Re: Extension downloading problem
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 19:17 +0200, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: Rob Weir wrote: Also, I wonder if it would be worth submitting a patch for Apache. It looks like they have the other content types used by OpenOffice, but not oxt files: http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/** conf/mime.typeshttp://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types Actually, it seems it's already been there for a while: $ svn annotate mime.types | grep oxt 571614 fielding application/vnd.openofficeorg.**extension oxt $ svn log | grep 571614 r571614 | fielding | 2007-08-31 23:57:29 +0200(ven, 31 ago 2007) | 3 lines and if I put an extension on my people.apache.org account I see it's served correctly (of course, this has nothing to do with the problem under discussion; but if problems come from an incorrect MIME type, then people reporting the problem should be able to download http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/dict-it.oxthttp://people.apache.org/%7Epescetti/tmp/dict-it.oxt correctly). I confirm your suspects, it's a MIME config issue. I tested SourceForge master, that works just fine, but not all mirrors do manage it correctly. As a short-term solution for all extensions - either hosted at SourceForge or at third party website - we report the following note: *Note: some browsers may download the extension as a .zip file; if this happens rename the downloaded file from .zip to .oxt* We can then run a communication plan to inform both mirror and third-parties. Hi, Yes - very good idea on the notice. On the mime config, if I can help with this anyway - for example if there is a list of the mirrors available through the extension download site I have a copy of IE/Vista which faithfully produces the .zip file for octect/streams and I would be willing to try it on all the mirrors.. I'd think reporting on success would best be to you direct, I wouldn't want to come off as demanding here (@Roberto - if that would help, I will). Unless - I'm assuming it is not that ning servers don't support it, is it worth the time (I'll do so if someone thinks so) to actually check at the project? Best, //drew Roberto Regards, Andrea.
Re: Help with 3.4.1 announcement questions on blog
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 13:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: By default blog questions are held for moderation. I just checked and we had quite a few comments. I let the non-spam ones through: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing_apache_openoffice_3_41#comments I responded to one, but since there are a few of them I could use some help responding. Note: no Roller account is required to respond to a comment. Thanks! -Rob Darn - there are a few - are you sure about anyone being able to comment - I'm there right now and can't see a way to reply (I see two for which I could do so right off) //drew
Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 13:38 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Identity != Trust. Identity + Reputation == Trust. The signature only guarantees identity. Signature does not guarantee reputation though. The point is that reputation is dependent upon identity. And identity is ensured via some sort of signature. And a signature does *nothing* to guarantee trust in and of itself. End users know absolutely nothing about Apache release process. They know brands. So their view of trust is brand-based, not informed by the technical minutia of Apache release process. Of course, given a suboptimal process, if bad releases result from this, then the brand reputation will suffer over time. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. People trust the Apache brand. They download Apache stuff from somewhere. That stuff is signed by an entity that is associated with the Apache brand. What the release process is is moot. Today it is more likely that they see a binary called OpenOffice, with or without the Apache name, and without verifying the signature, the user just installs it. That is the sad state of end-user security awareness today. This is not going to get better by technology alone. It will require user education as well. Agreed... 1) The AOO 3.4.1 release ballot is defective because it refers to binaries and Apache does not release binaries The ASF releases code. PMCs vote on a SVN tag and on a release tarball (distribution) made from that tag. There is a direct and easily followed path between the bits the end-user gets and the bits that the PMC has determined as the release. The issue with voting on just a binary release is how is the providence of the code ensured... If I get a binary how can I, as an end-user, ensure that the binary was based on the official bits and was built in a way that didn't much around with those bits. *THAT* is what the AOO PPMC needs to work thru, since most end-user of AOO couldn't care a fig about the bits. But just because end-users don't care, or shouldn't care, doesn't mean that the PMC/PPMC can just wing it. Nor can it consider the binaries as more important than the code. One possible scenario: The AOO PPMC/PMC is ready for a release and someone steps up to RM. He/she does the normal process and a release tag is created. At that point, binary RM's step up and, using that tag and a well-defined (and trackable) process, creates binaries and then sign that binary. In fact, that was/is my intent on wanting to be on the AOO PMC is to be the Apple OSX RM (that is, take on that responsibility). Hello Jim, YES AOO as ASF project, from ASF's perspective, must conform to the current - well defined I think - steps for the source release. No argument here. Jim's use of the term binary RM's and brief explanation, I believe, gets to the crux of my concerns. I would add that I see some role of responsibility for AOO PMC with regards to supporting the artifacts it oversees - but this is in the context of how it affects on going decisions on things such as LTS or bug/Security releases and the like and I don't see anything in looking at other ASF projects that leads me to believe any of that will be anything other then welcomed. So - if I may be so bold. Reading email this morning my gut feeling is that there is a lot of violent agreement going on.. I'm personally a bit lost as to why the animation on the subject of the signature - is the disagreement over who will own the signature file? Thanks, Drew
Re: Help with 3.4.1 announcement questions on blog
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 14:16 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 13:22 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: By default blog questions are held for moderation. I just checked and we had quite a few comments. I let the non-spam ones through: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing_apache_openoffice_3_41#comments I responded to one, but since there are a few of them I could use some help responding. Note: no Roller account is required to respond to a comment. Thanks! -Rob Darn - there are a few - are you sure about anyone being able to comment - I'm there right now and can't see a way to reply (I see two for which I could do so right off) Scroll to the bottom of the page. Do you see the Post a comment area? You should be able to post a response, however the response itself will be held for moderation. Got it - I was looking to reply, threaded style, to specific comments.. Thanks -Rob //drew
Re: Something wrong in download page for Linux users
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 20:18 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 08/24/2012 11:52 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/23/2012 04:24 PM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: Hi Marcus, On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:49:19AM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 05/18/2012 01:29 AM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:26:41AM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: The system and the browser are 64 bits, the package is 32 bits. Interesting. The browser shows that the platform is i686 (= x86) and the user agents says x86_64. Haven't seen this before. OK, which value is right when you don't know the truth? ;-) just blame it on Google :) http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=44905 Interesting, even Google software has old bugs. :-P Duplicated by this one? http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=128167 Great. When this is solved somewhen, we can check our DL logic again. I'll add this to the Wiki page. FYI this is fixed now in Chrome, according to the browser values shown by http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html Ah, thank you for the hint. I will analyze the data what needs to be updated. BTW: Great to have this little test webpage online, isn't it? ;-) This should work now with the recent change from Oliver. Can you confirm this especially for Chrome? Howdy http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html 64bit Ubuntu 11.04 - latest Chromium - still thinks I am 32Bit Debs :( //drew Thanks Marcus Variables from the browser Values navigator.platform Linux x86_64 navigator.platform.toLowerCase() linux x86_64 navigator.language en-US navigator.userLanguage undefined navigator.systemLanguage undefined navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1180.81 Safari/537.1 navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() mozilla/5.0 (x11; linux x86_64) applewebkit/537.1 (khtml, like gecko) chrome/21.0.1180.81 safari/537.1 navigator.javaEnabled() Yes But the download page is providing 32 bits to download (though the text says Click to start downloading the most recent version for Linux 64-bit (RPM and English (US)): JavaScript functions from the DL scripts Return values getLink( VERSION, LANGUAGE, MIRROR, SCHEMA ) http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz/download getArray( LANGUAGE ) here,English (US),English (US),http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html,y getPlatform( LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) Linux 64-bit (RPM) getLanguage( LANGUAGE ) English (US) getLanguageISO( LANGUAGE ) en-US sourceforge_getLink( VERSION, LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz/download apache_getLink( VERSION, LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz apache_getChecksum( VERSION, LANGUAGE, SCHEMA, HASH ) http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/ooo/files/stable/3.4.1/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz.md5 mirrorbrain_getPlatformForMirror( LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) Linux_x86_install-rpm mirrorbrain_getFilename( VERSION, LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm_en-US.tar.gz mirrorbrain_getExtension( LANGUAGE, SCHEMA ) .tar.gz hasMirrorLink( LANGUAGE ) true Google Chrome Info: Name : google-chrome-beta Arch : x86_64 Version : 21.0.1180.81 Release : 151980 Size : 125 M Repo : installed From repo : google-chrome Summary : Google Chrome URL : http://chrome.google.com/ License : Multiple, see http://chrome.google.com/
Re: Something wrong in download page for Linux users
snip Howdy http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html 64bit Ubuntu 11.04 - latest Chromium - still thinks I am 32Bit Debs :( Please can you give me the first part of the data in the table (Variables from the browser | Values)? Thanks Marcus Copy/paste from the html page just now: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah7ZNEXlmR0IdGdCRXZVbE5vdmZrdlc2TzhaUV81c3c
Re: Something wrong in download page for Linux users
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 18:51 -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:26:45PM +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Can you confirm this especially for Chrome? Howdy http://www.openoffice.org/download/test/analyze.html 64bit Ubuntu 11.04 - latest Chromium - still thinks I am 32Bit Debs :( Please can you give me the first part of the data in the table (Variables from the browser | Values)? For me it's working with this Chrome version: Name: google-chrome-beta Arch: x86_64 Version : 22.0.1229.14 Release : 152690 recognized as navigator.userAgent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/22.0.1229.14 Safari/537.4 May be Drew is running a Chrome version without the bug fix. According to http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=128167 it fixed upstream in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86778 It would appear to be it precisely - so it seems that for folks that might still have a problem like mine the right answer is, let them know that in as much as it bugs them they need to either update their browser directly or wait on Ubuntu to do so in the repository. Thanks Regards
Re: [Discuss] Triage of Brainstorming
On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 15:58 +0100, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:49:02 -0700 Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Aug 24, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: In due course, when we've all had a little rest after the release of AOO 3.4.1, it will be necessary to do some triage work on the Brainstorming, so that the most requested changes make their way onto the planning table for AOO 4.0. Many of the suggestions can be amalgamated, for example improved doc/docx, xls/xlsx etc support; within reason these can all be amalgamated into improved support for MS Office formats, current and legacy. Other suggestions are readily achievable by existing faciites in OpenOffice; such requests might indicate need for better education of Users or more accessible documentation/tutorials. Supposing that the Brainstorm is continued beyond AOO 4.0, should we prune it in the light of whatever choices are made for AOO 4.0; should we also register comments against some of the already readily achievable functions, to give pointers to (say) the Forums and/or tutorials which indicate how to do that function? Could we have some discussion on how best to analyse and progress the current nearly 300 suggestions [as of date of posting) We're getting a lot more feedback than I expected: 305 people have submitted 284 ideas and cast 3,106 votes. IMHO, this is wonderful. In some sense the voting process itself helps triage, especially if project members are also submitting ideas and voting, which I hope we all are. Not all of us have the time. I like your idea of combining closely related or duplicate ideas. Maybe in the end we could promote a top 10 list of ideas, in a blog post, and collect also commentary from project members related to these top 10 ideas. I think that coming back to ooo-dev with Top ideas is appropriate. One of my concerns was that the multiple requests for similar features/support might cause these to drop off the radar as their voting would be too fragmented. Hence my suggestion that we consider amalgamation of closely related suggestions; the coding for one specific suggestion might easily expand to cover the coding necessary for a particular range. Hence the need for some form of triage to make best use of coding resources. Hi, Yes - I would agree, there will need to be some form of triage (call it moderation if you prefer). //drew Another approach would be to take the top ideas and use them as additional input to a survey design that Kevin and Graham were looking into. We could take the top 10 (or 20) ideas and in the survey ask users to rate them. FYI - The ASF Board has created a new TLP called Apache Steve which will expose the Voting mechanism used by the ASF membership. Regards, Dave That help us get around the natural bias of Google Moderator, which is that ideas submitted first will get more votes because they've had more time to be voted on. Regards, -Rob -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie
Re: Unofficial Apache OO Debian repository updated
On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 15:48 -0300, Albino B Neto wrote: Hi On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Marcelo Santana marcgsant...@yahoo.com.br wrote: [1]http://sourceforge.net/projects/apacheoo-deb/files/debian Very good Marcelo, congratulation! Howdy, It is - I had one question though. Looking at the information at the SF pages it says The Debian packages in this repository are the same as provided by the Apache Foundation on its web page [1]. So, are these actual copies of files downloaded from AOO? Thanks, //drew
Italian Forum Off-line
Hi, Saw the comment from RGB-ES that the Italian forum is off-line. Checked, and it still is. - first no others language forms are involved. - the session table is what is being reported as being bad (error no 144), which is good, kind of. This table can be dropped and re-created, the most common way to fix this problem, without losing anything important. That will need to be done from a command line interface, which I don't have access to - for anyone who does, the proper table definition easily found as the table structure is identical to the session table in other language instances - or ask me and I'll shot it off to you. I've included Imacat on the CC to this message - but as I say, anyone that can get to a command line can do this. //drew
Re: Italian forum broken (Fwd: Re: [RELEASE][3.4.1]: update on the current status ...)
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 19:35 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: The Italian forum at http://forum.openoffice.org/it/forum/ is not working, see the note by Ricardo below. If an Infra JIRA issue is needed, I can of course create it. But it would be good if someone with proper credentials could just jump in and fix it... Seeing hte error message, I'd say that restoring a recent backup can be fine too. Should not be needed - see my last email for details. Error message: General Error SQL ERROR [ mysqli ] Table './it/phpbb_it_sessions' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed [144] An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists. Regards, Andrea. --- Announced on ES forums. IT forums are not working... Regards Ricardo
Re: [RELEASE][3.4.1]: update on the current status ...
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 12:15 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, as the so called release manager I would like to give an update where we are with the release and the final release preparation. You all know we passed the PPMC and IPMC vote successful, the first important step towards our release. The second important step is the final preparation what I would call the release publishing process. This include updates of the download page and several other pages that are related to the release. Preparing a blog, the release notes etc. and reviewing this. We did a good job here as team and many many hands were involved to put everything together. I have also finished my final last minute tests and think we are done. Based on the collected info and feedback from all of you and my own tests I would say we are done and ready . We can go live and can publish everything that is in our pipeline!!! Potential minor problems can be addressed on the fly ;-) I would like to say thank you to all of you for your hard work and the patience with me and too many and too fast prepared snapshot builds and potential RC's. The good thing is we learned again some things and can improve the lessons we learned in the future. But again thank you very much to all of you for the hard work. and THANK YOU for all of yours! :) +1 Let's go public now! Juergen
Re: Italian Forum Off-line
Looks like that did it - thanks much. BTW no need to think you were slow on this somehow.. no one is expecting you too carry a beeper. //drew On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 03:03 +0800, 依瑪貓 wrote: Sorry for the delay. I suppose it is fixed now. One of the MySQL table is corrupted. It seems to contain only session data which is safe to delete. I zeroize (TRUNCATE) it and it seems to work now. Please try and tell me if the IT forum still does not work fine. On 2012/08/24 01:42, drew jensen said: Hi, Saw the comment from RGB-ES that the Italian forum is off-line. Checked, and it still is. - first no others language forms are involved. - the session table is what is being reported as being bad (error no 144), which is good, kind of. This table can be dropped and re-created, the most common way to fix this problem, without losing anything important. That will need to be done from a command line interface, which I don't have access to - for anyone who does, the proper table definition easily found as the table structure is identical to the session table in other language instances - or ask me and I'll shot it off to you. I've included Imacat on the CC to this message - but as I say, anyone that can get to a command line can do this. //drew
Re: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org. Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet. For example this article is being spread via Twitter: http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount of traffic referred to from that site. So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page. If others can help with this, please do: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be able to publish that page. doing it now... -Rob
BAD link (was: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2_
OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far The Mac en_US language pack points to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/ back to it.. //drew On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote: For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and made first tests. All is working fine so far. Jürgen Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org. Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet. For example this article is being spread via Twitter: http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount of traffic referred to from that site. So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page. If others can help with this, please do: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be able to publish that page. doing it now... It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release automatically when we push the updates to that script. -Rob -Rob
Re: BAD link (was: Fwd: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2_
One more incorrect link The SDK release notes points to: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html //drew On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote: OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far The Mac en_US language pack points to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/ back to it.. //drew On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote: For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and made first tests. All is working fine so far. Jürgen Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org. Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet. For example this article is being spread via Twitter: http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount of traffic referred to from that site. So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page. If others can help with this, please do: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be able to publish that page. doing it now... It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release automatically when we push the updates to that script. -Rob -Rob
Re: BAD link
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: One more incorrect link The SDK release notes points to: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html That one appears to be dead in the live page as well: http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK. Do we even have release notes there? Did we with 3.4.0? I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage a bit. In the .../download/sdk/ dir there are no release notes for a AOO release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow). Marcus Thanks, I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm) they all seem fine. Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux stuff? //drew On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote: OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far The Mac en_US language pack points to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/ back to it.. //drew On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote: For me it's working also. After checking the links, I have downloaded the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows XP SP3) and made first tests. All is working fine so far. Jürgen Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: So some possible confusion coming. I'm seeing a few websites have already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users to www.openoffice.org. Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1 there yet. For example this article is being spread via Twitter: http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html And I can see, via Google Analytics, that we're getting a good amount of traffic referred to from that site. So I'm going to spent the next hour or so verifying the download page. If others can help with this, please do: http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html I'll start going down the left-most column. If someone else can start on the right-most column (Mac) we should have this done quickly and be able to publish that page. doing it now... It is all working for me so far. I'm not seeing any links failing I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages. The Italian and Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript we use on the main download page, so I'm hoping they will point to the 3.4.1 release automatically when we push the updates to that script. -Rob -Rob
Re: [ooo-site]
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 22:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I placed an outage notice on the download page, to let visitors know they don't need to report the issue. -Rob Thank you Rob. Roberto, Dave, This is also weird - Looking at http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.0/ Just above the list of files it states: Looking for the latest version? Download OOo_3.3.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_20110219.iso (255.8 MB) and the URL link of http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/latest/download?source=files Good news - the link works (ducking) so seems there is more of general foul up going on perhaps..which might also mean it is a simple, silly, mistakes and easily fixed. Thanks in advance for looking into this, //drew On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Wilson Goh w...@allot.com wrote: Hello webmaster, there is a broken link, http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/stable/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe/download Aside from the error, why is the error page this: http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org/files/stable/3.4.0/Apache_OpenOffice_incubating_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe So if a SF download fails it redirects to mirrorbrain error page? I assume we don't want this because this asks users to report the error to webmas...@mirrorbrain.org. -Rob ## This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s).It may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have mistakenly received this message, please notify the sender by a reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ##
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: As for the non_ASF page, I will be happy to remove it entirely. It was the start of something that didn't go anywhere and for which we had a change of heart/direction. Looks that way - just remove it then. //drew
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 08:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:38 AM, schrieb 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew jensendrewjensen.in...@gmail.com 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. As I haven't seen any different let's add these OSs with a statement to the non_ASF.html webpage. The announcement current links to: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Is that the wrong place? That URL is the top listing if someone searches Google for openoffice ports. I'm happy to change the announcement to point to: http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html But we would need to get some content there. It is in the CMS, so anyone can edit it. -Rob Marcus Ah, I was supposed to make up something for that - well it's Saturday morning and I can do that now.. to be sure - it is this page that gets updated: http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html yes? //drew
Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 11:50 +0200, Andre Fischer wrote: On 15.08.2012 14:02, 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 In a fresh VirtualBox of Ubuntu 12.04 64bit I did: - Download the source tarball and verified its signature. - Configured and built it. - Installed it. - Did some short tests. Everything OK. -0
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 09:57 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 08:48 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:38 AM, schrieb 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew jensendrewjensen.in...@gmail.com 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. As I haven't seen any different let's add these OSs with a statement to the non_ASF.html webpage. The announcement current links to: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Is that the wrong place? That URL is the top listing if someone searches Google for openoffice ports. I'm happy to change the announcement to point to: http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html But we would need to get some content there. It is in the CMS, so anyone can edit it. -Rob Marcus Ah, I was supposed to make up something for that - well it's Saturday morning and I can do that now.. to be sure - it is this page that gets updated: http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html yes? I think that is what Marcus was suggesting. Should probably have mention of BSD, Solaris, OS/2 ports. And did we also agree on WinPenPack and portableApps (or did they ever release an AOO version?) Howdy, I think so, would of expected anyone wanting to object to have done so when it was mentioned before
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 11:38 -0400, drew wrote: On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 09:57 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: snip I think that is what Marcus was suggesting. Should probably have mention of BSD, Solaris, OS/2 ports. And did we also agree on WinPenPack and portableApps (or did they ever release an AOO version?) Howdy, I think so, would of expected anyone wanting to object to have done so when it was mentioned before, that was with a very clear notice that we neither certify or endorse the work product on the page also. and... I believe they both did - will go double check that and get URLs. For winpenpack[2] - it's still 3.4.0, but that would be expected, IMO, as they would have to lag the official release - will list them today. While I can't find a public page for portable apps[1] after 3.2.1, and will hold off on adding that listing. //drew [1] http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable [2] http://www.winpenpack.com/en/download.php?view.1341
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:53 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:34 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/18/2012 04:38 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/18/2012 04:19 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 02:48 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:38 AM, schrieb 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew jensendrewjensen.in...@gmail.com 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. As I haven't seen any different let's add these OSs with a statement to the non_ASF.html webpage. The announcement current links to: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Is that the wrong place? That URL is the top listing if someone searches Google for openoffice ports. Maybe not wrong but IMHO totally oudated since months and years and needs also a clean-up. ;-) IMHO, It is almost always better to clean up (or replace) an existing page at a well-known URL than to create an entirely new page at a new URL. Why? Because the existing page is already linked to, both internally and externally. So if we think the new content is relevant to the purpose of the old webpage, e.g., information on ports, then we should keep the old URL for it. Sure. Maybe we can make a deal, so that everybody has a little task: - I'll clean-up the porting homepage (at least the starting page) - Drew is adding text for the ports to the other webpage - I'll add
Re: Stop-Motion Calc
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 01:03 +0800, imacat wrote: Dear all, I've made a small video. Maybe you'll like this: http://youtu.be/iU3zhA6-458 (The source video is http://youtu.be/NlHUz99l-eo ) I've delivered a small presentation with this on the local conference COSCUP 2012 in Taiwan. http://youtu.be/tEhz0zNmTFQ Hope that you love it! ^_*' Absolutely. Shared the COSCUP link on my fb, G+ and Twtr profiles... Thanks much, //drew
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 22:14 +0200, Taf wrote: SNIP Howdy, Great - updated the page at http://www.openoffice.org/download/non_ASF.html with the winpenpack info also. //drew Good news! We'll ready to prepare the portable version. Today Andrea sent us the link with last/final 3.4.1 we are waiting for a while only to be sure r1372282 will be confirmed officially. Hi Taf, Very good - I saw the email go our from Andrea and will continue to follow along and update the page appropriately and quickly ;) Best wishes
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 01:15 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 08/18/2012 07:30 PM, schrieb drew: On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 18:53 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:34 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/18/2012 04:38 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo): Am 08/18/2012 04:19 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 02:48 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 08/18/2012 06:38 AM, schrieb 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, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew jensendrewjensen.in...@gmail.com 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. As I haven't seen any different let's add these OSs with a statement to the non_ASF.html webpage. The announcement current links to: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Is that the wrong place? That URL is the top listing if someone searches Google for openoffice ports. Maybe not wrong but IMHO totally oudated since months and years and needs also a clean-up. ;-) IMHO, It is almost always better to clean up (or replace) an existing page at a well-known URL than to create an entirely new page at a new URL. Why? Because the existing page is already linked to, both internally and externally. So if we think the new content is relevant to the purpose of the old webpage, e.g., information on ports, then we should keep the old URL for it. Sure. Maybe we can make a deal, so that everybody has a little task: - I'll clean-up the porting homepage
Extend release vote till after testing? (was: Re: [QA Report]AOO 3.4.1 RC2 rev 1372282 Test Report(w/o long run testing))
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
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, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com 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?
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 d...@baseanswers.com 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: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
is not released if it is in source only, for a package that has been previously released in binary form, not as a convenience but has a duty. //drew Regards, Dave -Rob (Sorry for no neat refs; I keep my own archives :-) ) /tj/ (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote: 2012/8/14 RGB ES: Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on the old url http://user.services.openoffice.org/ I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING . Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any more! If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on forum.openoffice.org contain internal links that reference user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use an external redirect as explained above. Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are directed to the same IP by DNS. Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to the same IP by DNS. What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org. Should we do something similar for the user forums? Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea. Hi, Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume same for all, list the base URL of the site as user.services.openoffice.org, all generated links then use this. Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address? Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed problem though. However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base domain name is - now that might be worth a test.. @imacat - what do you think? Thanks, //drew
Re: [INFO][WEBSITE]: improved usability with simplified Urls to reach some of our services
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 18:59 +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2012/8/15 drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com: On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:08 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 14, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 14/08/2012 RGB ES wrote: 2012/8/14 RGB ES: Good! But I'm finding a weird behaviour on the forums... If I enter on the old url http://user.services.openoffice.org/ I'm NOT redirected. If I open bot, the new and the old address and log-in in the new, in the old one I'm still logged off I would consider this to be normal behavior. Authentication is probably managed through a cookie that is sent back to the originating site (the originating subdomain) only. So user.services.openoffice.org has no way to know that you are logged in at forum.openoffice.org, unless we completely rewrite all URLs in the form user.services.openoffice.org/SOMETHING to forum.openoffice.org/SOMETHING . Not only confusing, but also problematic: if you log-in on the new address and then click on an old link that cross reference to another post you'll arrive to a page on which you are not logged in any more! If we have hardcoded links that are not rewritten (i.e., if pages on forum.openoffice.org contain internal links that reference user.services.openoffice.org explicitly), then it would be better to use an external redirect as explained above. Currently both user.services.openoffice.org and forum.openoffice.org are directed to the same IP by DNS. Also wiki.services.openoffice.org and wiki.openoffice.org are directed to the same IP by DNS. What is different is that for the wiki the Apache Traffic Server is in front and it does do the necessary redirection to wiki.openoffice.org. Should we do something similar for the user forums? Regards, Dave Regards, Andrea. Hi, Just checked and the phpBB installation, for En at least but I'd assume same for all, list the base URL of the site as user.services.openoffice.org, all generated links then use this. Isn't it proper now to use the forum.openoffice.org address? Don't suppose doing so would help alleviate the currently discussed problem though. However - it is also possible to configure phpBB such that the software determines, at runtime versus a hard coded setting, what the proper base domain name is - now that might be worth a test.. @imacat - what do you think? Thanks, //drew I'm not an expert, but the problem is that the [url=...]...[/url] tags only accept absolute paths. It is possible to define relative tags(1), I just did it for the ES forums and they work perfectly, but that will not help with the existing situation, only a proper redirect will help. (1) http://ittidbit.blogspot.it/2011/09/phpbb-relative-url-howto-bbcode.html Regards Ricardo Howdy Ricardo, OK - well I was thinking about the problem you where having staying logged in (cookie problem likely) in my last post. For the existing links in posts.. well, it is just a string in a database record - one UPDATE script transforming user.service.o.o to forums.o.o should do the trick, shouldn't it. //drew
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:45 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Aug 15, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: Is there a reason that the README in the source release is still pointing at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions for Mac Builds? Minimally this then points to http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/AquaBuild this doesn't seem exactly like what was used for 3.4.0? Would someone check the Build instructions and then update to be very clear what is current. I am proceeding with my tests as if the prerequisites have not changed and that I have them from my AOO 3.4 tests build. I am stuck and I am stopping. I am very unhappy with the instructions on the WIki page. I needed help with 3.4 and now I need help with 3.4.1. Please show me the simplest way to build on a Mac from Source and show me on the Wiki based on http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MacOSXBuildInstructions BTW - Remember that SOURCE is the ONLY OFFICIAL RELEASE. - but I thought that as part of accepting this project ASF was saying they were open to change.. am I just wrong on that - cause folks keep saying this as if it is a FACT and I thought it was going to be up to this project to decide whether binaries are official, or not. That is what I thought when I cast my non-binding vote to create this project at ASF - specifically that it was recognized as needing this type of differentiation from earlier projects. //drew (I really don't want to -1 this release.) Regards, Dave Thanks Regards, Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com Date: August 15, 2012 7:01:47 AM PDT To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating), RC2 Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org delivered-to: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Hi, please vote on this email to ooo-dev only, thanks. On 8/15/12 2:02 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi all, this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be our first bug fix release after the AOO 3.4 from May 8th. A further milestone to show that we deliver good and stable software with focus on quality. It will again help to continue the success of OpenOffice.org and will gain confidence in OpenOffice. This time I did not prepare a separate page to highlighting the release candidate. We had developer snapshot since several weeks and the latest one based on revision 1372282 is intended to become released if the voting succeeds. That means and to make it clear you vote here on the final release based on this snapshot build. This release is intended to be a bug fix release and to introduce some further languages: (1) 71 issues are fixed and a detailed list can be watched under http://s.apache.org/Huv. (2) 5 further languages are now officially supported: British English, Khmer, Slovenian, Slovak, and Finnish. For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes. The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following wiki page: hhttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). The vote starts now and will be open until: Saturday, 18 August: 2012-08-18 2:00pm UTC+2. After the vote of the PPMC the vote will start on gene...@incubtor.apache.org mailing and will be open for further 72 hours. But we invite all people to vote (non binding) on this RC. We would like to provide a release that is supported by the majority of our project members. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Re: OO Sold on eBay
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 13:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Max Merbald max.merb...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, I'd say it's not very fair because probably not everyone knows OOO is available for free. It's kind of weird that someone is trying to make money with something which is available for free. I wonder... is there anything that prevents one of us from offering the same thing on eBay, but at a near-zero price? For example, would it be within eBay policy to have an auction for instructions for downloading OpenOffice? Give all the same marketing plugs for features, etc., but set it as a Buy Now price of 1-cent or something. Some users want a CD, because of bandwidth limitations. But the cost of information, in this case, should be nearly zero. -Rob Hi Rob, TTBOMK the rules are: - Selling a CD/DVD or any physical media is allowed on eBay - Selling a link to download software is not allowed likely then this would fall afoul of their policies. It's a good idea though. //drew Max Am 12.08.2012 18:19, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:48 AM, dan roch dan.gum.tree...@gmail.com wrote: FYI I don't know if this goes agaist OO rules but this user on eBay is selling copies of OO. ebay user: allsorts-est-2011 auction http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Office-for-Home-and-Student-2007-2010-2012-For-Microsoft-Windows-XP-Vista-7-/110922521399?pt=UK_Computing_Software_Software_SRhash=item19d37f5b37#ht_8329wt_1026 This has come up before...there is no issue with selling ANY copy of OpenOffice (old or new) as long as the vendor complies with licensing or trademark requirements. This bit at the bottom -- *Items contained on this CD are under the terms of the GNU License, the GNU Lesser General Public Licences (LPGL) or the Mozilla Public Licence* well let's hope it's right. see also, our local Distribution FAQ-- http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 18:23 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 07/31/2012 11:04 PM, schrieb drew: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and then follow with this bullet item: Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, with plans to release these outside of Apache. Howdy Rob, Is this accurate and worth saying? Yes IIRC and yes IMO. Also from me a yes. I think it's an advantage to point to other platforms that we (somehow) support as this shows clearly a big diversity and open mind. Would it make sense to also include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for more information? I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more appropriate for a title). Or a separate webpage, but anyhow. A single page that contains all ports with a bit text and finaly a link to go to the respective download possibilities. I see that we have this legacy page: http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ Would that work? (It looks like it would need some updating) I suppose that's as good location as any - at least for today. Will make changes to that page and ping the list when it's in stagging, for a review - OK //drew -Rob Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent for future announcements. Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. Right. Just add them to the single page with text and link. That's it. :-) Just my .02 //drew Does this seem fair and appropriate? If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and OS/2, for more information. The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. I don't see this as an alternative. Even when we don't support the ports and portables directly resp. in a big way, it's absolutely worth to mention this. The most common thing is the shared code base - and that's not small. Marcus
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 08:47 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and then follow with this bullet item: Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, with plans to release these outside of Apache. Howdy Rob, Is this accurate and worth saying? Yes IIRC and yes IMO. Would it make sense to also include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for more information? I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more appropriate for a title). Hi Drew-- We have a page -- actually a former project at -- http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ that needs a LOT of cleanup. Any volunteers to take the lead on cleaning this up and just highlighting what we're dealing with now? FreeBSD, OS/2, and Solaris? Hi Kay, Yes, I'll work on that page today and ping the list when it is in stagging. //drew Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent for future announcements. Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. Just my .02 //drew Does this seem fair and appropriate? If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and OS/2, for more information. The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. Regards, -Rob
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
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? //drew snip
Re: Developer ID for digitally signing Apple OSX releases?
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 06:08 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Am Mittwoch, 1. August 2012 um 02:41 schrieb Rob Weir: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Keith N. McKenna keith.mcke...@comcast.net wrote: With the release of OSX Mountain Lion and its new Gatekeeper feature I wanted to ask if any thought had been given by the community of applying to Apple for a Developer ID. My limited understanding is that by signing the installation files with the Developer ID it automatically unlocks the gatekeeper and allows the application to run. Otherwise there is a short process that one must go through to change the security settings for the application allowing it to open. We'd like to do code signing, not only for Mac but for Windows as well. Signed installers are the new normal and are expected by browser, anti-virus scanners and increasingly by operating systems. Although we have volunteers willing to do the build integration work, and funds available for acquiring certificates, we've been told that individual Apache projects may not do their own signing. The Apache Infrastructure team is trying to figure out some way that this can be done centrally. But no estimate for when this will happen. exactly and at the moment we can only wait, I have no idea how we can help further at the moment. Any ideas are welcome. In the meantime we should add a note about the new Gatekeeper of Mountain Lion. It's a one time ctrl-click or opening via the context menu. After that you can run it as normal without any further dialog from the system. I tried it out and forget to take screenshot to document it. Juergen Hi, Installed the latest 3.4.1 build, as administrator, under Vista yesterday and started a few checks. Ran into this: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/send-doc-warning.png I'm not totally sure on this but I assume that when the install files are signed it would take this away also - yes? Thanks, //drew Regards, -Rob Based on a question in the user mailing list I am adding a link to the Release Notes in the known problems section on how to make the required change. Regards Keith
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 18:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com 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. //drew
Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports? (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 14:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: I'm drafting the 3.4.1 release announcement blog post. I have a bullet list where I highlight what is in 3.4.1. I list what platforms are supported, mention the Windows 8 compatibility improvements, and then follow with this bullet item: Community members are also working on BSD, Solaris and OS/2 ports, with plans to release these outside of Apache. Howdy Rob, Is this accurate and worth saying? Yes IIRC and yes IMO. Would it make sense to also include links for each of these ports, where the reader can go for more information? I would think a better return if instead of putting direct links for each, create a fixed address (wiki page?) for 'other ports' (or more appropriate for a title). Link to that from the announcement/blog and would make that a precedent for future announcements. Although these are not Apache releases, they are part of the close ecosystem, with developers working directly in our project to support these ports. So I think there is some logic to mentioning them in the release announcement. But work that happens entirely outside of the project, like portable applications versions, would not get a mention. I would disagree, somewhat, in that personal preference would be to include the 2 or 3 portable 'wrapper' distributors as this has seemed to be of interest to quite a few folks in the past. Just my .02 //drew Does this seem fair and appropriate? If we agree to do this, I'll need a link for each of BSD, Solaris and OS/2, for more information. The alternative would be to not mention the ports at all. Regards, -Rob
Re: Improving the Open Office Toolbars
On Sat, 2012-07-28 at 14:53 +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2012/7/28 Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com: KG01 - see comments inline. On Jul 27, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Mike Buzzard mik...@earth-focus.org.uk wrote: Hi I would really like it if you could make Open Office's Toolbars better: better, even than any toolbars, ribbons, etc! KG01 - Indeed. Over time, toolbars can begin to feel overloaded. I don't like Microsoft's Ribbon system! I have tried to follow your efforts to make Toolbars better, but not succeeded. KG01 - What does better mean to you? No wrong answers here. I'm looking to work on the toolbars in the next release and am gathering feedback. However, Corel (in CorelDraw, PhotoPaint) have had a system for over a decade which very nearly solves the problem. Have a try with CorelDraw: the toolbar changes depending on what you are doing, so nearly all the commands available at any time are the ones on the toolbar that is showing. It's so simple! KG01 - Yes, CorelDRAW had contextual toolbars back in version 7. There were common toolbars that persisted in the workspace, then toolbars that would appear contextual to the selection. For example, selection text would evoke a text properties toolbar. This is a pattern that AOO could explore to reduce complexity, minimize toolbar icon overload and present commands that are contextual to the selected element. OOo had (and AOO has) contextual toolbars since 2.0. For example, the table toolbar on Writer will pop up only when you put the cursor inside a table or the picture toolbar will be visible only when you select a picture. By default, they tend to appear on not so useful places, but that can be easily fixed by anchoring them. Right, but I believe it is different (and makes a lot of difference) in AOO what is in the toolbar is static, the whole bar is either displayed, enabled or disable, or hidden - I believe in Coral it is the toolbar buttons that change in the toolbars. It would be great if you could try to make it work with Open Office. KG01 - We could use your help. Watch the UX wiki for more on this topic and other UI enhancements. By the way, I have not put this idea forward before because I have not found a way of doing it - every way of commenting seems to be so complicated. KG01 - Again, no wrong answers. What would be your ideal way to share product ideas and feedback? Best wishes to all Mike Buzzard
Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 19:34 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. Hi Drew, Did anything come of this? We've received a few requests for AOO 3.4.0 CD's by those with only dial up connections. -Rob Short answer - I decided to hold up for 3.4.1, _as soon as_ it's released will finish this up. //drew snip
Re: XBRL reporting for the SEC
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:56 -0700, alan tenore wrote: Hello: I was interested in knowing if OpenOffice can create XBRL (Business reporting language) files that are now required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for company filings – 10Q 10K? This is a very specific program Microsoft has a product called FXr Reporting. Essentially, it a database providing drop down menus for the various sections of a 10K Thanks, Alan Hi Alan, (note I am not certified for XBRL - but do have some EDGAR compliance experience ) Good question - I'm curious why you would see AOO as a tool for this, is there some specific in your business processes where you see AOO as the natural tool for this? Anyway - A couple of resources for you too consider: http://www.xbrlwiki.info/index.php?title=Open_Source_and_XBRL Thanks, //drew
Re: Fwd: New links for localization web page
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 16:15 +0200, Joost Andrae wrote: Hi Rob, it seems so...but Peter's own MirrorBrain OOo MirrorBrain page is still working. In the past we asked Peter sometimes to use it as a fail-over system and it worked properly. http://ooo.mirrorbrain.org hmmm - well I can get it to work sometimes, but other times fails and it looks like it fails whenever this site is involved http://openoffice.mirrors.tds.net which isn't surprising I suppose as when I go to that site directly and then to the OpenOffice page - all files have all been removed. arrgh... Am 26.07.2012 15:56, schrieb Rob Weir: Forwarding from the ooo-L10n list. Is MirrorBrain down? Kind regards, Joost
Re: Fwd: New links for localization web page
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:35 -0400, drew wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 16:15 +0200, Joost Andrae wrote: Hi Rob, it seems so...but Peter's own MirrorBrain OOo MirrorBrain page is still working. In the past we asked Peter sometimes to use it as a fail-over system and it worked properly. http://ooo.mirrorbrain.org hmmm - well I can get it to work sometimes, but other times fails and it just to clarify - I don't mean that the link above works sometimes - I mean that the download triggered from the OO.o site works for me other then when tds.net is the actual server. looks like it fails whenever this site is involved http://openoffice.mirrors.tds.net which isn't surprising I suppose as when I go to that site directly and then to the OpenOffice page - all files have all been removed. arrgh... Am 26.07.2012 15:56, schrieb Rob Weir: Forwarding from the ooo-L10n list. Is MirrorBrain down? Kind regards, Joost
Re: [QA CALLFORVOLUNTEER]AOO 3.4.1 RC build testing
Hi guys, Sorry for being dense here - so the build I can download today is not going to be the RC.. But it's down the last couple straws so it's likely the next... is that about right? Thanks, //drew On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 08:57 +0800, Ji Yan wrote: Juergen, thanks for your update. Although build break on Linux, I think task for verifying remaining release blocker issue is still valid, we can verify those issue on Windows and Mac. 2012/7/25 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com On 7/25/12 3:56 PM, Ji Yan wrote: Hi all, The first AOO 3.4.1 RC rev. 1364591 build is available at [1]. My proposal for the RC build test plan has been put in [2]. Any comments are welcome. we have detected a build problem on Linux. It's already solved and we build currently a new version based revision 1365485. The availability will be announced asap Juergen I also create several QA test tasks in bugzilla, to verify the RC build any volunteer can take ownership of these tasks. BZ 120357 release blocker defect validation. BZ 120354 installation testing BZ 120355 general testing BZ 120364 performance testing BZ 120365 native language testing [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+RC+Build+Test+Plan
Re: Should quickstarter be enabled or disabled by default?
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 14:25 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.comwrote: KG01 - see comments inline. On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM, shzh zhao aoo.zhaos...@gmail.com wrote: The best way is giving a user an option when installing the software, in this step,let user enable or disable it. KG01 - Perhaps we can include an 'enable' / 'disable' QuickStart option directly in the Help menu on the main menu. This location would ensure the commands persist, and are available in both states. Evoking the the quickstart menu option from the quickstart bar in the system tray would serve as contextual, redundant access. Again, enabling could be evoke by the commands in the help menu. Well this is an interesting idea. I think this would be better placement than where it is now -- Options - Tools - Memory. I have it disabled on my version (and always have near as I remember) but I do recall having a time trying to figure this out. And, since I have had it disabled for ages, I don't recall if I got some notice about it on first start up. Well, I would not think this a good use of that top menu location. That location seems a good place for the type of option that a user is likely to toggle, with some frequency. The choice of enabling the quickstarter is IMO not such an option - it is as best I can tell a one time choice by most. To be honest the only recollection I have of this is helping people turn it off -because it caused either a problem with the JRE/Base (those problems I think have been over for years now though) or during an update of the full suite (still an on-going problem). I can't recall one time that I've helped someone turn it on. My .02 worth - turn it off by default and leave the option toggle where it is - better yet, drop it completely. //drew +1 for this idea if it can be done easily...I don't know what's involved so it may not be possible for the upcoming 3.4.1. 2012/7/20 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org Risto Jääskeläinen wrote: Supposing that quickstarter is working without any faults there is still a time stealing hiding in it. Those users who use OpenOffice only once and while lost a bit their working time every day they start their computer and not use use OpenOffice at that session. Yes, but what we should focus on is how easy it is for affected users to change behavior. And here having Quickstarter enabled by default shows a clear benefit. Users who have Quickstarter enabled and wish to disable it must simply right-click on the icon and uncheck Load during system start-up. Very clear and easy. This is probably what saved us from thousands of reports of https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=119102 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119102: for once, users were able to figure out how to workaround a bug themselves (of course, disabling Quickstarter was just a workaround, but it worked). Users who have Quickstarter disabled and wish to enable it must: know or imagine that it exists, open the Options, find it in the jungle of options (under Memory, by the way)... Since it is much simpler to disable than enable, and since most clueless users will benefit from having it enabled by default, I'd definitely keep it enabled. Especially now that the related bug is fixed. Regards, Andrea. -- * mailto: *aoo.zhaos...@gmail.com https://google.com/profiles https://google.com/profiles -- MzK I would rather have a donkey that takes me there than a horse that will not fare. -- Portuguese proverb
Re: AOO as a portable application
On Sun, 2012-07-22 at 03:27 +0200, Guy Waterval wrote: Hi all, I would know if the ASF will produce in the future a portable version of AOO. I think such a version could help to promote the use of AOO, as most recent computers are able to run even big applications directly from an USB key. It's also nice for demos, etc. Regards Howdy Guy, Ah, good question - I assume you know that OpenOffice was available for a long time in 'portable garb' from at least two third party sources: The transition over to Apache OpenOffice just put a kink in things, but my impression is that this is about to be cleared up. I'd direct you to this link: http://portableapps.com/development/outdated for one example - look for a change in that status in short order, or so is my guess ;) The other packager was: http://sourceforge.net/projects/winpenpack/ again I would not be surprised to see them update soon also. HTH, //drew
Re: [DISCUSS]: where is the donation button
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 14:24 +0800, Zhe Liu wrote: Hi Juergen? Do you mean this bottom left one on the page http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/? I think there also should be one on the header of www.openoffice.org. I would agree with you - perhaps it could be as simple as a link to the current donation instructions: http://apache.org/foundation/contributing.html#Paypal //drew 2012/7/16 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com: Hi, I thought we had replaced the former donation button with a new that goes directly to Apache. I tried today to find it but haven't found any hints for making a donation on our website. Maybe I am simply to silly to find it in the morning and I happy for any hint. But If I am not to silly and there is no donation button anymore, I would like to discuss to include one on all pages. And we should create a page explaining why donations to Apache will help the OpenOffice project. This includes the user forum as well. Juergen
Re: Branding on extensions site
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 14:18 +0200, Roberto Galoppini wrote: The only reason is that when we re-engineered the website the new logo wasn't available yet. We are going to enhance both Extensions and Templates websites within July (spam management, stats) and we'll fix that too. Howdy all, A couple of questions - these aren't time critical at all IMO so no need to rush a reply, BTW. The drupal mods for the site, are they available to the public yet? I noticed Alexandro asked the other day, to no answer. A slightly different question - and I know I shouldn't really put two in one email..but here goes There was talk early on about working on a syndication scheme for extension/template repositories - how can we not lose that as a project goal? Thanks, //drew Sent from my iPhone On 14/lug/2012, at 12:30, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Is there a reason the extensions site is using the old oo.o logo rather than the AOO one? Ross
Re: comments.apache.org
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 12:56 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 7/10/12 1:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Jul 9, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Rob Weir wrote: This looks interesting/useful: https://comments.apache.org/ Would this make sense for our core files under /ooo-site ? This is very cool. I think it can be used effectively on the API site, why, downloads, and many other parts of ooo-site. I would not add this to any NL sites without proper moderators. I would not put it on the main home page or the download page, or similar pages where the extreme volume would almost certainly lead to large numbers of out-of-place support questions being posted.On a page with 5 million+ monthly hits, all it takes is 0.1% user confusion for us to get flooded. But it would probably work for API pages, or building guide, pages that are technical instructions. Release notes or install instructions would be other examples, albeit with much greater traffic. I would start with one or two pages to get the formula correct. Once found turning the page on will become part of the site template and controlled from the ssi.mdtext in the templates dir. It would be good to know also how we manage this as pages are revised and when we use this versus anonymous CMS. For example, if a user puts a comment that says, Step X should really say 'foo', then if we later modify that page, then we have the extra step of going back to delete the comment, I assume. In any case, might make sense to pilot this in a small, focused way to see how users will use it. But certainly exciting possibilities! indeed and we had thought about such a feature in the past for our API reference. See for exmaple3 the PHP reference here http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.basic-syntax.php The question is how we can integrate the feedback in a proper way... But it is indeed very interesting. Hi Juergen Right, the idea of a feedback system for docs of more then just the API has been bantered around a number of times. Another example for the commenting system is on the documentation pages for the trafficserver project: http://trafficserver.staging.apache.org/docs/ The comment button is available for all the docs pages. Moderation - seems that all comiters, from all ASF projects as moderators by default. Indeed I just logged into the control panel and fiddled a bit in the test project.. (oops, hope no one really wanted those comments ;-) Also found that I could subscribe for email notifications for incoming comments, which as best as I can tell is at a project level. One question: Is it possible to subscribe to a subset of comments, so if a comment feature were added to both the on-line USER and API guides could someone subscribe to notifications for incoming comments to the user docs but not the API docs? Otherwise - it looks interesting for sure. //drew
Re: comments.apache.org
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:37 +0200, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 07/10/2012 03:32 PM, drew wrote: One question: Is it possible to subscribe to a subset of comments, so if a comment feature were added to both the on-line USER and API guides could someone subscribe to notifications for incoming comments to the user docs but not the API docs? Otherwise - it looks interesting for sure. //drew Why thank you for banning me on the test site and wiping all my comments ;'( *runs away crying* Hi Daniel Ah, I did ban you, didn't I - well, hmm think I'll go back and figure out how to un-ban you..seems fair ;) On a more serious note, what you could do is add two separate comment shortnames, one for user docs and one for API docs, fx. ooo-user and ooo-api. That way, you'd have two separate dashboards (and you could even have separate moderator rights if you wanted) and two places to subscribe to, but from the reader's point of view it would just be one unified feature. So - I wasn't sure on that - could I actually embed that into a page right now, just by changing those variable in the js example and 'go-live' with it, as a separate dashboard, for a set of files - just like that, no further need to ask someone to create something? Best wishes, //drew
Re: comments.apache.org
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 17:35 +0200, Daniel Gruno wrote: On 07/10/2012 05:20 PM, drew jensen wrote: So - I wasn't sure on that - could I actually embed that into a page right now, just by changing those variable in the js example and 'go-live' with it, as a separate dashboard, for a set of files - just like that, no further need to ask someone to create something? Best wishes, //drew In theory yes, you could just use the snippets in place for either httpd or trafficserver (and add your own shortname, fx. ooo-test) and it would work, but to make it work properly, you'd first have to request project admin status on comments.a.o and then create those sites using the site creator (which will appear once you have the rights to do so). that would then give you a HTML snippet you can insert, as well as access to add non-committers as moderators and such ( see https://comments.apache.org/help.html#noncoms for that by the way). So, to reiterate, the proper way to go about testing this out is: 1) Ask Infra to add you (or your VP, whomever they allow) as a project admin. Alright - not a TLP, yet, so no VP ;) 2) Create the site (or the sites) in the site chooser on comments.a.o OK 3) Fetch the HTML snippet and insert it on the page(s) you wish to test it on (if you use the Apache CMS, please read the note regarding snippets and the CMS) Great thanks Don't be afraid to ask Infra, they won't bite...hard. Will do. With regards, Daniel. Thanks much - that was exactly what I was asking. Best, //drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 20:56 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: Hello everyone, Clean slate - alright! How about we just start with something everyone agrees on. Point of order. I've made a proposal, in this thread, just two days ago. it is a clean slate, based on nothing before it. I've received only two substantive comments, from Wolf and Dennis. Everyone else seems to be running around, trying to understand why the ToU have not been updated yet. If you have some comments on my proposal I'd love to hear them. Ditto, if Dave or anyone else does. Howdy Rob, Ah ha - long story, short - I read your email from Tuesday and not the one from Wed so..it seems we all agree that updating the text at http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is the better way to go. and I'll pick it up in a reply to that (well Dennis' comments).. BTW - as for use of the wiki for shared editing, a TOU page on the wiki was already setup for that, been there a good while and yes I also agree it would of been better if you had updated that and pointed to it in your email message. Best wishes, //drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
of broader licenses. That makes this all impossible and is sort of anti-community, it seems to me. /orcmid Why would a broader license be anti-community? And remember, we can never prevent a user from putting a broader license on a contribution. If you wish to offer a broader license, to allow 3rd parties to reuse your content outside of this website, then you may do so, provided the license is compatible with the above requirements. Apache License 2.0 is especially recommended. Please mark the license prominently in your contribution. orcmid To emphasize, this is too burdensome and it creates a problem around permissible use and who determines what that is. Having bits and Burdensome for whom? pieces under individual license notices makes no sense. We already have that, with openoffice.org website, with our incubator website, and even with other parts of Apache. Take for example JIRA, where an attachment can be marked as being a contribution or not. If you read the iCLA you see that as a committer you have that ability as well, to indicate in an email, or in subversion, or on the website, whether or not something is a contribution. So we're not starting from some pure world where we can assume a single incoming license. Another proof point for how this works is with the extensions and templates websites. They manage to have eclectic licenses. So long as they are each declared, there is no need for a default license or to exclude per-item licenses. It might be useful to have the conditions for submission to the site be at a place where submissions can happen, and deal more with what the outgoing license is in the absence of any notice to the contrary. /orcmid If we were interested in enforcing ToU against a user, then yes, we would make this bulletproof and put it in their face at registration time and at the time of their contribution. But I don't see us having that need. For us the ToU is more a set of notices that we want the user to be aware, for their benefit and to avoid confusion. We're trying to be helpful. 3. Exclusions The websites at extensions.openoffice.org and templates.openoffice.org are not operated by the Apache Software Foundation and are not covered by this Terms. 4. Changes to these Terms We may change these Terms from time to time. When we make substantive changes we will also make an announcement on the ooo-announce mailing list. orcmid These definitely need to be versioned and the older versions archived. I favor having references back to the previous one in a chain that anyone can chase. /orcmid That would be fine. OK -Rob Ok - well, I think that the current TOU page should be updated sooner rather then later now - it's been deferred long enough huh? *smile*. I think it is easier to start with simple and embellish as we see fit. so how about let's use this page: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/website-terms-of-use-draft fir a quick white board. Will start from a copy of Rob's text - add my two edits - and lets just work changes if folks have them, if none move it to the website page proper on Monday - sound good? //drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 12:27 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:31 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 14:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton snip orcmid This might need to be separated for what the agreement is when people register/subscribe and provide information solicited to accomplish that. This seems like too broad an umbrella for what happens when folks register versus what happens when accessing sites versus what happens when sending an e-mail somewhere. /orcmid It would be good to link to the ToU from any registration. But note that we don't always have that access where it is a shared Apache service, for example CWiki. Nothing in the ToU speaks about emails, so that is red herring. A red herring? I don't think so - why should it only be valid if already there. The site references our mailing lists and certainly did, likely still does, IMO a comment on the public nature of mailing lists is really appropriate here. The point is this: a user can contribute to the mailing list without ever having visited the website. So posting ToU for the mailing list on a website is not going to really have any legal or even advisory effect.One thing that we could do is put ToU in the confirmation note we send to new list subscribers. Or even a link to a consolidated ToU on the website if that is how we do it. In any case, most of the ToU is in the nature of a notice: we are telling the user what will are doing, what we can do, and what we will do under certainly conditions. The main exception, where we are demanding something of the user, is if where we require a licence on their contributions. So that is the one thing where we cannot be casual. If we want to have an incoming licence on contributions that really needs to be baked into registration systems, list acknowledgement emails, etc. Well, I agree that this is a notice - I still feel it would appropriate to mention mailing list. What I've done just now is simply to move your text verbatim to the wiki - I'll add a paragraph for what I think is an apt way to address this. Give a read to that, and if you or anyone else thinks it's just our of place, well, that's why it's a white board, right ;-) //drew -Rob
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:49 +0200, Hagar Delest wrote: Le mer. 04 juil. 2012 04:44:19 CEST, drew d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong. Weird, after that discussion, I remember seeing the page being redirected to something like the wiki. It had definitively stopped pointing to the Oracle page. Hagar *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well, once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question? //drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 22:22 +0200, hagar.delest wrote: Message du 06/07/12 14:21 De : drew *chuckling*...what you think my memory could be faulty - never.. well, once or twice, maybe. Now what was the question? I think that the question can be closed since the link is now pointing to thte correct page. Perhaps during an operation on the forum recently that link had been reverted to the old Oracle page. Hagar Hi Hagar, You mean, I suppose, that the bottom link in the footer of each forum (just double checked each) links to: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use I think that is where it should point, and that is the page in need of update. Another option would be, perhaps, to point to this page http://www.openoffice.org/license.html instead - doesn't seem quite right though. //drew
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
Hello everyone, Clean slate - alright! How about we just start with something everyone agrees on. The page at http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use is wrong. We either fix it or stop using it and remove it. But for today... If you look at this page http://user.services.openoffice.org/ it uses a footer matching the main site http://www.openoffice.org/license.html that is almost the same as the main site. So, could merge the current footer used at the individual forums and the footer at the landing page, dropping the link to the .../terms_of_use page on the main site. The copyright page link is good for the non-subscribed browser. Will add the privacy page link, and leav the current forum TOU used when subscribe in place, already translated to all languages. If that doesn't look like a waste of time to folks will put that together on an example page in the morning and post a link for review. //drew
[OT] playing video native on windows (Re: CMS anonymous user improvements)
Hi Rob, Nice video, good quality it looks good Have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind. Will the files generated directly from Camtasia run in the MS supplied media player directly? I did a quick read on their web site but didn't see that directly answered. I suppose should start just by asking what format files you are producing? Last - the video on youtube now, how large a file is the original you uploaded? Thanks, //drew On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 10:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: This weekend David Blevins and I worked on streamlining the anonymous user support in the CMS. Two major improvements are the introduction of Quick Mail and anonymous clones. Quick Mail is the analog of Quick Commit but for anonymous users- it is enabled by default and makes submitting patches to the mailing list much easier to execute. The mailout will contain a url for committers to use that permits a committer to clone the working copy of the anonymous user, so all you'd need to do is review the change in the CMS and commit it. Would be nice if Rob or someone created a video tutorial for this that's geared toward anon users and showed off these new features. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fvg1pfHLhE Hi Rob -- I couldn't read this one as clearly as your first. You used some sort of zoom mechanism on the first one I think, and also there seemed to be some text annotations on the first one with actual bookmarlet URL that this one doesn't have. I'm still learning the tool (Camtasia) It looks like if you do the original recording at a higher resolution than the output resolution then you can tell it to automatically zoom in to area where your mouse is. But in this case my recording resolution is the same as the output resolution, so no zooming is possible. But I can add text annotations, arrows, etc. -Rob So good information, but difficult to see. Sorry. -- MzK I would rather have a donkey that takes me there than a horse that will not fare. -- Portuguese proverb
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 19:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: Can someone take ownership of this issue? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939 Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php Then to the footer and the Policies and Terms of Use. This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use That starts with This Site and its contents are made available by Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates under common control (Oracle) It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get this remedied. Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow user/non-committer contributions. -Rob Perhaps I'm mistaken - but - I thought it was rather decided to just let the TOU continue pointing to the main website page, the idea being fix it and cover the OO.o website site, forums and media wiki also. I suppose it's simply time now to actually re-write the TOU page on the main website and reap the rewards for all three services. //drew
Re: VBA
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 10:03 +0800, Chen Peng wrote: Hi Stefan, Do you mean you want to open a report then change the filter in the report using StarBasic macro? if it is, this is not a VBA issue. You can use the Record Macro function in AOO to store the macro action, maybe you can get the answer. Hi Peng, The record macro function will be no help here, well not much anyway. A question of import is - what kind of report is it, one made from the Report Builder or one made from the embedded report wizard. But - you can actually do this without in more ways then using a script (macro). 1 - Be sure to create dynamic reports. 2 - Base your report on a query. 3 - Change the select criteria in the query before running the report. For very simple changes you will not need a macro at all - you simply use parameters for the selection criteria (or parts of it) and the runtime system will prompt the user for specific values to replace those parameters with. This is automatic in other words, with a dynamic report based on a query definition. //drew 2012/7/4 Stefan Lindel ste...@famlindel.de I want open a Report and change the filter dynamicly I found the Code to Open subdlg = getController().loadComponent(**com.sun.star.sdb.application.** DatabaseObject.REPORT,**Ergebnisse,FALSE) but i dont know how i change the filter in the report mfg Stefan
Re: Terms of Service on Forums
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 22:32 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:18 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 19:44 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: Can someone take ownership of this issue? https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939 Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php Then to the footer and the Policies and Terms of Use. This links to this page: http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use That starts with This Site and its contents are made available by Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and affiliates under common control (Oracle) It is nearly all wrong. I consider a graduation issue that we get this remedied. Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki? Both allow user/non-committer contributions. -Rob Perhaps I'm mistaken - but - I thought it was rather decided to just let the TOU continue pointing to the main website page, the idea being fix it and cover the OO.o website site, forums and media wiki also. Are you not seeing what I'm seeing? The TOU does not currently point to the main website page. Go to the forum and look at the bottom of the page where it says By any use of this Website, you agree to be bound by these Policies and Terms of Use. Then click the link and read. Continuing with what is there is entirely out of the question, right? It is Oracle's terms of use, assigning rights of the content to Oracle. Please someone tell me that they are also seeing this. Yes - it goes to the page on the website - a page I tried to get people to look at for fixup months ago - but there was no interest in doing so at the time, and yes as it stands it is just wrong. So fix that page and the problem is gone isn't it. I'm agreeing with you - it's time to fix it. //drew -Rob I suppose it's simply time now to actually re-write the TOU page on the main website and reap the rewards for all three services. //drew
RE: Terms of Service on Forums
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 20:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: @Rob, Yes, I am seeing what you are seeing. Concerning the ToU for the forums, it is the same as what was previously on the web site. While there is a license grant for non-code and other places where no other license is applied, the license is also to all Users. @Rob, @Drew, @Kay I created an issue that proposed a new terms of use that was consistent with the Oracle ones for ASF and would have not made this problem worse, as far as I can tell. That was long ago and it went nowhere. The JIRA issue is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-104. Here's the connected issue on our Bugzilla: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118518. I came to our Bugzilla because LEGAL-104 can't have attachments. The attachment on the Bugzilla provides a red-lined transformation of the Oracle ToU into one that could work for the forums, wikis, and web pages now under ASF custodianship. It addresses some of the cases that Rob also mentions. I stand by my analysis. You might want to see how to carve out what you want from that, since it is at least a start and the places where further customization may be called for are all identified. - Dennis Hi Dennis, You did a good job on it then too. I just took the time to go back and read over the exchange on the legal JIRA entry and a quick read, again, of your markup to the original TOU text. For a TOU link in the website, wiki and forum footer I think it is a good think to just finish this up and use it. The website no longer offers account creation so with the new TOU and the current http://www.openoffice.org/privacy.html , I suppose it would be done (for today :) where one does still have a difference between registered and non-registered users: - the media wiki already has http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Wiki:Copyrights so I suppose that would be done (for today) also. - the forums, just add a requirement that everything new is ALv2 in http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ucp.php?mode=terms (and it's translations) At least it seems this simple to me, does it really need to be thought out a lot further then that? //drew Some months ago it was discussed with the ASF Board whether a privacy condition and safe-harbor setup was desired. That apparently didn't get anywhere.
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 08:33 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 18:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: snip Maybe beveled edges or something would make it look more button-like so it was clearer that the user is supposed to click it? Maybe - here it is with text a little smaller and a bevel: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/get-aoo-300x100-btn.png //drew So... 3 days have passed. Drew, do you want to check that into SVN. Or I can do that, assuming this is a contribution from you? It would replace this file: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/images/get-it-here/en.png -Rob So, no replacement yet? Just checking... OHH - ok, I have to admit this - I never registered keys for the SVN system apparently - I've just been lazy - if anyone would just check that in I would appreciate it.. otherwise - I'll waddle over and finish getting setup.. //drew
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 13:07 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:43 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 08:33 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 18:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: snip Maybe beveled edges or something would make it look more button-like so it was clearer that the user is supposed to click it? Maybe - here it is with text a little smaller and a bevel: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/get-aoo-300x100-btn.png //drew So... 3 days have passed. Drew, do you want to check that into SVN. Or I can do that, assuming this is a contribution from you? It would replace this file: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/site/trunk/content/openofficeorg/images/get-it-here/en.png -Rob So, no replacement yet? Just checking... OHH - ok, I have to admit this - I never registered keys for the SVN system apparently - I've just been lazy - if anyone would just check that in I would appreciate it.. Done: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/get-it-here.html -Rob Thank you otherwise - I'll waddle over and finish getting setup.. //drew
Re: Touching base with the mirrorbrain operators
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 09:26 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, It is wonderful to see the millions of downloads for the current 3.4 release, utilizing the sf.net resources. It's also encouraging to see the half million downloads per month still going out from the mirrorbrain servers - this 500,000 p/mos figure is comprised of older releases, many of which include language packs not yet available for 3.4 or the upcoming 3.4.1 - so this is a valuable resource to the project still, IMO. Back in March I sent an email to 102 contact references for that mirror network, it would be a good idea IMO to drop another note to these folks, let them know we recognize the traffic they are still carrying, say thanks and keep in touch as the projects looks to, and plans for the next release - 3.4.1 and beyond. Sound like a good idea? If we want to use MirrorBrain longer term it would probably be good to have a ooo-mirrors list, or something like that, so we can have bidirectional communications. It would be a low-traffic list, but it would be better for the operators to join a specialized list than have them sign up for ooo-dev. I would agree, it seems worthwhile at this point to setup such a list. Also heard from the Infra team that Peter Pöml has supplied a list of mirror contacts for such a list... //drew -Rob Thanks //drew
[PROPOSAL] Create ML for mirrorbrain server operators
Hi, It is clear the mirrorbrain server network is still dishing up a significant number of downloads and the services are likely to be beneficial to the project for some period of time to come. Henk with the infra team reports he has a list of contact emails now for this group of mirror operators. The suggestion is therefore to create a oo-mirror mailing list to aid in communicating with this group. Henk has offered to act as a moderator for the list, and I offer to do the same. I'd like therefor to ask for lazy consensus to go ahead and create this oo-mirror list. Thanks //drew
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create ML for mirrorbrain server operators
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 10:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It is clear the mirrorbrain server network is still dishing up a significant number of downloads and the services are likely to be beneficial to the project for some period of time to come. Henk with the infra team reports he has a list of contact emails now for this group of mirror operators. The suggestion is therefore to create a oo-mirror mailing list to aid in communicating with this group. It looks like you did see my earlier post. I don't think we should have a dedicated list for mirrorbrain operators. But we should have a list of OpenOffice distributors in general, whether mirror operators, those seeding torrents, distributing CD's or even just hosting their own copy of AOO (CNet, FileHippo, etc.). There is a number of topics that all of these parties have in common: 1) When is the next release coming? 2) What will the matrix of languages and OS's be, so I can prepare? 3) What is the latest branding and artwork associated with this release so I can start updating my website? 4) Is there some urgent news that I need to be aware of, like a flawed release file that should be immediately withdraw? -Rob Hi, That all sounds good to me, no arguments here to the idea of expanding this to a general purpose distributor ML. //drew snip
Touching base with the mirrorbrain operators
Howdy, It is wonderful to see the millions of downloads for the current 3.4 release, utilizing the sf.net resources. It's also encouraging to see the half million downloads per month still going out from the mirrorbrain servers - this 500,000 p/mos figure is comprised of older releases, many of which include language packs not yet available for 3.4 or the upcoming 3.4.1 - so this is a valuable resource to the project still, IMO. Back in March I sent an email to 102 contact references for that mirror network, it would be a good idea IMO to drop another note to these folks, let them know we recognize the traffic they are still carrying, say thanks and keep in touch as the projects looks to, and plans for the next release - 3.4.1 and beyond. Sound like a good idea? Thanks //drew
Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:20 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) I just downloaded and burned the BIN image. Overall this is totally awesome, a truly righteous and outstanding accomplishment. Sorry, just to be clear. I was praising Drew's work producing the image, not my CD burning. -Rob But a few quick observations: 1) Is the audience for this end-users? Conference organizers? As it is now it is not clear where to start. I insert CD and just get the directory listing. This is on Windows 7. Maybe other OS's know to automatically load index.html from a CD? Or is there something else that would trigger this? Right long term one would, my preference anyway, target different audiences with these types of things. I purposefully made this a bare bones set of files, even a little less then on the legacy iso files distributed on the oo.o mirrors. 2) On index.html, you have under quick install, links with the text, I know how. Maybe just me, but I was looking for a parallel one saying I don't know how Yes - that is not sufficient. Took a quick stab at a 'Five Minute Install' type video: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/iso/install-simple.mp4 to see last nights draft and this mornings edit ;) 3) Contact.html. Typos on 2nd header Questions regardig the Apache OpenOfice project Yeah lots of that - did some clean up last night, will do more this afternoon and will push a new set of files to sf tonight. 4) You are including all the language installs, but only art work in English. It it in your longer term plans to get translations added? That depends on others more then myself, I will try to put things in such a way that anyone wanting to add a translation can do so. I don't plan to try to tackle any language other then English personally. //drew -Rob What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done) - License (not done) - java (copy of website page - done) - sys_reqs_aoo34 (copy of webstie page) - ooo.css and style.css from webstie, 1 changes in each file Print ready artwork for packaging - Thin / Tall DVD case cover - Cut/Fold CD envelope template - Pre-fab sleeve cover - disk label cd-aoo-34-src.iso All the files in the cd-aoo-34-bin.iso and the source files tar ball, along with changes to a couple of html files. --- So - there are things I see to do on each piece here still. I do not expect to add any other artifacts at this point. For today I want to finish up an the install help page(s). Right now though any general feedback on _any_ of it is welcomed. Thanks //drew
Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 09:47 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/25/12 9:20 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) I just downloaded and burned the BIN image. Overall this is totally awesome, a truly righteous and outstanding accomplishment. Sorry, just to be clear. I was praising Drew's work producing the image, not my CD burning. you can really burn CD's, wow ;-) Juergen PS: I haven't checked the ISO image but does it have an autorun.inf file? No it doesn't have an autorun file. By the way - are both of you on the OASIS ODF..hmmm, team, project, not sure what to call that - I really want to yell at someone from OASIS about their stupidity on Plug-fests...so which of you is it? autorun.inf: [autorun] open=myloader.exe icon= myicon.ico The disadvantage is that it can only open *.exe and no batch or html files directly. -Rob But a few quick observations: 1) Is the audience for this end-users? Conference organizers? As it is now it is not clear where to start. I insert CD and just get the directory listing. This is on Windows 7. Maybe other OS's know to automatically load index.html from a CD? Or is there something else that would trigger this? 2) On index.html, you have under quick install, links with the text, I know how. Maybe just me, but I was looking for a parallel one saying I don't know how 3) Contact.html. Typos on 2nd header Questions regardig the Apache OpenOfice project 4) You are including all the language installs, but only art work in English. It it in your longer term plans to get translations added? -Rob What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done) - License (not done) - java (copy of website page - done) - sys_reqs_aoo34 (copy of webstie page) - ooo.css and style.css from webstie, 1 changes in each file Print ready artwork for packaging - Thin / Tall DVD case cover - Cut/Fold CD envelope template - Pre-fab sleeve cover - disk label cd-aoo-34-src.iso All the files in the cd-aoo-34-bin.iso and the source files tar ball, along with changes to a couple of html files. --- So - there are things I see to do on each piece here still. I do not expect to add any other artifacts at this point. For today I want to finish up an the install help page(s). Right now though any general feedback on _any_ of it is welcomed. Thanks //drew
[OT] Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:11 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 09:47 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/25/12 9:20 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) I just downloaded and burned the BIN image. Overall this is totally awesome, a truly righteous and outstanding accomplishment. Sorry, just to be clear. I was praising Drew's work producing the image, not my CD burning. you can really burn CD's, wow ;-) Juergen PS: I haven't checked the ISO image but does it have an autorun.inf file? No it doesn't have an autorun file. By the way - are both of you on the OASIS ODF..hmmm, team, project, not sure what to call that - I really want to yell at someone from OASIS about their stupidity on Plug-fests...so which of you is it? We have several OASIS members in the AOO project: me, Oliver, Don, Louis, Dennis, and anyone else I missed ;-). But the Plugfests are not done by OASIS. They are organized by another group that works informally, albeit with a membership that overlaps. What's the issue? What is this I hear that TDF is being denied the use of the name, ODF Plugfest. The plan was to host such an event at our annual conference but apparently folks (hell IBM) is blocking it...so what's up with that - what happened to openness as in Open standard, non encumbered by and all that BS? -Rob autorun.inf: [autorun] open=myloader.exe icon= myicon.ico The disadvantage is that it can only open *.exe and no batch or html files directly. -Rob But a few quick observations: 1) Is the audience for this end-users? Conference organizers? As it is now it is not clear where to start. I insert CD and just get the directory listing. This is on Windows 7. Maybe other OS's know to automatically load index.html from a CD? Or is there something else that would trigger this? 2) On index.html, you have under quick install, links with the text, I know how. Maybe just me, but I was looking for a parallel one saying I don't know how 3) Contact.html. Typos on 2nd header Questions regardig the Apache OpenOfice project 4) You are including all the language installs, but only art work in English. It it in your longer term plans to get translations added? -Rob What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done) - License (not done) - java (copy of website page - done) - sys_reqs_aoo34 (copy of webstie page) - ooo.css and style.css from webstie, 1 changes in each file Print ready artwork for packaging - Thin / Tall DVD case cover - Cut/Fold CD envelope template - Pre-fab sleeve cover - disk label cd-aoo-34-src.iso All the files in the cd-aoo-34-bin.iso and the source files tar ball, along with changes to a couple of html files. --- So - there are things I see to do on each piece here still. I do not expect to add any other artifacts at this point. For today I want to finish up an the install help page(s). Right now though any general feedback on _any_ of it is welcomed. Thanks //drew
Re: [OT] Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:34 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:11 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 09:47 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/25/12 9:20 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) I just downloaded and burned the BIN image. Overall this is totally awesome, a truly righteous and outstanding accomplishment. Sorry, just to be clear. I was praising Drew's work producing the image, not my CD burning. you can really burn CD's, wow ;-) Juergen PS: I haven't checked the ISO image but does it have an autorun.inf file? No it doesn't have an autorun file. By the way - are both of you on the OASIS ODF..hmmm, team, project, not sure what to call that - I really want to yell at someone from OASIS about their stupidity on Plug-fests...so which of you is it? We have several OASIS members in the AOO project: me, Oliver, Don, Louis, Dennis, and anyone else I missed ;-). But the Plugfests are not done by OASIS. They are organized by another group that works informally, albeit with a membership that overlaps. What's the issue? What is this I hear that TDF is being denied the use of the name, ODF Plugfest. The plan was to host such an event at our annual conference but apparently folks (hell IBM) is blocking it...so what's up with that - what happened to openness as in Open standard, non encumbered by and all that BS? You'll need to ask someone in LO, probably Charles Schutz. He is the one making accusations My attempts to fathom what he is talking about have failed. In terms of facts: 1) There is a Program Committee for organizing Plugfests. They do their work on this mailing list: https://open.nlnet.nl/mailman/listinfo/plugtest-organisers 2) No one from LibreOffice has requested to use the term ODF Plugfest on this mailing list. 3) No one from LibreOffice has sent a proposal to hold a Plugfest to this list. 4) No one (to my knowledge) from IBM has opposed or even given an opinion on TDF hosting a Plugfest. You can review the complete thread here and correlate it to Charle's assertions on the LO marketing list: https://open.nlnet.nl/pipermail/plugtest-organisers/2012-June/thread.html -Rob Thank you - I will indeed ask Charles why he said what he did then. now back to the regularly scheduled show for this channel :) -Rob autorun.inf: [autorun] open=myloader.exe icon= myicon.ico The disadvantage is that it can only open *.exe and no batch or html files directly. -Rob But a few quick observations: 1) Is the audience for this end-users? Conference organizers? As it is now it is not clear where to start. I insert CD and just get the directory listing. This is on Windows 7. Maybe other OS's know to automatically load index.html from a CD? Or is there something else that would trigger this? 2) On index.html, you have under quick install, links with the text, I know how. Maybe just me, but I was looking for a parallel one saying I don't know how 3) Contact.html. Typos on 2nd header Questions regardig the Apache OpenOfice project 4) You are including all the language installs, but only art work in English. It it in your longer term plans to get translations added? -Rob What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done
Re: [OT] Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 16:33 +0200, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:11 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 09:47 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/25/12 9:20 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) I just downloaded and burned the BIN image. Overall this is totally awesome, a truly righteous and outstanding accomplishment. Sorry, just to be clear. I was praising Drew's work producing the image, not my CD burning. you can really burn CD's, wow ;-) Juergen PS: I haven't checked the ISO image but does it have an autorun.inf file? No it doesn't have an autorun file. By the way - are both of you on the OASIS ODF..hmmm, team, project, not sure what to call that - I really want to yell at someone from OASIS about their stupidity on Plug-fests...so which of you is it? We have several OASIS members in the AOO project: me, Oliver, Don, Louis, Dennis, and anyone else I missed ;-). But the Plugfests are not done by OASIS. They are organized by another group that works informally, albeit with a membership that overlaps. What's the issue? What is this I hear that TDF is being denied the use of the name, ODF Plugfest. The plan was to host such an event at our annual conference but apparently folks (hell IBM) is blocking it...so what's up with that - what happened to openness as in Open standard, non encumbered by and all that BS? We have a conf call planned for this Thursday, I don't think we have any blocker. The only issue I've been reading about is all about the fact that part of the discussion about the organization has not been held on the usual channels. As a result some of us were not aware of the fact the next ODF-Plugfest was going to be held concurrently with LO event, so when the news come out it was a kind of surprise. So said, we're on track to start working on making it happen. Roberto Thanks for the reply Roberto - and sorry to digress on this list actually. //drew
Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done) - License (not done) - java (copy of website page - done) - sys_reqs_aoo34 (copy of webstie page) - ooo.css and style.css from webstie, 1 changes in each file Print ready artwork for packaging - Thin / Tall DVD case cover - Cut/Fold CD envelope template - Pre-fab sleeve cover - disk label cd-aoo-34-src.iso All the files in the cd-aoo-34-bin.iso and the source files tar ball, along with changes to a couple of html files. --- So - there are things I see to do on each piece here still. I do not expect to add any other artifacts at this point. For today I want to finish up an the install help page(s). Right now though any general feedback on _any_ of it is welcomed. Thanks //drew
Re: Help please - working on an AOO34 CD
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 08:44 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jun 25, 2012, at 8:34 AM, drew jensen wrote: Howdy, Have been working on an AOO 3.4 CD image - suitable for boosters to use as swag, part of individual supports toolbox, etc. The work is down to the final stages now and I could use some help in the way of input with some of the details. THIS IS NOT FINISHED - but in wanted folks to see exactly what I have this morning so made use of the sf.net resources to do so. Two files added here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lorepo/files/AOO34/ cd-aoo34-bin.iso and cd-aoo-34-src.iso (again these are NOT intended for distribution yet..) What's in them currently? cd-aoo34-bin.iso AOO 3.4 Binaries - Windows English(us) full install package - All Windows language packs released with 3.4 - Windows SDK Documents, all as PDF - Installation Guide - Getting Started Guide - Administration Guide - Basic Programmers Guide - Developers Guide HTML files - Index [home] (started as webstie page - done) - Files (started from website page - done) - Instructions (not close to done) - Conatct [support] (could be done maybe) - Release Notes [notes] (copy of webstie page, added one graphic - done) - License (not done) - java (copy of website page - done) - sys_reqs_aoo34 (copy of webstie page) - ooo.css and style.css from webstie, 1 changes in each file Print ready artwork for packaging - Thin / Tall DVD case cover - Cut/Fold CD envelope template - Pre-fab sleeve cover - disk label cd-aoo-34-src.iso All the files in the cd-aoo-34-bin.iso and the source files tar ball, along with changes to a couple of html files. --- So - there are things I see to do on each piece here still. I do not expect to add any other artifacts at this point. For today I want to finish up an the install help page(s). Right now though any general feedback on _any_ of it is welcomed. EIther the naming should indicate that this is a Windows iso, or - Howdy Dave, yes, your right - will fix that. IMO you ought to include MacOSX and Linux installers! I've been, in truth, hemming and hawing about actually doing this as it means a lengthy commitment once it's 'out in the wild' - so keeping the scope of the work product limited. Juergen, Ma and the gang will have the image obsolete in here in just a few weeks with 3.4.1 - for example. For the moment I would like to finish the windows only CD first. I have a MAC version in mind, and files mostly laid out, next. After all the details come together on this one it should be just a quick step to merge that to the MAC. Linux is interesting in that one could, and some do, construct it so that the media is also a proper, mountable, package repository. Anyway - it's a place to start from is all. Thanks //drew Regards, Dave Thanks //drew
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not always using the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't include it. It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large font, for every blog post: Apache OpenOffice (incubating) E.g, : https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache Note the title of the page says Apache OpenOffice (incubating). Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page. Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that blog aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the home page are not picking up on this. Hi, Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that _any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word incubating included, not just in the title. //drew snip
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not always using the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't include it. It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large font, for every blog post: Apache OpenOffice (incubating) E.g, : https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache Note the title of the page says Apache OpenOffice (incubating). Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page. Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that blog aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the home page are not picking up on this. Hi, Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that _any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word incubating included, not just in the title. But that's not the policy. The policy is that it must be called out as incubating at first mention in the document. That's what I thought also - I'm saying how it reads to me, that's all. -Rob //drew snip
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 21:51 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: The way to deal with these things is acknowledge the need to use the qualifier. Where there is a reasonable argument (blog titles on the ASF home page for example) undertake to improve things and move on. These things come up occasionally when an interested IPMC member does a review and sees things the rest of us missed. I brought it here in the hope of preventing an IPMC mega-thread. Acknowledge it there, deal with it here. If it helps, I'm not worried about the logo thing, but that might be just me. Hi Ross, others, I'm not worried about the logo thing either per se, then again tradition is worth something isn't it. Anyway - here is one quick proposal for a logo change: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/get-aoo-300x100-icv.png Let me know what folks, //drew On Saturday, 23 June 2012, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamiltondennis.hamil...@acm.org @ dennis.hamil...@acm.orgacm.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I think it would be good and wait until the original reporter identifies what the specific infraction is and what its cure is. One part of the complaint is how AOOi is mentioned in tweets by @TheASF. Those are not, as far as I am aware, anything under our control whatsoever. I would not dispense with full atom feeds. Having (incubating) used at the beginning of a post, even with a link to what that entails, could be useful. Whether it needs to be in the title or not remains to be seen. Of course, whatever the practice is asserted to be, it will need to be honored by all incubating projects, of course. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir robw...@apache.org@ robw...@apache.org apache.org robw...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:40 To: ooo-dev@ ooo-dev@incubator.apache.orgincubator.apache.orgooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Must use the incubating qualifier On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM, drew jensen drewjensen.inboxdrewjensen.in...@gmail.com @ drewjensen.in...@gmail.comgmail.com drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, drew drew@ d...@baseanswers.com baseanswers.com d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir robweirrobw...@apache.org @ robw...@apache.orgapache.org robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler rgardler rgard...@opendirective.com@rgard...@opendirective.com opendirective.com rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is not always using the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts don't include it. It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large font, for every blog post: Apache OpenOffice (incubating) E.g, : https://https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache blogs.apache.orghttps://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache /OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apachehttps://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache Note the title of the page says Apache OpenOffice (incubating). Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page. Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that blog aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the home page are not picking up on this. Hi, Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that _any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word incubating included, not just in the title. But that's not the policy. The policy is that it must be called out as incubating at first mention in the document. That's what I thought also - I'm saying how it reads to me, that's all. Maybe the key is to realize that when we publish a blog post, we publish two things: 1) A web page, which does IMHO have the correct incubation notices on it. 2) An Atom feed that will be used by websites and services outside of our immediate control, and which will not bring along the full page context from the blog. On the second one, I think the remedy might be get the incubation notice into the post (entry) titles. It may be possible to do this automatically (per my previous post), but it could be done manually as well. -Rob -Rob //drew snip
Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 18:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:57 PM, RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/6/23 David McKay dmc...@btconnect.com: On 23/06/12 22:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: OK, personal impression only: I find the rainbow coloring through the text of Get it Here to be distracting and not helpful. I know some subset of us know what the colors represent, but I see no need to be cute about it. (Yes, this will be on the final exam.) I'm not too sure about the wording 'Get it here'. To me that isn't as simple and clear as something like 'Click to Download'. Might just be the way my brain is wired up, but it says to me 'you can get it here on this web page somewhere', whereas something that specifically says 'This is the link/image/gizmo you need to click on to kick off the download' is evidently the bit you need to click on. Dave. It seems our brains are wired on similar ways because I agree with you: Click to download or Click here to download is far better, IMO. Ah, but the link doesn't actually download anything. It takes you to the OpenOffice download page, where you would need another click or two to download. The only way we could trigger a direct download from a 3rd party website would be if they included the Javascript on their site needed to determine platform and language and resolve the download file name. And that might not work cross-site. So it really is get it here or at best click here to learn more or something like that. Maybe beveled edges or something would make it look more button-like so it was clearer that the user is supposed to click it? Maybe - here it is with text a little smaller and a bevel: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/get-aoo-300x100-btn.png //drew Ricardo
Final look at art work ( Re: First Year Anniversary - party CD)
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 13:36 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: On 06/13/2012 03:26 AM, drew wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:11 +0100, sebb wrote: On 13 June 2012 01:33, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 00:28 +0100, sebb wrote: On 12 June 2012 22:34, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:48 -0400, drew wrote: I would like to propose that we treat the 13th of the month as our 1st Anniversary and would like to do the following for the occasion: snip I would like to release two CD iso images, Windows and Mac on the 13th of this month. Howdy, Alright - well, cutting it right down to the end on time here. I just want to be sure, as I'm not sure this is right branding wise - if you anyone sees a problem with this let me know, I don't mind re-working things. I also won't be offended if anyone says hold up.. Here is the final cut on five items: A disk label: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png Envelope/Sleeve cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-sleeve-win.png Cut/Fold Envelope: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png CD/DVD tall case cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-dvd-case-win.png A4 poster: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.png Drew-- Any chance these could be made a bit more generic and uploaded to the marketing/art area? http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/cdart/previous_cdart.html and...where can folks get the downloads? I don't see them on http://lo-portal.us (???) Howdy all, OK - well I know it seems I've been lolly-gagging here, well maybe a little, but I've also managed to get a few things further along. First - @Kay, about more generic artwork - sure I could and would do that, though given some of the recent email threads I'm not really sure that is what folks would want, but I'm open to it. Second - license. It made sense to me to license the actual iso image and the associated label/packaging artwork as CC-by-nd, which would allow the disk to be manufactured and distributed without but _only_ it it is in no way altered. The links above (except the poster) have been updated to reflect that change. Third - the actual html files for the disk. I started with a few of the pages from the website, and then after following along the thread here about just that got a little concerned - so I've made good number of changes to the look of the pages, so that it does not mimic too closely the actual web pages (all of which are under ALv2). That is for all intent an purpose done now. Fourth - I've requested permission to include the Getting Started with Apache OpenOffice version 3.4 Guide from ODF authors. The guide is still in a draft state in their CMS system, but appears to me in a reasonable shape to ship. You can see find that file at: http://www.odfauthors.org/apache-openoffice/english/user-guides/getting-started-3.4/drafts/gs3.4-full-book/view I send email to the group there just to be sure that there is not some glaring whole that I've missed in the document during my cursory review. IF ANYONE ELSE would like to help review that, it would certainly be a help, the more eyes the better. Also, I'll be working on cover art (front and back) for that document tonight and as soon as that is finished will include that in the trademark request - and of course offering the work back to ODF Authors for inclusion, if they want it. Finally - @Kay again - as for where folks will be able to download the image from, not fully decided yet - I could handle distributing ~200 copies of that a month given the band width on the server I rent, but I'm more worried that there be a permanent address for folks to report any deficiencies and the like so really thinking of using sourceforge, it's not much to put a project together there. Either way I have to do it tonight before I button up the files as they will need to include that link. So - that's it for the moment - I really am going to try an have this all wrapped up and ready for a full review, before I turn in tonight. Speaking of which I was thinking maybe the best way to let people review the HTML files would be to simply push it up the same location as that label art and folks to browse it that way - along with a copy of the iso for anyone that wants to give that a go instead. //drew
Re: [Proposal] Guidelines for list conduct policy
: Apache Tips for Email Contributors – http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips.html Apache OpenOffice Mailing Lists – http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html == -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org Apache Open Office Developer wolfhal...@apache.org I've made slight re-wordings through-out, and added in a new section 7, and made the old section 7 section 8. List Conduct Policy 1. What Happens on the list, stays on the list: Anything you read in the private list is by default a private PPMC affair and not to be spoken of, or copied to, other people who are not in the PPMC. If you think about it, most topic threads probably should be in the public lists, except choosing committers and PPMC members, and a very few other topics. In fact, all email lists or email conversations have this aspect of privacy. Even if there are 23000 subscribers on the list, it is assumed that privacy will be maintained and a list member's name and location will not be disclosed in some public venue where personal privacy is not expected, such as published in a newspaper or some other. hi, I would disagree with that last statement completely - a public list is just that, public, and there should be absolutely no expectation of privacy whatsoever. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to those who would use the list. //drew 2. Be Nice: Not only are there lots of people on this list whose first language is not English, there are busy readers, who by neccesity have to read things quickly. If other list members are telling you they do not understand what you wrote, or take your innocent phrasing in a poor light, take it as a signal that your writing style is too idiomatic or too technical (unlikely but possible) for others to follow easily. This does not necessarily mean you are mean + , wrong or bad, so just be nice and rewrite the passage using different words. Assume people are not in attack mode. We are all on the same team here. 3. Don't Respond When You are Angry: Assuming people are not in attack mode means, if you think they are, just now, then probably you are just misunderstanding their point. Ad hominem attacks, e.g., You are too dumb to get this, are a sign that you yourself may not have a good-enough handle on the issue to explain your point clearly. 4. Relax: Always remember, that unless there is a *darn* good reason, nothing gets decided at the ASF in less than 72 elapsed hours, so your reply can wait until morning. You might even get lucky, and when you check back somebody else will have posted either what you wanted to say, or something close enough that you can accept that their post covered what you wanted to say. Remember that the members of a community mailing list will get to the list when they can. Most of us do this in our spare time, and in different time zones. Perhaps the rule of thumb could be to respond no more than once per hour, or once per day, to any given thread. The highest frequency of responses does not necessarily “Win” in a community of equals. The most concise and useful post tends to win, because furthering the dialog and advancing the community's goals is what we desire. 5. Get to the Point: Write as tersely as possible, and edit down as much possible, so other people who are just as busy as you may quickly get your point without ending up defensive, but balance is needed. Do not let brevity get in the way of providing enough information. Remember that people must understand your post in order to understand your point. 6. Consider trimming the post to which you are responding: People who read emails on small screens are not the only ones who are frustrated by picking important new information out of tons of stuff they have already read. To trim a post, one simply remove any parts of the post to which one is replying that are not important to understand one's reply. If the response to one of these posts is, “What? I do not understand,” then it may be that too much of the context may have been removed. 7. Respect one another: Discussion is the cornerstone of a project like this and the sharing of viewpoints is crucial, as is understanding and accepting that many views will differ from your own. By all means debate rigorously and defend your view point stoutly, but avoid abrasive dialogue and personal attacks. Give leeway to people who do not have English as a first language
Re: [Proposal] Guidelines for list conduct policy
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 00:14 +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2012/6/20 drew jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com: List Conduct Policy 1. What Happens on the list, stays on the list: Anything you read in the private list is by default a private PPMC affair and not to be spoken of, or copied to, other people who are not in the PPMC. If you think about it, most topic threads probably should be in the public lists, except choosing committers and PPMC members, and a very few other topics. In fact, all email lists or email conversations have this aspect of privacy. Even if there are 23000 subscribers on the list, it is assumed that privacy will be maintained and a list member's name and location will not be disclosed in some public venue where personal privacy is not expected, such as published in a newspaper or some other. hi, I would disagree with that last statement completely - a public list is just that, public, and there should be absolutely no expectation of privacy whatsoever. To pretend otherwise is simply to lie to those who would use the list. //drew Point one refers to the private lists, I think. Maybe add a point zero with an introduction to the mailing lists, as Ross asked? Not a detailed introduction, just to say most lists are public but one is private. Then the code of conduct can be separated on a general part that apply to all lists and a second part with additional rules (for instance, the privacy one) for the private list. Ricardo OK if that is really just about private lists, but the last sentence read to me as if it was broader. Anyway - to be honest I find the whole subject rather silly. Does anyone really need to be told that what happens on a private list is by definition to be held in confidence? //drew
Re: [DISCUSS] Fwd: permission to use the Open Office Org logo
Actually I would prefer we discuss this type of thing in the open and stop using the private ml - I don't care one bit if it is about a profit venture, in fact even more reason to do it in the public lists - the public good right!!! //drew On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 15:23 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: PLEASE ignore this email -- posted to the wrong place. THANKS. On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Hi-- This is a request we got last week to basically use an altered version of a CD cover as a book cover. I asked Steve (catfish) some questions about this, among them what version of OpenOffice was the book for etc. You can see his responses in the original thread. The only thing that pops out at me is the lack of the TM symbol near the bottom of OpenOffice.org in his version, but the CD doesn't include this either. Something else for us to deal with at some point. My opinion is that with the inclusion of the TM, we should give him the OK on this. Thoughts? -- Forwarded message -- From: Catfish Publishing catfishpublish...@hotmail.com Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:15 PM Subject: RE: permission to use the Open Office Org logo To: a...@shanecurcuru.org Cc: tradema...@apache.org, ooo-priv...@incubator.apache.org Thank you, Shane. PPMC, do you need more detail than the attached mock-up? I'd like to use this as the cover design to provide an affordable print version of Getting Started with OpenOffice.org 3 worldwide on Amazon. Best, Steve Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:08:20 -0400 From: a...@shanecurcuru.org To: catfishpublish...@hotmail.com CC: tradema...@apache.org; ooo-priv...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: permission to use the Open Office Org logo Steve - please see our FAQ to see if that provides answers for you: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/ Apache OpenOffice PPMC: FYI if you have questions or better documentation about how you prefer the CD case graphics to be used by third parties. - Shane On 2012-06-10 10:56 PM, Catfish Publishing wrote: Hello, I wanted to check in and confirm that this request is under consideration. Thanks, Steve -- From: catfishpublish...@hotmail.com To: tradema...@apache.org Subject: RE: permission to use the Open Office Org logo Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:19:56 -0700 Hi again, I see you have a very well designed CD case. May I use that as the book cover? I've attached a mock-up. Thanks again, Steve -- From: catfishpublish...@hotmail.com To: tradema...@apache.org Subject: permission to use the Open Office Org logo Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:48:38 -0700 Hello, I would like to offer an inexpensive paperback version of 'Getting Started with Open Office.org3' on Amazon. Am I allowed to use the Open Office Logo on the cover? I will, of course, adhere to the Creative Commons Attributions policies on the title page as well as mentioning that the Open Office logo is a trademark of The Apache Corporation. Thank you very much, Steve Sullivan -- MzK Known commonly as the jackass, this long-eared little creature is respected throughout the southwest—roundly cursed yet respected—and here he is usually referred to by his Spanish name, burro. Because of his extraordinary bray, he is sometimes ironically called the Arizona Nightingale. -- Arizona, the Grand Canyon State: A State Guide, By Federal Writers' Project -- MzK Known commonly as the jackass, this long-eared little creature is respected throughout the southwest—roundly cursed yet respected—and here he is usually referred to by his Spanish name, burro. Because of his extraordinary bray, he is sometimes ironically called the Arizona Nightingale. -- Arizona, the Grand Canyon State: A State Guide, By Federal Writers' Project
Re: [Mailing lists] User mailing list promotion
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:13 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: May I suggest that the Users mailing list be made the first list on the mailing list page [1] ? Developers are likely to be more used to how to find the appropriate mailing list, the casual user is less likely to read the full page in order to find the correct list. Also, the users list is not mentioned on the status page [2]. Users are unlikely to stumble on the mailing list page, or check the status page. So this is probably not the main source of misdirected posts. More likely is the Contact Us page (which does not even mention the users list) : http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/contact.html Or the openoffice.org version, which explicitly suggests contacting the developers list: http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html -Rob With no further ado then, I'll update those right now. //drew [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html#users-mailing-list [2] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
Re: [Mailing lists] User mailing list promotion
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:17 -0400, drew wrote: On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:13 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: May I suggest that the Users mailing list be made the first list on the mailing list page [1] ? Developers are likely to be more used to how to find the appropriate mailing list, the casual user is less likely to read the full page in order to find the correct list. Also, the users list is not mentioned on the status page [2]. Users are unlikely to stumble on the mailing list page, or check the status page. So this is probably not the main source of misdirected posts. More likely is the Contact Us page (which does not even mention the users list) : http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/contact.html Or the openoffice.org version, which explicitly suggests contacting the developers list: http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html -Rob With no further ado then, I'll update those right now. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/contact.html Done (waiting for it to stage before I publish it) http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html This one however already links to the support page, not sure it should be changed? So did not. //drew //drew [1] http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html#users-mailing-list [2] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
Re: Distribution of Open Office-
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:51 -0400, Steve Allison wrote: There are pockets of rural dialup still with little or no option for broadband service that would definitely appreciate the availability of your software on CD or DVD. I'll keep an eye on your website to see if you at some point find a sensible way to distribute OpenOffice. I did see several sites offering it (most with some strings) and I agree that ensuring that the latest version is available is a sticking point. Thanks, Steve Allison Grantsville, WV Hi Steve, Actually, work is under way on a CD image at this very moment - Windows only, no frills. A few days behind with it, but should be available this next week. The CD will not be an official Apache release, but will contain only official binaries released by Apache OpenOffice. No strings attached, other then a standard license. It will be available as an iso image, so someone would have to download the image but this will have everything needed then to burn and package the CD. Best wishes, //drew Cumberland, MD
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
modification is based (3) If the object is licensed PDL (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as you desire but must make you modification publicly available. --- end of items --- We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various forms lately. We still have the Distribution FAQ on cwiki barely started, but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly aligned before I can complete that. I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in any unrestricted way. The safer way is to develop new logos (like the Get it here!) logo, that are thematically related, but distinct from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for use in certain situations. Going back to what a trademark is: it gives legal protection for symbols that indicate the source of goods and services. If we allow the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us) produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the trademark. Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an ISO image and the artwork. We could then state that anyone is welcome to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the ISO image we created. This protects the user as well. It also makes it easier for the distributor. If they want to include other files, templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would not include our logos. Hi Rob, Kay, et al I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the groups us however, whenever :) So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace _but_ I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also.. http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png (bottom of back cover :) so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole. I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way. What do you think? //drew - - MzK There's no crying in baseball! -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), A League of Their Own
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
they contain a logo (trademarked) that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission because of the logo inclusion? This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me. Howdy Kay, Rob Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps. Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed. Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything, I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of the trademarks with the project directly. Least that is how I see it. Thanks for your feedback, //drew
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: snip I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also.. http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png (bottom of back cover :) so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole. I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way. What do you think? The problem is this. You are not asking permission (as far as I can tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of what Hirano-san did a while back.You are asking permission to use the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution. So even if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would not be transferred to the 3rd parties. Expressed another way: Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights: 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical elements that you have reused. 2) Your rights to your original creation. 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks. #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is. #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1. You determine the license you want. #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo. We've done that before. But that is purely from your perspective. What about the perspective of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD? #1 and #2 are OK. Open source licenses transfer rights. That is a core principle. But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download your artwork. And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with the Get it here! logo. Hopefully this makes sense. -Rob Well given this response...more questions Rob, are you saying, that since some of the artwork on the site that contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission because of the logo inclusion? This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me. Howdy Kay, Rob Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps. Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed. OK. I didn't notice the significance of the ND. That might work. But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc. Right - and why I said earlier using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole. Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the morning. Thanks, //drew Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything, I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of the trademarks with the project directly. Least that is how I see it. Thanks for your feedback, //drew
Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:19 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote: --- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de ha scritto: ... And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an enhanced A. You won't probably remove features from A but take only some of B. So the decision between Method I and II is also the decision to work for an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an enhanced Symphony. I might have missed something but the idea behind both options is to arrive to the same product, that means reusing as much available code as possible. Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I. It would be interesting to could put the options in some time metric. My guess (and it's only a guess, not an estimate) ... Option I : 2 years. Option II: 8 months. Personally, I think I will work on both options at the same time: *chuckling*... good choice. I do want to have an early Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :). Oh no, a wild variant (mutant) version is born.. ;-) why not, you have the skill and the clay in your hands. //drew Pedro.
Re: Final look at art work ( Re: First Year Anniversary - party CD)
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:11 +0100, sebb wrote: On 13 June 2012 01:33, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 00:28 +0100, sebb wrote: On 12 June 2012 22:34, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:48 -0400, drew wrote: I would like to propose that we treat the 13th of the month as our 1st Anniversary and would like to do the following for the occasion: snip I would like to release two CD iso images, Windows and Mac on the 13th of this month. Howdy, Alright - well, cutting it right down to the end on time here. I just want to be sure, as I'm not sure this is right branding wise - if you anyone sees a problem with this let me know, I don't mind re-working things. I also won't be offended if anyone says hold up.. Here is the final cut on five items: A disk label: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png Envelope/Sleeve cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-sleeve-win.png Cut/Fold Envelope: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png CD/DVD tall case cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-dvd-case-win.png A4 poster: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.png I have a few hours ahead of me before I button this iso image up, if you see some glaring problem I missed do please yell. The only possible problem I see is the text MS Windows XP, Vista, Win 7 (c) 2012 Microsoft Corporation Should MS be spelt in full? Microsoft and Windows are both registered trademarks. Just space requirements.. All the software packages I have seen which target Windows either omit Microsoft or spell it out in full. AFAIK MS is not an official abbreviation for Microsoft; they may not be too happy. Also, when I first saw this, I briefly thought that the (c) statement applied to the content. In fact I'm not sure what the (c) does apply to. I suspect it should be removed. Hi Sebb, It should be a registered trademark glyph, there was a mistake earlier today and you may just need do a cache refresh. I can see the (R) now, however it is not appropriately used. AFAIK, the terms that are registered are Microsoft Windows Vista So the block should be: Microsoft (R) Windows (R) XP, Vista (R), Win 7 (or is it called Windows 7?) It might be OK to omit the (R) after Vista. The following line is misleading and should be removed: (R) 2012 Microsoft Corporation Have a look at some other recent products that are designed for/support Windows and see what they do. Actually I had seen it used on a package, though not with the abbreviation and it doesn't make it right per se, anyway..I suppose So - acted on Alexandro's comments and yours, and as usual, listening does end up with a better result...updated the file here http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png //drew
One anniversary blog
Hi, I wanted to say that it's good to see the activity here, it really is. Posted up a simple comment about how I felt here: http://baseanswers.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/one/ My best wishes to all involved here, you all have quite a bit to hang your hats on from this first year's efforts. //drew ok - now for a blog post #2...
Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 14:38 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Predictably, I prefer approach I on first principles: Never derail the train that's running. From that perspective, there's all of this: - All of the developers and many testers and others know how to build AOO 3.4.0 including people who are working from the source tarball and the folks working on LibreOffice and other co-dependents as well The Symphony build platform is not very different from AOO. But since it was supported only on Windows/Mac/Linux, additional work would be needed for the *BSD, Solaris and OS/2. But this is also required for option I, since the code merged in from Symphony would also be untested on other ports. So I think it is the same or similar work, differing mainly in the pace of change. - the current community includes those who build special distros (of OOo and LO), provide QA that serves all of us, etc. Not sure what you are referring to. Are you referring to things like PortableApps? Sure, and EuroOffice, NeoOffice, NeoShineOffice and I suppose a few others - a few companies field vertical market style applications based on the code line, medical records comes to mind but I can't recall the actual company name . At least that is what came to my mind when reading along. //drew snip
Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 21:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how we can make best use of this contribution. Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on the wiki [2], install one of the binaries [3] , or maybe even download the source [4] and try to build it [5]. As will see by your examination, the Symphony code base has co-evolved with OpenOffice.org for several years now, and continued to co-evolve with Apache OpenOffice even recently. Symphony has many features and bug fixes that AOO lacks. And there are areas where Symphony is missing enhancements or bug fixes that are in OpenOffice. Our challenge is to find the best way to bring these two code bases together, to make the best product. I think there are two main approaches to this problem: I. Merge code, from Symphony, feature by feature, into AOO, in a prioritized order. This is the slow approach, since it would take (by the estimates I've seen) a couple of years to bring all of the Symphony enhancements and bug fixes over to AOO. Hi Rob, others May I break out one piece of that work and ask about that. Is there a reasonably trusted estimate on the effort to move the Windows accessibility enhancements from the Symphony code line to the current 3.4 line? Thanks much for your time, //drew snip
Final look at art work ( Re: First Year Anniversary - party CD)
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:48 -0400, drew wrote: I would like to propose that we treat the 13th of the month as our 1st Anniversary and would like to do the following for the occasion: snip I would like to release two CD iso images, Windows and Mac on the 13th of this month. Howdy, Alright - well, cutting it right down to the end on time here. I just want to be sure, as I'm not sure this is right branding wise - if you anyone sees a problem with this let me know, I don't mind re-working things. I also won't be offended if anyone says hold up.. Here is the final cut on five items: A disk label: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png Envelope/Sleeve cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-sleeve-win.png Cut/Fold Envelope: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png CD/DVD tall case cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-dvd-case-win.png A4 poster: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.png I have a few hours ahead of me before I button this iso image up, if you see some glaring problem I missed do please yell. Otherwise - if you also think these would be a good resource for general reference (png and svg) will put them to the wiki or where ever folks think best Thanks, //drew
Re: Final look at art work ( Re: First Year Anniversary - party CD)
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 23:47 +0200, RGB ES wrote: 2012/6/12 drew d...@baseanswers.com: On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:48 -0400, drew wrote: I would like to propose that we treat the 13th of the month as our 1st Anniversary and would like to do the following for the occasion: snip I would like to release two CD iso images, Windows and Mac on the 13th of this month. Howdy, Alright - well, cutting it right down to the end on time here. I just want to be sure, as I'm not sure this is right branding wise - if you anyone sees a problem with this let me know, I don't mind re-working things. I also won't be offended if anyone says hold up.. Here is the final cut on five items: A disk label: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png Envelope/Sleeve cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-sleeve-win.png Cut/Fold Envelope: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png CD/DVD tall case cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-dvd-case-win.png A4 poster: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.png I have a few hours ahead of me before I button this iso image up, if you see some glaring problem I missed do please yell. Otherwise - if you also think these would be a good resource for general reference (png and svg) will put them to the wiki or where ever folks think best Thanks, //drew The white shadow effect on parts of text from the A4 poster makes a bit difficult to read it. I'm referring to Word processor, Spreadsheet... part: there is some transparency on the front colours that makes the text a bit... strange. Beside that, I see no problem. Great work! Thanks - and I agree that poster is not quite there - kind of running out of time for today however.. I'll try to poke at it one last time if I can tonight. HOWEVER the svg file is there at: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.svg If anyone wants to grab that and make a few changes, tis good with me... //drew Regards Ricardo
Re: Final look at art work ( Re: First Year Anniversary - party CD)
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 17:13 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote: I get the feeling the fonts are 'spread' vertically on the CD. Is this done intentional? Hi Alexandro, not sure I understand the question - everything in the graphic is done intentionally, so I suppose the easy answer is- Yes ;) Also I think is just too much text into a CD cover. maybe a more simple and direct message would be more efficient. Here is a mockup: http://imagebin.org/216153 *smile*...looks like a Beatles Album, what was that called again ;-/ A bit too much change for me, for tonight at least. Also I wanted the option or should say tried to preserve the option, that someone use just the CD label artwork - no sleeve/cover at all - folks sometimes do that, so wanted a full compliment of information; at least that was what I was aiming for. //drew snip Here is the final cut on five items: A disk label: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-label-win.png Envelope/Sleeve cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-sleeve-win.png Cut/Fold Envelope: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png CD/DVD tall case cover: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/AOO34-dvd-case-win.png A4 poster: http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/freeyourself.png I have a few hours ahead of me before I button this iso image up, if you see some glaring problem I missed do please yell. snip
