Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 07.01.2012 16:35, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Hi Oliver Am 07.01.12 16:28, schrieb Oliver Brinzing: Hi Raphael, Is sameone around here with Java 7? I hear that LO 3.4.x has trubble with Java 7. So this is probabily also a problem at AOO 3.4. Can sameone test this? i installed aoo34m1 revision 1226179 from http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ on my win xp 32bit vm with jre 1.6_24 - no problems now i uninstalled jre 1.6_24 and installed jre 1.7_02, but aoo does not find the new jre. i cannot add the jre 1.7 via "tools - options - ooo-dev - java add.." aoo tells me, the path does not contain a jre... Thanks for the feedback. Then we have a problem... do you write a issue? Or you prefer to fix it your self ;-) Greetings Raphael We have Issue 118352: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 Do we know what we have to test if AOO will support JRE 7.x? The detection on Tools | Options will not be enough. Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 07.01.2012 18:44, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi Olaf, On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 05:22:13PM +0100, O.Felka wrote: We have Issue 118352: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 the issue is assigned to you. Did you start working on fixing it? Regards I'm not a developer. I'm the default assignee for these issues. Olaf
Re: [build
Hi Oliver, I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!". The installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders. The same installation is ok with http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Regards, Olaf Am 11.01.2012 16:49, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Hi, until our new 'developer snapshots service' is ready you found the developer snapshots builds which I have created under http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/ Best regards, Oliver.
Re: [build
Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Hi On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote: Hi Oliver, I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!". The installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders. The same installation is ok with http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with user-installed extensions. I had it on my machine and the installation of the AOO developer snapshot work without any problem, but it updated my installed OOo 3.4 Beta. As I had no user-installed extension in my OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error regarding the registration of extensions during the installation. But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I just installed it by executing the installation set executable. When I recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that mixed version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again. This works. After the installation I had the folder with the installation files on my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully installed and run it. Can you give it another try? Best regards, Oliver. I've done the installation on a virgin XP image. No Office has been installed before. 'setup /a' (administrative installation) just extracts the Office files. No update for an existing Office will be done. Regards, Olaf
Re: [build
Am 12.01.2012 13:46, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Hi, On 12.01.2012 12:06, O.Felka wrote: Am 12.01.2012 09:12, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Hi On 11.01.2012 17:43, O.Felka wrote: Hi Oliver, I've started a 'setup.exe /a' installtion of http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe I got the error "An error occured during registration of extensions!". The installation ends up in a rollback with epty folders. The same installation is ok with http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/win/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Do you had OOo 3.4 Beta installed on your system? May be with user-installed extensions. I had it on my machine and the installation of the AOO developer snapshot work without any problem, but it updated my installed OOo 3.4 Beta. As I had no user-installed extension in my OOo 3.4 Beta I got no error regarding the registration of extensions during the installation. But, I first I did not run 'setup.exe -a' - I just installed it by executing the installation set executable. When I recognized that it trashed my OOo 3.4 Beta, I uninstall that mixed version from my system and installed the developer snapshot again. This works. After the installation I had the folder with the installation files on my disk. Here, I executed 'setup.exe -a' and successfully installed and run it. Can you give it another try? Best regards, Oliver. I've done the installation on a virgin XP image. No Office has been installed before. 'setup /a' (administrative installation) just extracts the Office files. No update for an existing Office will be done. Thus, did I get it right that you have given it another try and that it works? Best regards, Oliver. Yes and no: Yes: I give it another try. No: It still doesn't work. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [build
Am 12.01.2012 14:45, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: I can not reproduce the failure here on my Windows 7 system. Yes, on Win7 setup /a works fine. Groetjes, Olaf I executed ../OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe and the installation works. Afterwards, I executed 'setup.exe /a' which is found in the installation files folder and this installation also works. BTW, the installation set do not contain any extensions. Thus, may be my installation sets are not working under Windows XP. Does anybody else experience the same issue? In the meanwhile I will prepare new installation sets. Best regards, Oliver.
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 12.01.2012 03:35, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Thanks for the fix. Could you set up the issue status? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 IIRC I resolved as fixed only 2 issues I fixed in order to test the new bugzilla instancia was keeping my can-confirm privileges. Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the issue status. I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. Regards Due to issue 118352 I've made some tests with AOO and Java 7. Java 7 is detected now by AOO but AOO doesn't support it (see issue 118352). So my conclusion is not to detect it if it's not supported. Regards, Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2012 16:21, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 14:30 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 12.01.2012 03:35, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Thanks for the fix. Could you set up the issue status? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 IIRC I resolved as fixed only 2 issues I fixed in order to test the new bugzilla instancia was keeping my can-confirm privileges. Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the issue status. I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. Regards Due to issue 118352 I've made some tests with AOO and Java 7. Java 7 is detected now by AOO but AOO doesn't support it (see issue 118352). So my conclusion is not to detect it if it's not supported. Regards, Olaf Try orw's build it works with java 1.7. : http://people.apache.org/~orw/ Regards, Zoltan It's the same with the builds of Olive: Java 7 has been detected but the Wizard doesn't work. Regards, Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 16:43 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 16:21, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 14:30 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 12.01.2012 03:35, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Thanks for the fix. Could you set up the issue status? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 IIRC I resolved as fixed only 2 issues I fixed in order to test the new bugzilla instancia was keeping my can-confirm privileges. Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the issue status. I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. Regards Due to issue 118352 I've made some tests with AOO and Java 7. Java 7 is detected now by AOO but AOO doesn't support it (see issue 118352). So my conclusion is not to detect it if it's not supported. Regards, Olaf Try orw's build it works with java 1.7. : http://people.apache.org/~orw/ Regards, Zoltan It's the same with the builds of Olive: Java 7 has been detected but the Wizard doesn't work. Regards, Olaf It shows a debug messeage: Debug Output --- Error: SfxHTMLParser::SfxHTMLParser: Wo kommt der ZS her? From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/bastyp/sfxhtml.cxx at Line 79 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click no, then second debug error: --- Debug Output --- Error: Don't close the medium when loading documents! From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/doc/objmisc.cxx at Line 1444 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click No, the wizard starts. May be the debug allowed switch was set and they created a debug version of AOO. Regards, Zoltan I don't get a debug output. Just a message box that says that the selected JRE is defective and I should choose another one. Regards, Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2012 17:18, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 17:06 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 16:43 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 16:21, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 14:30 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 12.01.2012 03:35, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Thanks for the fix. Could you set up the issue status? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 IIRC I resolved as fixed only 2 issues I fixed in order to test the new bugzilla instancia was keeping my can-confirm privileges. Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the issue status. I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. Regards Due to issue 118352 I've made some tests with AOO and Java 7. Java 7 is detected now by AOO but AOO doesn't support it (see issue 118352). So my conclusion is not to detect it if it's not supported. Regards, Olaf Try orw's build it works with java 1.7. : http://people.apache.org/~orw/ Regards, Zoltan It's the same with the builds of Olive: Java 7 has been detected but the Wizard doesn't work. Regards, Olaf It shows a debug messeage: Debug Output --- Error: SfxHTMLParser::SfxHTMLParser: Wo kommt der ZS her? From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/bastyp/sfxhtml.cxx at Line 79 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click no, then second debug error: --- Debug Output --- Error: Don't close the medium when loading documents! From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/doc/objmisc.cxx at Line 1444 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click No, the wizard starts. May be the debug allowed switch was set and they created a debug version of AOO. Regards, Zoltan I don't get a debug output. Just a message box that says that the selected JRE is defective and I should choose another one. Regards, Olaf May be we use different OS, I run under Windows 7. Regards, Zoltan I'm using this Office http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe on WinXP - SP3. Regards, Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2012 17:33, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 17:21 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 17:18, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 17:06 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 16:55, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 16:43 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 13.01.2012 16:21, schrieb Reizinger Zoltán: 2012.01.13. 14:30 keltezéssel, O.Felka írta: Am 12.01.2012 03:35, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Thanks for the fix. Could you set up the issue status? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 IIRC I resolved as fixed only 2 issues I fixed in order to test the new bugzilla instancia was keeping my can-confirm privileges. Now I'm uncertain about what to do in these cases. In OpenOffice.org times, the developer who fixed the issue didn't resolve it as fixed. Someone else had to do the QA in order to confirm the fix and change the issue status. I'm not sure what the new rules are, so I will wait to resolve this as fixed until someone can confirm it is actually fixed. Regards Due to issue 118352 I've made some tests with AOO and Java 7. Java 7 is detected now by AOO but AOO doesn't support it (see issue 118352). So my conclusion is not to detect it if it's not supported. Regards, Olaf Try orw's build it works with java 1.7. : http://people.apache.org/~orw/ Regards, Zoltan It's the same with the builds of Olive: Java 7 has been detected but the Wizard doesn't work. Regards, Olaf It shows a debug messeage: Debug Output --- Error: SfxHTMLParser::SfxHTMLParser: Wo kommt der ZS her? From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/bastyp/sfxhtml.cxx at Line 79 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click no, then second debug error: --- Debug Output --- Error: Don't close the medium when loading documents! From File c:/AOO/sources/firsttasks/main/sfx2/source/doc/objmisc.cxx at Line 1444 Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump) Click No, the wizard starts. May be the debug allowed switch was set and they created a debug version of AOO. Regards, Zoltan I don't get a debug output. Just a message box that says that the selected JRE is defective and I should choose another one. Regards, Olaf May be we use different OS, I run under Windows 7. Regards, Zoltan I'm using this Office http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe on WinXP - SP3. Regards,Ok, without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. It makes no sense to jumpp from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed. Olaf I'm using http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Regards, Zoltan Ok, I see. Without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. It makes no sense to jump from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed or not. Regars, Olaf
Re: Java 7 and Apache OpenOffice
Am 15.01.2012 01:46, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi there, On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:36:34AM +0100, O.Felka wrote: I'm using this Office http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_de.exe on WinXP - SP3. Regards,Ok, without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. It makes no sense to jumpp from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed. Olaf I'm using http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe Regards, Zoltan Ok, I see. Without an official AOO build QA work is nonsense. I tend to disagree here. It seems you're not subscribed to the issues mailing list (ooo-issues-subscr...@incubator.apache.org). Many issues have been discovered (and even solved) since we started providing builds for testing purposes. I'm writing about AOO and Java 7 (see subject). Calling this a nonsense is underestimating the efforts of people doing the build, people doing the QA (Regina, Reizinger, Oliver, et. al.), and people solving the issues. Just to quote an example, Regina's work testing the new SVG implementation is remarkable, and I'm sure Armin appreciates it. This example doesn't fit. I've you've watched the issue (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352) and this thread you'll see that I've been told to try - http://people.apache.org/~arielch/packages/ - http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1229535/win32/OOo-Dev_OOO340m1_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe - http://people.apache.org/~orw/ That's not the same as the work of Regina and Armin. Facts have shown that builds are useful, we have volunteers willing to help QAing, so we should keep providing them until we have official weekly Developer Snapshots. That said, I agree that the situation is suboptimal, but we do not have buildboots for all platforms yet. It makes no sense to jump from developer playground A to developer build b to c to see if something is fixed or not. Back to the present issue, as I wrote in the bug, we have to split: a) this issue, detect JRE 7.0 version b) issues with things that don't work with JRE 7 For (b), please open new bug reports of the kind "[java 7] XXX does not work" or the like. And set them as blockers for i118352 when/if they are confirmed. And I wrote that this are two sides of one medal. Fixing a) without b) is senseless. So it has to be fixed in one go. Regards Olaf Regards
Re: Plan to deliver the GUI test Java library on the next release
Am 24.02.2012 06:20, schrieb Zhe Liu: > 在 2012年2月24日 上午10:37，Ma Yong Lin 写道： >> I think what was asked is if we are just get a group of star basic test >> cases "translated" >> to java. It would be the same in terms of testing. >> > We can do that, but I think it's more meaningful to cover the GUI > testing for new functions in future, since the existing function has > been very stable. I think that it is worth the effort and very helpfull to translate the old Star Basic tests to Java. We have had always regressions in the existing and 'stable' functions. So we really need the old tests for finding regressions in the existing functionality. Olaf > >> So besides java developer may benefit from this, anything else? > > The library will wrap all complex things and aims to make learning > curve enough short for both programmer and non-programmer. In > addition, localization developers may benefit from it to locate some > UI. I'm not sure and need to investigate further. > >> >> >> >> >> Ma Yong Lin >> >> mayo...@apache.org >> >> 在 2012-2-23，9:38，Zhe Liu 写道： >> >>> 2012/2/23 FR web forum: Hello, >> As mentioned before, I plan to replace VCL TestTool with a Java >> library for GUI testing. Do you think that a translation in other languages could improve its usefulness? >>> Sorry. I didn't catch you. You mean translate that wiki or the tool >>> in other languages? >>> Thank for your suggestion. >>> -- >>> Best Regards >>> From aliu...@gmail.com > > The previous discussion is here. > http://markmail.org/thread/nz4mgwk3k3b3rb2w#query:+page:1+mid:aalron753ul3rb5f+state:res > >
Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release
Am 25.02.2012 01:06, schrieb Rob Weir: On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Without commenting on the dates, schedules and technical issues I would urge you to make sure you allow significant time for IP review from mentors and the IPMC. I imagine this release will get a great deal of attention and, almost without a doubt, someone will come up with something that needs to be addressed. Mentors and IPMC members have had 8 months to offer IP related comments. They are welcome at any time. But in my experience declaring a Release Candidate is especially effective at concentrating their attention on that task. We should plan on having multiple RC iterations. There are enough unwritten rules related to release requirements that we'll almost certainly need several iterations. But the most effective way to uncover these unwritten rules is by proposing a RC for a release vote. A release by votes? Wouldn't it be better to have some concrete release criteria? Having some quality goals that must be reached? Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Unable to install AOO on a clean Windows XP
Am 27.02.2012 15:30, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Hi at all I'm unable to install AOO on a clean Windows XP. ERROR: An errof occured durring registration of extensions. We have removed Extensions. So this makes maybe problems if you have no User Profile? Greetings Raphael I don't have a totally clean XP. But I don't have problems to start it. With or without an existing user profile. Regards, Olaf
Re: Is any one here familiar with OpenOffice?
Am 12.03.2012 13:50, schrieb Rob Weir: I jest,of course. But seriously, there are some claiming that "all" of the OpenOffice.org project went over to LibreOffice and that the Apache has zero experience with this code base. I know this sounds crazy, but how can we best refute that statement? Here's my idea: Respond to this note and tell me how many years experience you have working with OpenOffice. This could be in any capacity, as a coder, tester, documentation, marketing, forum volunteer, whatever. Please count relevant work with related projects, such as Symphony, BSD ports, OOo4Kids, ODF, etc. as well. How many years were you doing this before the project came to Apache? If I get a good number of responses I'll put together an infographic on this. Regards, -Rob my experiences with OpenOffice.org and StarOffice - 13 years of QA at StarDivision, Sun and Oracle - QA for framework and installation - automated VCL test runs ans analyses of results - making release tests and approvals Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Propose AOO 3.4 RC Build Test Plan
Am 22.03.2012 10:16, schrieb xia zhao: Hi all, As AOO 3.4 RC build is nearly ready, I propose AOO 3.4 RC build test plan here. 1. Installer testing Focus on installation testing on below major platforms: -Windows 7 64/32 bit -Windows Vista 64/32 bit -Windows XP SP2 No tests for Windows 2000? -RedHat Enterprise Linux(RHEL) 64 bit/32 bit -Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit/32 bit -Mac OS 10.7(Lion) -Mac OS 10.6.x -Mac 10.5 Additional Platform are suggested: -FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 -OS/2 -Solaris x86 10 2. Extension testing Volunteers can get the extension list from: http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/ (??) -Directory -Extensions based on OOo (Verify they still works with IP clearance work done in AOO 3.40 -Extensions based on AOO (View by "Most Recent" category on extension page) 3. Basic Interoperability Testing The test scenarios cover: -Load -Save -Reopen And the interoperability cover both compatibility with MS office 2003/MS office 2010 and old OOo versions. 4. General testing Do free testing on AOO six components, Math, Base, Draw, Impress, Writer, Calc for three days. 5. Globalization and Translation testing If other languages build are offered as RC builds(seems we will only have English only RC build for AOO 3.4), quick globalization and translation testing will be done. Which include: - Check the UI - Switch locale and check some culture related functions, such as currency, date, formula etc. The above testing are supposed to be done during 1 week and during this week, if no critical issues are reported, we can say the RC build is ready to ship based on vote. I placed this plan here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+RC+Build+Test+Plan Lily I did some additional tests for r1299571 on Windows XP and Suse 11.3 Linux with VCL testtool. They look very promising. I haven't found any big flaws. Some tests show that some controls are missing and they stumble over the new color picker. Lots of tests don't show any warning or error. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Propose AOO 3.4 RC Build Test Plan
Am 23.03.2012 03:40, schrieb Yan Ji: MS already teminate support service for Windows 2000 SP4. Is there any need for us to take care this OS? Yes, in the readme files we have Win2000 in the system requirements for AOO. Cleaning up the readme could be a solution. Groetjes Olaf Thanks& Best Regards, Yan Ji On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:52 PM, xia zhao wrote: Olaf, 2012/3/22 O.Felka Am 22.03.2012 10:16, schrieb xia zhao: Hi all, As AOO 3.4 RC build is nearly ready, I propose AOO 3.4 RC build test plan here. 1. Installer testing Focus on installation testing on below major platforms: -Windows 7 64/32 bit -Windows Vista 64/32 bit -Windows XP SP2 No tests for Windows 2000? If volunteer has this environment, yes, surely he can test against Windows 2000, but this platform isn't major platform AOO 3.4 supposed from my view. -RedHat Enterprise Linux(RHEL) 64 bit/32 bit -Ubuntu 10.04 64 bit/32 bit -Mac OS 10.7(Lion) -Mac OS 10.6.x -Mac 10.5 Additional Platform are suggested: -FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 -OS/2 -Solaris x86 10 2. Extension testing Volunteers can get the extension list from: http://extensions.services.**openoffice.org/<http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/>(??) -Directory -Extensions based on OOo (Verify they still works with IP clearance work done in AOO 3.40 -Extensions based on AOO (View by "Most Recent" category on extension page) 3. Basic Interoperability Testing The test scenarios cover: -Load -Save -Reopen And the interoperability cover both compatibility with MS office 2003/MS office 2010 and old OOo versions. 4. General testing Do free testing on AOO six components, Math, Base, Draw, Impress, Writer, Calc for three days. 5. Globalization and Translation testing If other languages build are offered as RC builds(seems we will only have English only RC build for AOO 3.4), quick globalization and translation testing will be done. Which include: - Check the UI - Switch locale and check some culture related functions, such as currency, date, formula etc. The above testing are supposed to be done during 1 week and during this week, if no critical issues are reported, we can say the RC build is ready to ship based on vote. I placed this plan here: https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/** AOO+3.4+RC+Build+Test+Plan<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+RC+Build+Test+Plan> Lily I did some additional tests for r1299571 on Windows XP and Suse 11.3 Linux with VCL testtool. They look very promising. I haven't found any big flaws. Some tests show that some controls are missing and they stumble over the new color picker. Lots of tests don't show any warning or error. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...
+1 for AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg Groetjes, Olaf
Bundled extensions
Moin, I've tested r1309668 en_US to verify the fix for issue 119114 [1]. The good news: - No crash when checking for updates. The bad news: - The error "http://download.translate.org.za/spellchecker/dict-en_ZA-latest.update.xml does not exist." is still present -> looks not very professional. - Clicking on 'Show all Updates' shows English (South Africa) spell checker as update available. The description field shows 'An error occurred: Not found!' -> looks not very professional. - The presenter screen extension is not installed. Groetjes, Olaf [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119114
Re: Bundled extensions
Am 10.04.2012 15:28, schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:43 AM, O.Felka wrote: The bad news: - The error "http://download.translate.org.za/spellchecker/dict-en_ZA-latest.update.xml does not exist." is still present -> looks not very professional. That URL is an external one, not one that we control. Do you know what the behavior is in OOo 3.3 when checking for an update of that extension? No, I have no idea what OOo 3.3 will do. But I think it would behave the same. But I'm sure we wouldn't have bundled it. Regards, Olaf
Re: VCLTestTool
Hi Ian, I've made some tests om Windows and linux with the vcl testtool you've mentioned. Most tests have passed successfully. But it's true, the testtool and the testscripts are no longer maintained and I think that they won't be valid in upcoming AOO versions. The testcases can be found in the sources of AOO in ..\aoo-3.4\main\testautomation\\required\ or ..\aoo-3.4\main\testautomation\\optional\ The sources can be found on http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/src_releases/srcrelease.html. Am 16.04.2012 05:16, schrieb Zhe Liu: Hi, I saw some guy used the tool successfully to test Aoo3.4. As far as know, here nobody maintains VCLTesttool and its testing scripts. Anyway, there will be an alternative to it in next release. I am working on it. Contributors will be able to write GUI testing code with JAVA + JUNIT4+Eclipse. The new way is corresponding to the current UNOAPI testing. Will it be possible to make regression testing as in vcl testtool with the new Java and JUnit tooling? Regards, Olaf 2012/4/14 Ian: HI, poking around I got to http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VCLTesttool - does anyone know if this is alive? Or meant to be? Files are all dated 2007. I downloaded it and tried to run but it fails looking for an X shared lib. --- ./testtool.bin: error while loading shared libraries: libXext.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory There is a libXext.so on my system, not sure how Cheers, Ian
Re: Has the AOO 3.4 RC been released?
I don't think anyone offered to help, despite these several requests :-( I think that it has slipped your attention that I've made lot of tests with the old vcl testtool. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [VOTE] Trademark and Brand
+1 for b) Apache OpenOffice Groetjes, Olaf
Re: How to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of GPL'd modules
Am 30.11.2011 11:16, schrieb Gianluca Turconi: This message, as Andre Fischer suggested in the thread "GPL'd dictionaries", is a separated discussion in order to find a final consensus about how to provide Linguistic Tools replacements after the removal of GPL'd modules. The solutions that were suggested (though without volunteers' manpower to implement them ;-) are: a) download the extension (assuming that the right locale can be detected) automatically from the extension repository during installation; b) as last step of the installation, pop up a web page that, among other things, tells the user that there is a dictionary extension that can be installed and what its license is; c) let the user know that there is one (or multiple) linguistic tools pack extension for his/her native language when the main AOO binary is downloaded. d) to consider the distribution and inclusion of GPL'd Linguistic Tools as 'mere aggregation" according to GPL. Point d) needs legal endorsement from Apache, of course. IMO, in a transition phase, point c) is the easiest one. In the long run, point d), if legally doable, is the better one. Regards, Gianluca From a user point of view we can't only deliver an Office without solution d). Coming along with an Office without a "out of the box" spell checking is unprofessional. Solution a) is not good because opening an internet connection at installation time without telling what's going on looks pretty insecure. With b) I as a user would notice this as "nice to know" as I expect this to work out of the box and close the nag screen. And as a user I'm not interested in license stuff. The same for c): Why should the user care because this should work out of the box. Regards, Olaf
Re: [Code] strategy for "child works spaces"
Hello, Am 03.12.2011 11:39, schrieb eric b: Hi, Le 3 déc. 11 à 11:09, Marcus (OOo) a écrit : Am 12/02/2011 09:25 PM, schrieb eric b: Just "en passant", I'd suggest to rename the preferences folder, e.g. : ~/Library/Application Support/ApacheOpenOffice/ on Mac OS X to avoid confusion with the previous 3.3.x What do you think ? any thoughts of migrating the user settings from OOo to AOO? Regards, Olaf Of course a good thing. But I think it's a logical step as OOo is now done in any form of appearance in the product. IMHO this applies also for the strings in the basename for the install and user directory. Sure, we'll have to : - modify the application name ( instsetoo_native, sysui, desktop, setup_native) - change the logos (ooo_custom_images, setup_native, sysui) On all OS's that is, but this is not a problem imho. In fact, rename the preferences folder is the direct and most simple way to install Apache OpenOffice.org beside OpenOffice.org without break anything. Regards, Eric Bachard
Re: Testtool removal
Am 04.05.2012 16:51, schrieb Raphael Bircher: Hi at all I will take over the testtool removal, Just for Information and that no one other investegate time there. This will make the download size from Apache OpenOffice a bit smaller. removing the testtool from AOO is ok for me. Question about the Testscripts. They are still in the source code. I propose to remove the directory testautomation from the source, make a zip of them and put them in the Archive. maybe we can use them to write new Tests. As long as we don't have an alternative to testtool (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VCLTesttool) we should keep the testscripts in the 3.x source tree. I've made some regression tests on AOO 3.4 with the testtool and we shouldn't lose the ability for upcoming 3.x releases. For AOO 4.x I hope we have a new test environment and hopefully some regression tests. Groetjes, Olaf What's your options Greetings Raphael
Re: [RELEASE][AOO3.4.1] Status update - call for discussion
Am 25.05.2012 12:17, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: - 119272 user directory file size grows to 160mb due to bundled extensions Can wait, we have already changed enough things in user directory. Yes, and it has been changed to the worse. We shouldn't flood the user layer for all upcoming new users. And it's a regression. We shouldn't wait so +1 for the next release. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [RELEASE] Bug 119424 (Microsoft VC Redistributable) as blocker?
I agree that this should be addressed and it seems that the current version was included by mistake. I propose that we fix this asap and we should test it asap when we have dev builds for 3.4.1. +1 Juergen We have had a fix which hasn't reached the master and we should fix it for AOO also. +1 for 3.4.1 Groetjes, Olaf
Re: The reason I removed the program called Open Office 3.4
Am 06.06.2012 10:33, schrieb Shenfeng Liu: Juergen, Agree with you! My personal opinion is that it must be an explicit place for user to choose the file association, in installer, or option dialog... Well, we need UX experts here... We should be aware that file association written by the Options dialog won't be removed by the setup. The setup doesn't know the registry keys written by the application. Groetjes, Olaf - Simon 2012/6/6 Jürgen Schmidt On 6/6/12 4:17 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: As I remember, it is the 2nd customer complaint we got on this issue. And some of us (e.g. Jihui) has confirmed it. If that's the case, my question is do we have a defect id to trace it? If no, let's create one. And I will suggest it as 3.4.1 must fix. an issue is good but we should be careful and should define a potential new default in detail. How exactly we want define the new default, having 2 complaints is not much compared to thousand of Windows users. I don't say that we shouldn't change it but we should be clear of what we are doing. We can't change things every time when 1 single person don't like the default. Juergen
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 08.06.2012 19:00, schrieb sebb: On 7 June 2012 03:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: Hi, b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. We've decided to place them on the desktop so that every user can find them easily. Every user has the choice to unpack them into a different folder. Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. No! AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 09.06.2012 14:22, schrieb sebb: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. Nor under TEMP of course. I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, but it's certainly not the desktop. On Vista and 7 it could be "c:\Users\\Downloads\". Who remembers Win XP? And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it should remove the unpacked files as well. I don't know any software behaving like that so I don't think that we need that. If the user is deinstalling for a new install he needs these files. And in case someone has installed from a CD it doesn't make sense. What we might delete is the packed file. Only if this is agreed by the user. As always when deleting useful files.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 16:37, schrieb Andre Fischer: On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. As we don't have any information it would end up in wild guessing. comparing these two user groups is meaningless at this point. As we started with the self extracting installer we've had to decide where to place the unpacked files. The desktop is the place where you can't oversee them. Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 17:17, schrieb Andre Fischer: Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. We still need a better default. I agree. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written. In another issue regarding extensions installed in the user directory you where not so forgiving about disk space. Because this is a different use case and a regression. I an professional environment, especially with user space quota, there is no need to blow up every user space with 160MB as it can be done at a central place. The installation files with ~130MB are only stored once. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 20:27, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: (So far, the major maintenance mode that AOO needs is a way for end users to easily backup and clean up their user profile, something maintenance won't touch.) This would be a nice feature. But as the user profile is written by the Office and not by the setup the Office should maintain the user profile. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?
Am 14.06.2012 10:13, schrieb Liu Da Li: On windows, after the the AOO install files be unzipped to desktop. You can try to call setup.exe with /q from the unzipped folder. 2012/6/14 Zhe Liu Hi all, I plan to setup several testing machines (including Windows, Ubuntu, Suse, Redhat, Mac OS X) to perform daily build verification testing on our daily build (placed on http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/). The testing is automated with script. I need a command to install AOO silently on windows. Anybody know it? In addition, there is no mac build on buildbot. Does anybody work on it? -- Best Regards From aliu...@gmail.com Hi, starting 'msiexec /?' shows the parameters of the Microsoft Installer to start an installation. Regards, Olaf
Windows 8 certification
We have five issues for Windows 8 certification. The importance of these issues are flagged as 'blocker'. Have we ever made the decision that we want to have a Windows App Certification for AOO? If yes this 'blocker' flag might be ok, if not, we should remove this flag and declare them as a 'normal' bugs. Groetjes, Olaf BTW: We should introduce Windows 8 as 'Platform' in issuezilla.
Re: [CODE]: update code signing for Windows
Hello Jürgen, Am 22.06.2012 13:03, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: Hi, I analyzed and played with code signing on Windows using a self signed test certificate. Thanks to Andre and his Perl skills I was able to fix a strange build problem with a too long command line triggered from a makefile to perl. Anyway this is solved now. I have now signed a full install set and would like to ask if somebody is interested to test it and give me feedback. I've made some quick tests under XP and Win7. Starting the zipped file for unpacking gives a an unknown distributor in the UAC dialog. The same when I start the the setup.exe. The properties of the zipped download file, the msi file and the setup.exe shoa "Apache OpenOffice (DevBuild)" as 'Signaturgeberinformation'. Installing the Office and looking at the 'control panel -> Add remove and software' shows "OpenOffice.org" as distributor. I fear that this is not what you've wanted. Groetjes, Olaf You can find a signed download file under http://people.apache.org/~jsc/signing_test/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe NOICE: this is a build based on AOO34 branch without the updated version numbers. It's no dev build, please be careful if you test it. I have to check the whole process and probably have to improve some things to make it final. The last important step is triggered manual by now. I use a Personal Information Exchange file (*.pfx) of my self signed certificate with a passcode that is specified during the build process. This seems to be a good approach to handle a certificate in this scenario and during our build process. I will keep you informed... Juergen
Re: [RELEASE][3.4.1] Requesting bug 120082 as release blocker (Temporary files of extension installation are not deleted)
+ 1 Groetjes, Olaf Am 26.06.2012 10:44, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: +1 Best regards, Oliver. On 26.06.2012 09:38, Andre Fischer wrote: Issue 120082 [1] fixes a part of the problem of excessive disk space consumption by extensions (see issue 119272 [2] for details). The fix reduces the used disk space by 50%. It does so by removing unused temporary files. The probability of regression is moderate but not zero. Regards, Andre [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120082 [2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119272
Re: [Call-for-Review] Bug 119948 [Windows 8 certification]Windows App Certification Kit - Test for "Section 5 Apps must support a clean, reversible installation" is failed.
Hi, > Please review the patch for 119948, for the win 8 certification check. Issue link: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119948 Thanks. As I have commented in the issue I still don't think that it's a good idea to move the fonts to the program directory. I also don't like the idea that the installer removes the installed fonts. But this option is not as bad as having them in program/fonts. Registering fonts to the system is an essential feature of an Office Suite as it has system wide impact. Is there no way to change the MSI that the fonts will be removed at uninstall? Do we know what is MS Office doing? Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [QA] Workflow for Issues
Regina, thank you for your good work. One minor remark: May be we can use status "VERIFIED" for a two step verification: First step, verification on a dev. snapshot or on built version or ... --> change status to "VERIFIED". Second step, verification on a release candidate --> closing issue. It is just an idea for discussion. The two step verification would decrease the possibility that a sucessful made fix may be got lost by another change before the next release is coming out. We had this two step verification before and end up in a lot of verified but not closed issues. Which in the end lead to a large campaign to close all those issues. Such two step verification would need an automatic "reminder". I do not know, whether it is possible in Bugzilla or how it can be organized in other ways. at least in OOo we haven't re-verified the issues in MWS. We've been confident in the release process that all CWSes that have been integrated bringing the fixes in the MWS. We've waited for about six month after release and closed all verified issues for this release in one go. If we have reached the state that we are confident that all fixes in dev will come to the master we can think about a process to close the issues without a second verification. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [QA] Workflow for Issues
Am 10.07.2012 14:29, schrieb Regina Henschel: Hi all, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Issue_lifecycle exist now. It is a Wiki, so feel free to edit it and improve it. I think that "Make sure it is a valid issue" [1] is not a QA job only. DEV is involved also and should be in future. Groetjes, Olaf [1] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Issue_lifecycle#Make_sure_it_is_a_valid_issue_.28QA.29
Re: Java download link on AOO site
Am 12.07.2012 21:22, schrieb Fernando Cassia: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Thanks for your findings. This should be indeed changed as long the Office cannot handle the lastest and greatest JRE version. I' m curious about this bug. I have OpenJDK 7 installed on my system and I didn' t notice a problem launching AOO (I admit I have used only the word processing and spreadsheet components). Is there a bug filed against OpenJDK7 for this? FC Yes: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118352 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119993 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119525 At least development hasn't found a way to reproduce. Olaf
Re: Should quickstarter be enabled or disabled by default?
Hi, We had a problem that is fixed and the quickstarter provides more features that people like. And people who don't like can already disable it. I also see the benefit of the Quickstarter. I see no reason at the moment to change here anything because the problem is fixed. +1 If we have problems with a feature let us fix it and not drop the feature completely ;-) 'Hey, we have a bug in Writer? No problem, let's disable it.' :-) But that is only my personal opinion Do you have another one? Groetjes, Olaf Juergen
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
Am 31.07.2012 15:45, schrieb Rob Weir: The only issue I saw is that when we install over 3.3.0 or 3.4.0, we leave behind the older version's unpacked files on the desktop, the files from the earlier install. Those files could be deleted to save disk space. But this is not a regression and is not a critical issue. -Rob It's not a common software behavior to delete old installation files and we shouldn't do that too. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
Am 01.08.2012 02:52s, schrieb Ji Yan: Is there any possibility to unpack installation files to system temporary folder. so that system will clean these temp files regularly. The installation files are not temporary files, they are needed for maintenance mode. It's not helpful to delete them. It might be better to delete the download file. Olaf
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
[X] +1 Apache OpenOffice community is ready to graduate from the Apache Incubator. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: [QA] Quality of bug reports and QA in bugzilla
Am 19.09.2012 14:34, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Your own new issue should be UNCONFIRMED. Someone else should confirm your issue, if possible on a different operating system. I agree with Oliver, the default status should be set to UNCONFIRMED even if the reporter has canconfirm privileges. IMHO "confirmed" means "confirmed by some else". We have a lot of professional QA folks here: They know how to verify their findings and issues. That's a lot of overhead if someone has to re-test to confirm a well tested bug. So we should trust the QA who has 'canconfirm' privileges. Regards, Olaf
Re: [QA] Quality of bug reports and QA in bugzilla
We have a lot of professional QA folks here: They know how to verify their findings and issues. That's a lot of overhead if someone has to re-test to confirm a well tested bug. So we should trust the QA who has 'canconfirm' privileges. I don't see much overhead; on the contrary, every careful reporter, after pressing "Submit", surely goes and check if he did fill everything ok. Leaving the default status to unconfirmed works just like a reminder to be careful. A careful submitter will check before he presses the ok button. Regards Olaf
Re: [QA] Quality of bug reports and QA in bugzilla
Mee too: -1 Regards, Olaf Am 20.09.2012 15:55, schrieb Yong Lin Ma: -1. Herbert, I would like to save you the effort to make the change, even if it won't cost much. The key thing here is we should be careful and avoid opening duplicate or invalid issues as many as we can. I would like to see some concrete examples, especially invalid issues. And see if this is pervasive for all the reporters who have confirm right. On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Herbert Duerr wrote: On 19.09.2012 20:34, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:24:11PM +0200, Oliver Brinzing wrote: Hi Regina, Your own new issue should be UNCONFIRMED. Someone else should confirm your issue, if possible on a different operating system. i am pretty sure that i did not set the "confirmed" status when submitting a new issue, default status is "confirmed" - and you have to select "Show Advanced Fields" to see the listbox ... this seems to be the root cause of the problem ... I agree with Oliver, the default status should be set to UNCONFIRMED even if the reporter has canconfirm privileges. IMHO "confirmed" means "confirmed by some else". Seeing so much consensus I'm confident that we'll reach "lazy consensus" by next monday (2012/9/19 + 72h) and I volunteer to change the behavior then. So please speak up now if you disagree with the opinion that the extra step to the "confirmed" status is an idea that does benefit the quality of our project. Herbert
Re: Did we ever reach consensus on support for Windows 2000
Ah, I just had an idea. Google Analytics tells us how many users are running Windows 2000. It gets that info from the browser agent header in the HTTP requests. If I look at all website visits since AOO 3.4.0 was released the breakdown for Windows users is: 758.83% XP29.74% Vista10.31% NT0.62% Server 20030.36% 20000.13% 980.01% ME0.00% CE0.00% (not set)0.00% 950.00% So, 0.13% are running Windows 2000. With that numbers I would propose to drop everything below 1%. We are lucky, we do not need to *guess*, we have numbers. Thanks, Rob! +1 Regards, Olaf We have limited ressources and everything we try to keep alive costs some of these (even if not always recognized, see binfilter discussions). With limited ressources keeping this means to evtl. not do things which would serve the other 99% better. Drop it. Just my 2 ct...
Re: [VOTE] [PMC] Starting Membership for Apache OpenOffice PMC
+1 from me. Groetjes, Olaf Am 02.10.2012 00:38, schrieb Andrew Rist: This is a call for vote on selecting the following list as the starting membership for the Apache OpenOffice PMC, to be listed in the TLP resolution. The voting is for the entire slate as listed. Apache OpenOffice PMC Starting Membership: Andre Fischer (af) Andrea Pescetti (pescetti) Andrew Rist (arist) Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch) Armin Le Grand (alg) Dave Fisher (wave) Donald Harbison (dpharbison) Drew Jensen (atjensen) Ian Lynch (ingotian) Jürgen Schmidt (jsc) Kay Schenk (kschenk) Kazunari Hirano (khirano) Louis Suarez-Potts (louis) Marcus Lange (marcus) Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw) Pedro Giffuni (pfg) Peter Junge (pj) Raphael Bircher (rbircher) Regina Henschel (regina) RGB.ES (rgb-es) Roberto Galoppini (galoppini) Yang Shih-Ching (imacat) Yong Lin Ma (mayongl) The balloting will be until UTC midnight Thursday, 4 October: 2012-10-04T24:00Z. Approval requires a majority of +1 over -1 votes cast by members of the PPMC. [ ] +1 approve [ ] 0 abstain [ ] -1 disapprove, for the following reasons: The [DISCUSS] for this vote was enthusiastically in favor. There were no concerns expressed other than issues with the timeframe of discussions, which were suitably extended. (note: All members of this list, except for Drew and Raphael, accepted their nomination to this list. I have left Drew and Raphael on the list as neither declined, and they still have the ability to decline later)
Re: [VOTE][PMC] PMC Chair
Am 05.10.2012 01:41, schrieb Andrew Rist: This is a call for vote on selecting the PMC Chair the Apache OpenOffice PMC. [X] Andrea Pescetti (pescetti) [ ] Drew Jensen (atjensen)
