2012-08-17 Thread Ji Yan

We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report
1. BVT passed [1]
2. PVT is done [2]
3. Automation FVT passed [3]
4. Installation test complete [4]
5. General testing is done [5]
6. Native build testing [6]

We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next
Monday.

[1]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
[2]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282
[3]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282
[4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2
[5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282
[6]
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing
-- 


Thanks & Best Regards, Yan Ji

Re: [RELEASE] changes made to source files of our source release for easier IP review


Hi,

On 17.08.2012 16:21, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

attached you find a text file containing the changes we had made to our source
files of our source release for AOO 3.4.1
- leading "M" means that the file has been modified.
- leading "D" means that the file has been deleted.
- leading "A" means that the file has been added.

Assumming that the IP review of AOO 3.4 source release is ok, you can
concentrate your IP review for AOO 3.4.1 on these files.




attached you find for convenience the change to our NOTICE files. We had made a 
change to main/NOTICE_category_b whose content is added to the general NOTICE 
file during the build process, if needed. The text lines with leading "+" has 
been added.



Best regards, Oliver.
Index: main/NOTICE_category_b
===
--- main/NOTICE_category_b  (revision 1336165)
+++ main/NOTICE_category_b  (revision 1372282)
@@ -5,3 +5,23 @@
 When you used this option make sure to comply with the
 distribution requirements of these parts by extending
 this file with the notices recommended by them:
+
+___
+
+Notices for CoinMP libary:
+The Computational Infrastructure for Operations Research COIN_OR
+project developed the CoinMP library (a lightweight API and DLL 
+for CLP, CBC, and CGL).
+It includes and depends on 
+- CoinUtils: COIN-OR utilities, utilities, data structures, and 
+linear algebra methods for COIN-OR projects
+- CLP: COIN-OR Graph Classes, a collection of network representations 
+and algorithms
+- CBC: COIN-OR Branch and Cut, an LP-based branch-and-cut library
+- CGL: Cut Generator Library, a library of cutting-plane generators
+The source code of these dependencies which are available under 
+license EPL can found at 
+http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/CoinMP/
+
+___
+

Re: [RELEASE] changes made to source files of our source release for easier IP review


Hi,

On 17.08.2012 16:21, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

attached you find a text file containing the changes we had made to our source
files of our source release for AOO 3.4.1
- leading "M" means that the file has been modified.
- leading "D" means that the file has been deleted.
- leading "A" means that the file has been added.

Assumming that the IP review of AOO 3.4 source release is ok, you can
concentrate your IP review for AOO 3.4.1 on these files.




my remarks on the added files:
- main/external_deps.lst and main/solenv/bin/download_external_dependencies.pl
these has been added by Andre for better and clearer external dependencies and 
download for convenience.

- main/comphelper/inc/comphelper/newarray.hxx has been added by Armin
- ext_libraries/apr/apr-1.4.5.patch has been added by Pedro to support FreeBSD
- ext_libraries/hunspell/hunspell-solaris.patch,
ext_libraries/hunspell/hunspell-bash.patch,
ext_libraries/hunspell/makefile.mk,
ext_libraries/hunspell/hunspell-wntconfig.patch,
ext_libraries/hunspell/hunspell-mingw.patch,
ext_libraries/hunspell/prj/build.lst and
ext_libraries/hunspell/prj/d.lst are more or less the original files from 
deleted main/hunspell adapted to the new hunspell version



Best regards, Oliver.

[RELEASE] changes made to source files of our source release for easier IP review


Hi,

attached you find a text file containing the changes we had made to our source 
files of our source release for AOO 3.4.1

- leading "M" means that the file has been modified.
- leading "D" means that the file has been deleted.
- leading "A" means that the file has been added.

Assumming that the IP review of AOO 3.4 source release is ok, you can 
concentrate your IP review for AOO 3.4.1 on these files.



Best regards, Oliver.
D   main/hunspell
D   main/hunspell/hunspell-solaris.patch
D   main/hunspell/makefile.mk
D   main/hunspell/hunspell-1.2.8-thesfix.patch
D   main/hunspell/hunspell-wntconfig.patch
D   main/hunspell/hunspell-mingw.patch
D   main/hunspell/hunspell-stacksmash.patch
D   main/hunspell/hunspell.patch
D   main/hunspell/prj
D   main/hunspell/prj/build.lst
D   main/hunspell/prj/d.lst
D   main/ooo.lst
M   main/bridges/source/cpp_uno/gcc3_freebsd_intel/cpp2uno.cxx
M   main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst
M   main/jvmfwk/distributions/OpenOfficeorg/javavendors_freebsd.xml
M   main/jvmfwk/distributions/OpenOfficeorg/javavendors_unx.xml
M   main/linguistic/source/lngsvcmgr.cxx
M   main/editeng/source/editeng/impedit3.cxx
M   main/editeng/source/editeng/impedit4.cxx
M   main/sfx2/source/doc/objstor.cxx
M   main/sfx2/source/doc/sfxbasemodel.cxx
M   main/sfx2/source/appl/shutdowniconunx.cxx
M   main/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.cxx
M   main/sfx2/source/appl/shutdownicon.hxx
M   main/vcl/aqua/source/gdi/salvd.cxx
M   main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
M   main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.hxx
M   main/vcl/win/source/gdi/salbmp.cxx
M   main/vcl/win/source/gdi/salgdi3.cxx
M   main/vcl/Library_vclplug_gen.mk
M   main/vcl/source/gdi/region.cxx
M   main/vcl/source/gdi/print3.cxx
M   main/vcl/source/gdi/pngread.cxx
M   main/vcl/inc/vcl/print.hxx
M   main/vcl/inc/vcl/region.hxx
M   main/configure.in
D   main/package/source/manifest/Base64Codec.cxx
D   main/package/source/manifest/Base64Codec.hxx
M   main/package/source/manifest/ManifestImport.cxx
M   main/package/source/manifest/makefile.mk
M   main/package/source/manifest/ManifestImport.hxx
M   main/package/source/manifest/ManifestExport.cxx
M   main/package/prj/build.lst
M   main/package/util/makefile.mk
M   main/lingucomponent/source/spellcheck/spell/makefile.mk
M   main/sc/source/core/data/table3.cxx
M   main/sd/source/ui/slideshow/slideshowimpl.cxx
M   main/sd/source/ui/view/drawview.cxx
M   main/sd/source/ui/view/outlnvs2.cxx
M   main/i18npool/source/search/makefile.mk
M   main/i18npool/source/search/textsearch.cxx
M   main/starmath/source/document.cxx
M   main/starmath/source/edit.cxx
M   main/starmath/inc/edit.hxx
M   main/sw/source/filter/ww8/rtfattributeoutput.cxx
M   main/sw/source/filter/basflt/shellio.cxx
M   main/sw/source/filter/rtf/swparrtf.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/txtnode/txtedt.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/doc/docnew.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/doc/docedt.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/doc/doclay.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/crsr/findtxt.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/view/printdata.cxx
M   main/sw/source/core/layout/frmtool.cxx
M   main/sw/source/ui/uno/unotxvw.cxx
M   main/sw/source/ui/uno/unotxdoc.cxx
M   main/sw/source/ui/fldui/flddb.cxx
M   main/sw/inc/doc.hxx
M   main/autodoc/source/display/html/cfrstd.cxx
M   main/extensions/source/update/check/Jobs.xcu
D   main/hwpfilter/source/himgutil.h
D   main/hwpfilter/source/himgutil.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hbox.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hstyle.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hcode.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hwpeq.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hwpread.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/mapping.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/drawing.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hwpreader.cxx
M   main/hwpfilter/source/makefile.mk
M   main/hwpfilter/source/formula.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hbox.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/htags.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hwpreader.hxx
M   main/hwpfilter/source/drawdef.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hcode.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hwplib.h
M   main/hwpfilter/source/hpara.cpp
M   main/hwpfilter/prj/build.lst
M   main/offapi/type_reference/typelibrary_history.txt
M   main/offapi/type_reference/types.rdb
M   main/sdext/source/presenter/description.xml
M   main/sdext/source/presenter/makefile.mk
A   main/external_deps.lst
M   main/extensions.lst
A   main/solenv/bin/download_external_dependencies.pl
M   main/solenv/bin/modules/ExtensionsLst.pm
M   main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/scriptitems.pm
M   main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/windows/property.pm
M   main/solenv/bin/modules/installer/windows/component.pm
M   main/solenv/bin/srcrelease.xml

Re: [Announcing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Asghar Rahmani  wrote:
>  Hello everybody
>
> Encouraging  News! Many thanks.
>
> A few  comments  to this Ammounce :
>
> 1. About the 3. link, which refers to downloading  the AOO 3.4.1:
> On the download page I can only find the
> OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_exe ! If it is the V 3.4.1,
> then please update the static content of the download- page soon.
>

That was just a draft announcement, allowing some time for review, so
when the AOO 3.4.1 release is approved and the files uploaded we can
go directly to the announcement without additional delay.

> 2. Some info about update of an already deployed V3.4.0 to V3.4.1 is
> missing. Right?
> Suggestion: include titled text-section about this update in „Release
> Note“ (and even in this announce too?),
> since many endusers may need this information.
>

What kind of additional information do you think AOO 3.4.0 users need?

-Rob

> Greetings,
> Asghar
>

Re: [Announcing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1]

We are preparing for the release. No release and no official announcement yet.

Regards,
Dave

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:51 AM, Asghar Rahmani wrote:

> Hello everybody
> 
> Encouraging  News! Many thanks.
> 
> A few  comments  to this Ammounce :
> 
> 1. About the 3. link, which refers to downloading  the AOO 3.4.1:
> On the download page I can only find the
> OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_exe ! If it is the V 3.4.1,
> then please update the static content of the download- page soon.
> 
> 2. Some info about update of an already deployed V3.4.0 to V3.4.1 is
> missing. Right?
> Suggestion: include titled text-section about this update in „Release
> Note“ (and even in this announce too?),
> since many endusers may need this information.
> 
> Greetings,
> Asghar
>

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


Hi,

On 16.08.2012 14:42, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi

On 15.08.2012 19:05, 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



I am currently investigating the server logs and will post my results later.



The trouble causing HTTP POST requests found in the server logs does not seem to 
be related to the update function in former OOo versions.
I have investigated the update function HTTP requests from various former OOo 
versions in the server logs. All of them provide content for the HTTP UserAgent 
field. All of found HTTP POST request does not have such data.
Looking at some sample HTTP requests from one IP address reveals that the HTTP 
requests from the update function are unrelated to the HTTP POST requests.
I investigated the HTTP traffic of update function from former OOo versions (OOo 
2.2, OOo 2.3, OOo 2.3.1, OOo 2.4, OOo 3.x). None of these showed an HTTP POST 
request.
I evaluated some server logs from days before the established redirects from 
INFRA-5112. Here, I could not found any of such HTTP POST requests.
My conclusion is that there were another function in OOo which causes these HTTP 
POST requests. OOo 3.2, OOo 3.2.1, OOo 3.3 does not seem to have such a 
function, because the redirects for their update functions had been established 
a couple of weeks ago and I did not found any HTTP POST requests.


In order to figure out what is going on here, I will follow up with Apache 
infrastructure. I will report on ooo-dev, when I know more.


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: build guide on download page?

2012-08-17 Thread Andre Fischer

On 17.08.2012 00:36, Dave Fisher wrote:

On Aug 16, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

On 08/16/2012 12:57 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 08/16/2012 06:34 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

I think it might be a good idea to include a link to build information on
the download page.

We could probably put this right under the heading for the source
section...

http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-sdk

Given the recent discussion on the [VOTE] thread for 3.4.1, it would be
great if we could get the build instructions better integrated in *one*
place and we can add this link to the source download section.

Comments? Volunteers?

Good idea. We just need to decide which webpage to link to.

I've seen in another thread that Dave had some problems to build AOO. It
seems we have (at least) 2 webpages that describe how to build on your
own. So ...

Marcus

Right, so here is a question/idea.

Andre pointed Dave to this wiki page --

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO

we also have a bunch of build flags for each environment listed on:

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

Should we either 1) incorporate the build flags on Building_Guide_AOO page

or 2) link to them from the Building_Guide_AOO page

Link to them - the one's used on the builds include some choices that the
various builders have made which don't exactly match the instructions on the
various guides. For example, Jürgen has put downloaded prerequisites.

Building_Guide_AOO already contains the more important switches (eg
--enable-category-b, --enable-bundled-dictionaries) and explains why
these are not on by default.

I restricted the choice to a minimum to not confuse the reader.

These are good examples.

Also, I will change the link on the source page in the project site to go to
Building_Guide_AOO instead of the one that is there now.

Rob placed a message on the old Building Guide page, but perhaps it will be
overlooked.

There are four pages in the wiki linked to from the README.

Windows:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows
Linux:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Linux
Mac OS X:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions
Solaris:

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Solaris

If these are no longer current then each should have a prominent link to the
correct page:

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO.

I made this change on trunk.

The README is at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/README

There are also build instructions in there, so that needs some cleanup.

Long story short, why don't we plan on putting a link to
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO

at the top of source section in other.html and deal with build flags
separately...

Yes, agreed. But link to the development builds from the Building_Guide_AOO.

A reference to all of the build flags would help too.

Yes, we need that.

-Andre

Thanks,
Dave

MzK

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

[Announcing Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1]

2012-08-17 Thread Asghar Rahmani

 Hello everybody

Encouraging  News! Many thanks.

A few  comments  to this Ammounce :

1. About the 3. link, which refers to downloading  the AOO 3.4.1:
On the download page I can only find the
OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_exe ! If it is the V 3.4.1,
then please update the static content of the download- page soon.

2. Some info about update of an already deployed V3.4.0 to V3.4.1 is
missing. Right?
Suggestion: include titled text-section about this update in „Release
Note“ (and even in this announce too?),
since many endusers may need this information.

Greetings,
Asghar

Re: One wiki about Styles export for Spreadsheet

2012-08-17 Thread Oliver Brinzing

Hi,

>>  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Calc/Implementation/Calc_styles_export
>> Thanks for any comments!

just noticed i submitted some issues about styles some years ago:

XStyleLoader - user defined number formats are not imported
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=75048

CellStyle Property "IsInUse" does not work after deleting Rows/Columns in a 
spreadsheet
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=15889

i don't think they are already fixed :-;


Regards

Oliver

-- 

GnuPG key 0xCFD04A45: 8822 057F 4956 46D3 352C 1A06 4E2C AB40 CFD0 4A45



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.

OK, I see.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> On 17.08.2012 10:13, Huaidong Qiu wrote:
>
>> Oliver ,
>>
>> Do you know how many coding works already been done about this feature?
>>
>>
> in my former life ;-) an IBMer and myself work together on this feature.
> The mentioned specification had been created and a so-called CWS has been
> created - it is CWS "parastylelistlevel02" which replaced CWS
> "parastylelistlevel".
> These CWS are quite old, I am not sure, if there had been already applied
> code.
> I think we should not rely on this work, because the code base of these
> CWS is too old.
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.


Hi,

On 17.08.2012 10:13, Huaidong Qiu wrote:

Oliver ,

Do you know how many coding works already been done about this feature?



in my former life ;-) an IBMer and myself work together on this feature. The 
mentioned specification had been created and a so-called CWS has been created - 
it is CWS "parastylelistlevel02" which replaced CWS "parastylelistlevel".

These CWS are quite old, I am not sure, if there had been already applied code.
I think we should not rely on this work, because the code base of these CWS is 
too old.


Best regards, Oliver.

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

2012-08-17 Thread Andre Fischer


On 16.08.2012 19:59, Dave Fisher wrote:


On Aug 16, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:


On 16.08.2012 00:46, 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".

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.


1. LWP::UserAgent has been a prerequisite for years.  But I think I remember 
that it was temporarily removed from one of the older platform specific build 
instruction pages.

2. Can you be more specific regarding your problems with 
download_external_dependencies.pl so that I can fix it?  It exists under this 
name for more than two months and since it is used in every setup of a build I 
would say that it is fairly well tested.  But that does not mean that it is 
error free.

3. Please have a look at 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO.  Maybe that 
page is more helpful.  If not, please help me to improve it.


That page *IS* much better!

To handle my case it would be good to suggest that a user upgrade their Perl 
dependencies. That path != install.


What did you do exactly?  Something like "install CPAN; reload cpan" ?



As long as the READMEs links get a user to eventually get to this MWiki page 
that would be great!


I have changed the README (on trunk) to point to the new building guide 
and cleaned it up a bit.



I will try to make a clean install on Mac.  The problem is to lay hands 
on a pristine Mac environment.  I recently read that from MacOSX Lion on 
it is legal to run a copy of it in a virtual environment on (as long as 
that runs on Apple hardware).  So I will set up a Mountain Lion VM and 
write down what has to be done to build AOO.


-Andre

>[...]

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.

Andrea ,

Yes you are right, it is part of  ODF standard now.

Regards

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> On 17/08/2012 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>> On 17.08.2012 10:06, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:
>>>
 I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF
 attribute
 "List Level" for paragraph style

>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/**specs/writer/index.html
>> [2] 
>> http://www.openoffice.org/**specs/writer/numbering/**ListLevel.odt
>>
>
> Just to have it clear: this is "new" in the sense that it would be new to
> support it in OpenOffice but it is already part of the ODF standard, right?
> Link #2 says it "has been integrated to ODF1.2 Draft8", so I'd expect it to
> have made its way into the final ODF 1.2 specification.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.


On 17/08/2012 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

On 17.08.2012 10:06, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:

I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF
attribute
"List Level" for paragraph style

[1] http://www.openoffice.org/specs/writer/index.html
[2] http://www.openoffice.org/specs/writer/numbering/ListLevel.odt


Just to have it clear: this is "new" in the sense that it would be new 
to support it in OpenOffice but it is already part of the ODF standard, 
right? Link #2 says it "has been integrated to ODF1.2 Draft8", so I'd 
expect it to have made its way into the final ODF 1.2 specification.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Mixed oneway and normal/synchronous UNO interface calls

2012-08-17 Thread Karsten Burger


 Original-Nachricht 
> Datum: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:30:04 +0200
> Von: "Jürgen Schmidt" 
> An: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Mixed oneway and normal/synchronous UNO interface calls

> On 8/16/12 4:49 PM, Andre Fischer wrote:
> > On 16.08.2012 15:19, Karsten Burger wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I posted this to ooo-users but was advised to post it here:
> >>
> >> I found this guarantee for oneway calls:
> >>
> >> http://www.openoffice.org/udk/common/man/uno.html
> >>
>  sequence of calls:
>  UNO allows declaring a method oneway (or asynchron). Multiple,
>  oneway calls are guaranteed to be executed in the same sequence
> as
>  they were called.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now my question: what happens when oneway and normal synchronous calls
> >> are mixed?
> >>
> >> We use UNO as a component framework for our large project (on Redhat
> >> Linux EL5.8)  with many of our own interfaces. E.g. if several oneway
> >> calls are issued, and then a synchronous call, does the synchronous
> >> call wait until the oneway calls are finished? Or are normal and
> >> oneway/async calls not connected?
> >>
> >> I also found this:
> >>
> >> http://www.openoffice.org/gsl/UnoOnewayDeadlock.html
> > 
> > I am afraid that I can not answer your question but I am glad that you
> > found this URL.  It may describe the reason for a freeze bug that came
> > up recently (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120476).
> > 
> > -Andre
> 
> I can't remember all the details around oneway calls but I think we did
> not really deprecated them but gave advice to not use oneway calls.
> 
> I think you have to do some tests for your scenario to ensure that the
> behaviour is exactly what you expected or need.
> 
> What kind of project you are working on, it sounds interesting that you
> are using UNO as component framework.
> 
> I remember a company who decided to use UNO for their project as well
> and they had chosen UNO because of the feature set and performance
> compared to other middleware technologies. Several years ago and they
> did a very good analysis before they had contacted us and asked if we
> could extract UNO from the office make it standalone available. That was
> the birth of the URE.
> 
> But my plan is more to rework the 3 layer office to get rid of some
> complexity. We don't release an URE at Apache at the moment.
> 
> Juergen
> 

Hello Juergen,

thanks for your reply. Indeed it is the same company that I am currently 
working for. As far as I remember, they chose UNO because of
- the minimal overhead when calling into a service when it is in the same 
process (a virtual method call)
- the ability to cope with a large number of interfaces and services, also 
regarding compile times

They made it the backbone of the newer, component-based parts of the software, 
and they use oneway calls a lot: in this way they can reduce the IPC traffic 
between clients and a server application. 

Regards, Karsten


P.S. regarding deadlocks:

Using remote UNO oneway calls can cause deadlocks.

This is because UNO maintains the sequence of calls (both synchronous and 
oneway) made by a caller on a per caller thread basis.

Note: oneway != asynchronous. Asynchronous calls would not maintain the call 
sequence.

The problem may show-up whenever a oneway call triggering a callback is 
followed by a synchronous call issued in the same thread.

See here for the full explanation.

The problem can be avoided by choosing one option of:

* On the caller side: Issue all oneway calls in a separate thread.
* On the callee side: Immediately dispatch each oneway call to a separate 
thread and return.


-- 
-
Dr. Karsten Burger 
Lindenstraße 23
72074 Tübingen

Telefon 0171 124 134 8

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.

Oliver ,

Do you know how many coding works already been done about this feature?

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Huaidong Qiu  wrote:

> Thanks,  Oliver
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF
>>> attribute
>>> "List Level" for paragraph style, and with this new ODF attribute we can
>>> get better MS numbering interoperability. I will keep recording my
>>> progress
>>> in this wiki page.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Writer/**
>>> NumberingEnhancementforMSInter**operability
>>>
>>> Suggestions and comments are welcome.
>>>
>>>
>> you can count on me regarding code review and support on the code of the
>> Writer numbering and bullet stuff.
>>
>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>
>
>

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.

Thanks,  Oliver

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF
>> attribute
>> "List Level" for paragraph style, and with this new ODF attribute we can
>> get better MS numbering interoperability. I will keep recording my
>> progress
>> in this wiki page.
>>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Writer/**NumberingEnhancementforMSInter
>> **operability
>>
>> Suggestions and comments are welcome.
>>
>>
> you can count on me regarding code review and support on the code of the
> Writer numbering and bullet stuff.
>
> Best regards, Oliver.
>

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.


Hi,

On 17.08.2012 10:06, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

Hi,

On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:

Hi all

I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF attribute
"List Level" for paragraph style, and with this new ODF attribute we can
get better MS numbering interoperability. I will keep recording my progress
in this wiki page.

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/NumberingEnhancementforMSInteroperability

Suggestions and comments are welcome.



you can count on me regarding code review and support on the code of the Writer
numbering and bullet stuff.



just for completeness.

On [1] you find already a specification for this feature - "Introduction of a 
List Level attribute for paragraph styles" [2]


[1] http://www.openoffice.org/specs/writer/index.html
[2] http://www.openoffice.org/specs/writer/numbering/ListLevel.odt


Best regards, Oliver.

Re: svn commit: r1373695 - in /incubator/ooo/trunk/main: filter/inc/filter/msfilter/escherex.hxx filter/inc/filter/msfilter/msdffimp.hxx filter/source/msfilter/escherex.cxx filter/source/msfilter/msdf

2012-08-17 Thread Jianyuan Li

Thanks Pavel. I will add this parameter on configure.

2012/8/17 Pavel Janík 

>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Jianyuan Li wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reminder. Done in revision 1374138.
> > BTW, can you show me how you found this kind of warning? Is there any
> tools
> > or guide?
>
> Just build with WaE, so add --enable-werror to configure.
> --
> Pavel Janík
>
>
>
>

Re: Working on a writer number enhancement.


Hi,

On 17.08.2012 10:02, Huaidong Qiu wrote:

Hi all

I am working on a writer number enhancement, to support a new ODF attribute
"List Level" for paragraph style, and with this new ODF attribute we can
get better MS numbering interoperability. I will keep recording my progress
in this wiki page.

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer/NumberingEnhancementforMSInteroperability

Suggestions and comments are welcome.



you can count on me regarding code review and support on the code of the Writer 
numbering and bullet stuff.


Best regards, Oliver.

Working on a writer number enhancement.