RE: Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 09:21
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Bugs submitted.
> 
> Another question/request: since (for some unexplained reason) AOO
> refuses
> to allow FTP servers/listings/downloads, would it be possible for the
> download HTML page to show file sizes and dates? It makes it easier to
> find
> the right file and to make sure it is a new build.
[orcmid] 

If I understand you, "those pages" are served up via the ASF SVN server, so the 
project can't do anything about that directly.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:23:10AM +0100, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > After installing 4.1.3 RC1 under Windows I found some problems but
> > Bugzilla
> > > does not include Version 4.1.3
> > > Can someone please add it in?
> >
> > There are now:
> >
> > *  4.1.3-dev for AOO413 branch, what can be downloaded from
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/
> > *  4.2.0-dev for trunk, what can be downloaded from
> > https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ and has 4.2.0 on the
> > package name
> >
> > If you don't find 4.1.3-dev, please specify the component (there are
> > several, even obsolete components, so I may have missed some).
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Ariel Constenla-Haile
> > La Plata, Argentina
> >


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Rejoin Apache Open Office Community as an active member

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

For documentation work it is probably best to subscribe to 
d...@openoffice.apache.org.  Your presence on qa@ is also useful.

Also, to know more of the discussion, d...@openoffice.apache.org is a busy but 
central place.

You can also obtain guidance by subscribing to the new 
recruitm...@openoffice.apache.org public email list.

> -Original Message-
> From: Kalyani Chakraborty [mailto:ckalya...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 13:35
> To: users-subscr...@openoffice.apache.org; marketing-
> subscr...@openoffice.apache.org; announce-
> subscr...@openoffice.apache.org; dev-subscr...@openoffice.apache.org;
> doc-subscr...@openoffice.apache.org; qa@openoffice.apache.org; L10N-
> unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org; api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Rejoin Apache Open Office Community as an active member
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to re-join as a more active member towards contributing in
> the
> marketing and documentation part of the apache software. Please let me
> know
> where to start.
> Since I was already subscribed to most of the groups, I am getting lots
> of
> emails and am a bit confused as to where to start.
> Any pointer would be of great help.
> 
> Thanks
> Kalyani


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC to PMC, FYI to L10N and QA.]

The 4.2.1-patch1 release repository is now populated with the only 
localizations that we have: English (en-US) and German (de) for all platforms 
plus the additional Nederland (nl) for Windows.  The localizations took until 
yesterday, 2016-08-25, to be completed.

Propagation to the archive site has begun and will probably not be complete for 
another 24 hours.  Meanwhile, an updated CVE-2016-1513 will be prepared.  The 
update will be posted when the archive is stable, along with notification to 
dev@ and users@.  Those actions will provide the general availability of the 
Hotfix.

While minor blemishes may remain, this material will be kept stable as is 
unless a serious defect is brought to our attention.  Cosmetic matters are 
appropriate to save for whenever we need to do this again.

One lesson: Localizations should not hold up release in the future.  
Localizations not available during the initial dev QA and review period should 
not stop the train.  Supplemental localizations are always possible.  That will 
likely always be the case when a hotfix is made available along with an initial 
vulnerability disclosure and advisory.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 15:02
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> [BCC PMC, FYI QA]
> 
> At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO
> 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes has quieted.
> 
> I propose that the current binaries be placed into general availability.
> I am initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-
> 23T22:00Z.
> 
> MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE
> 
>  * The file hotfix.html at
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
>will be made available at
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
> 
>  * The directory folder
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/>
>will be made available as a subdirectory of
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>.
> 
> ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY
> 
>   * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory,
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>,
> will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and
> refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
> location.
> 
>   * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
> and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
> hotfix applies to.
> 
> WHAT TO REVIEW
> 
> You can find everything to be made available by starting with the
> hotfix.html page at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html>.
> 
> IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred, and
> those links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the
> archive location.
> 
> The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can learn
> more about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX,
> Linux32, and Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to
> verify.
> 
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 01:47
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
[ ... ]
> The design of the site
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html is very confusing.
> 
> By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first
> column, are in the 2 tables reversed.
> 
> Can we use a uniform table:
> 
> Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download |
> Signature | Digital Hashes
> MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> 
[orcmid] 

This will not work.  Only for Windows does each language have a separate .zip.

For MacOSX and the Linux packages, there are multiple README files but only one 
.zip per platform. (All versions of the README are in the single Zip.)

The difference is that each Windows Zip contains localized scripts in the same 
language as the README.
There are no localized scripts for the other platforms.

See how that looks now at 
.

> 
> 
> I wanted to make the changes itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do
> not know why.
[orcmid] 

I am not certain what you were attempting to do.  The dev area is not under the 
CMS.  It is not part of the web site.

In any case, please don't change hotfix.html.  It is already being updated for 
the localizations that are now available.

All of your suggestions are valuable.  Thank you for pointing this out.
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I am about to start staging the Hotfixes that we have for general distribution.

I do have some changes to the Windows version that I will make first.

 1. The APPLY/REVERT scripts have a minor inconsistency in the formatting of a 
message following a successful operation.  (This was caught already in the 
Dutch translation and drafts of the German one.)

 2. The README is corrected
a. To identify the location where the correct Zip should be downloaded 
(already done in the Dutch version).
b. To update the Acknowledgment (ditto).
c. Improve wording in the note about Anti-Virus options to request 
permission to accept the Zip download.

That is starting now.

 - Dennis

PS: Additional languages can be staged whenever they are checked and ready.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:08
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> [BCC PMC, FYI QA and L10N]
> 
> There have been no comments concerning the placement of the current
> materials into general distribution.
> 
> In addition, there is a set of Dutch (Nederland) language that also
> passes all tests and has been carefully proof-read.  These have been
> added to the directory folder.  (They are not reflected in the
> hotfix.html so far.)
> 
> A set of German (Deutsch) language scripts has been prepared and had to
> be changed from Unicode (UTF8) to ISO 8859-1 (Western European) in order
> to run properly on Windows XP.  The script window does not show extended
> characters used in German on an English Windows XP, but the scripts run
> correctly.  They should appear correctly in Windows XP installs set for
> Western European languages.  This part remains to be confirmed.  See
> <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127082>.
> 
> If the German version is not complete today, I propose going ahead with
> the general distribution of the English and Dutch ones and adding the
> German set later.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 15:02
> > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> > patch1 Hotfixes
> >
> > [BCC PMC, FYI QA]
> >
> > At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO
> > 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes has quieted.
> >
> > I propose that the current binaries be placed into general
> availability.
> > I am initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-
> > 23T22:00Z.
> >
> > MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE
> >
> >  * The file hotfix.html at
> ><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
> >will be made available at
> ><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
> >
> >  * The directory folder
> ><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > patch1/binaries/>
> >will be made available as a subdirectory of
> ><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>.
> >
> > ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY
> >
> >   * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory,
> > <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>,
> > will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and
> > refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
> > location.
> >
> >   * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
> > and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
> > hotfix applies to.
> >
> > WHAT TO REVIEW
> >
> > You can find everything to be made available by starting with the
> > hotfix.html page at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > patch1/hotfix.html>.
> >
> > IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred,
> and
> > those links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the
> > archive location.
> >
> > The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can
> learn
> > more about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX,
> > Linux32, and Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to
> > verify.
> >
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The problem of incomplete shutdown is very serious.  It can result in damaged 
and completely lost in-progress work, even though apparently saved, and other 
damage.  The whole problem of shutdown, Quickstarter, and failed auto-recovery 
is a big ball of snakes that is worthy of a maintenance release all on its own.

With regard to spell-checking, the usual symptom is that suddenly all words are 
redlined.  Having it stop checking probably goes unnoticed more often, as it 
did for Don.

With regard to spell-checking, there is a promise to provide a profile-fix tool 
for Windows, 
.  That is a bit buried 
(but look at the issue it is tied to). 

I will open a separate task for this now.

At some point, installation of such a tool should at least be part of the built 
distribution.

So there are three steps:

 1. Get the tool out there as something users can install and use.

 2. Incorporate the tool in our binary distributions.

 3. Fix the shut-down problems we have that are so overwhelming and so damaging 
to the work of our users.

Steps (1) will require QA work and L10N work in order to reach the greatest 
number of users.  English will only work for 45% of our users.  It should work 
better for end users than the instructions that are being provided repetitively 
each time someone stumbles on this and manages to report it.   

This is clearly a triage situation.  We need something now, we need something 
about best practices, such as having Quickstarter OFF by default at least on 
Windows, and also doing something about auto-recovery failures.  And we can't 
wait for laborious software fixes for which there is no foreseeable developer 
availability and then production of subsequent full-binary distributions.

Speaking of triage, the targeting of Windows reaches 87% of our users based on 
platform downloads.  Remedies there are assisted by the fact that cmd.exe (the 
console processor) and command-line utilities are available on all versions of 
Windows that AOO supports.  In addition, every install of AOO includes a 
functional version of Python in the OpenOffice 4 code.  Accomplishing the 
provision of side-car utilities for other platforms will depend on committers 
who are devoted to those platforms stepping forward.

 - Dennis

PS: The 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfix will roll to general distribution in the next 24-48 
hours.  We have English language covered and there is provision for more L10N 
localization.  However, the only one completed at this time is Nederland (nl, 
Dutch) for the Windows version.  A Deutsch (de, German) one is in the works.  
To get better coverage, the priority additional L10N-s should be French, 
Italian, and Spanish.  That gets us to 75% of the users by downloaded 
languages.  To get to 90% add Japanese, Russian, Polish, (Dutch), and 
Portuguese.  Chinese would be a great bonus and, of course, we would appreciate 
any other localizations that AOO enthusiasts and committers provide. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Don Lewis [mailto:truck...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 00:38
> To: ofarr...@iol.ie
> Cc: d...@openoffice.apache.org; qa@openoffice.apache.org;
> l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics
> 
> On 24 Aug, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
> > Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> >> Someone should fix the broken spellcheck problem.  It generates a lot
> of
> >> complaints from our users.
> >>
> >
> > The "broken spellcheck problem" seems largely to be caused by over
> hasty close-down of the computer before cached files (both hardware and
> software caches) are properly written to disk.  User education is the
> answer - educate them to be patient in closedown and wait for disk
> activity to finish before power-off.
> 
> Maybe using fsync() to flush things out faster when shutting down the
> app and keeping a backup copy of the config would help avoid the
> problem.   We shouldn't just silently fail when something is corrupt.
> 
> I've even experienced this myself on my FreeBSD desktop which stays on
> 24x7 and has an UPS.  It took me quite a while to notice spellcheck
> wasn't working.  I just thought my spelling was unusually good ;-)
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC PMC, FYI QA and L10N]

There have been no comments concerning the placement of the current materials 
into general distribution.

In addition, there is a set of Dutch (Nederland) language that also passes all 
tests and has been carefully proof-read.  These have been added to the 
directory folder.  (They are not reflected in the hotfix.html so far.)

A set of German (Deutsch) language scripts has been prepared and had to be 
changed from Unicode (UTF8) to ISO 8859-1 (Western European) in order to run 
properly on Windows XP.  The script window does not show extended characters 
used in German on an English Windows XP, but the scripts run correctly.  They 
should appear correctly in Windows XP installs set for Western European 
languages.  This part remains to be confirmed.  See 
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127082>.

If the German version is not complete today, I propose going ahead with the 
general distribution of the English and Dutch ones and adding the German set 
later.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 15:02
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> [BCC PMC, FYI QA]
> 
> At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO
> 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes has quieted.
> 
> I propose that the current binaries be placed into general availability.
> I am initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-
> 23T22:00Z.
> 
> MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE
> 
>  * The file hotfix.html at
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
>will be made available at
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
> 
>  * The directory folder
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/>
>will be made available as a subdirectory of
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>.
> 
> ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY
> 
>   * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory,
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>,
> will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and
> refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
> location.
> 
>   * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
> and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
> hotfix applies to.
> 
> WHAT TO REVIEW
> 
> You can find everything to be made available by starting with the
> hotfix.html page at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html>.
> 
> IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred, and
> those links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the
> archive location.
> 
> The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can learn
> more about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX,
> Linux32, and Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to
> verify.
> 
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC PMC, FYI QA]

At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO 4.1.2-patch1 
Hotfixes has quieted.

I propose that the current binaries be placed into general availability.  I am 
initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-23T22:00Z. 

MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE

 * The file hotfix.html at 
   
   will be made available at 
   

 * The directory folder 
   
   will be made available as a subdirectory of 
   .

ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY

  * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory, 
,
will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and 
refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
location.

  * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
hotfix applies to.

WHAT TO REVIEW

You can find everything to be made available by starting with the hotfix.html 
page at 
.

IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred, and those 
links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the archive location.

The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can learn more 
about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX, Linux32, and 
Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to verify.


 - Dennis

   







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 14:40
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Am 08/16/2016 05:26 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > BETA 0.2.0 IS NOW AVAILABLE
> >
> > This is a cleanup version.  It is hoped that this will be the last
> change before bumping the version to 1.0.0 and making general
> availability.
> >
> > One important change:
> >
> >  The names of the files have been changed.
> >
> >  The README is now named README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows.txt.
> >
> >  The zip and the related .asc, .md5, .sha1, and .sha256 files all
> have the base name
> >  apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86.zip
> >
> > The two scripts also have simpler names:
> >
> >  APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> >  REVERT-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> >
> > The files are still available at
> >
> >  <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/Windows>
> >
> > Now it is worth testing enough to know there is no regression and that
> APPLY and REVERT operate properly as before.
> 
> I've downloaded the new ZIP and tested again:
> 
> - Download new ZIP file   OK
> - Unzipping   OK
> - ASC signature   OK
> - MD5 OK
> - SHA1OK
> - SHA256  OK
> - "tl.dll.new" ASC signature  OK
> - "tl.dll.old" ASC signature  OK
> 
> The both .bat files differ from the past ones. I've not run the new ones
> again but looked closely to the diff output. There are no functional
> changes but only for file name and version.
> 
> If I should run them again, just tell me.
> 
> Otherwise I think also this ZIP is ready to do its work.
> 
> Marcus
[orcmid] 

That's great, Marcus.  Thanks.

I will go ahead and cut 1.0.0 now.  

 - Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 14:46
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
[ ... ]
> [knmc]
> As we move forward to a general distribution here  is an odt revision of
> the readme that can be used to generate an html, pdf, or text versions.
> All versions are attached but may not come through to the list. They can
> all be accessed from the following link.
> 
> All feedback is both welcomed and encouraged.
[orcmid] 

The .odt and the .txt file come through as attachments.

Do you have specific recommendations about what should be done with these?  

I notice that there are problems with the .txt file layout not having hard line 
breaks.  The name changes and dates in 0.2.0 are not reflected.  The .odt also 
needs layout work.  There's too much white space and I have not looked closely 
enough to figure out why.

I know we differ on formatting and some document organization matters.  I am 
not going to address them at this point.

I am going to 1.0.0 now, essentially with the 0.2.0 except for the change of 
version number and removal of the limitation to testing use.  I did the other 
repair you suggested.  I think Marcus is ready on the other binaries, so 
something will happen tomorrow (Friday).  

I'm not certain what the final inch is just yet, but it looks like everything 
is ready enough.

 - Dennis
> 
> regards
> Keith
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 21:05
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > BETA 0.2.0 IS NOW AVAILABLE
> >
> > This is a cleanup version.  It is hoped that this will be the last
> change before bumping the version to 1.0.0 and making general
> availability.
> >
> > One important change:
> >
> > The names of the files have been changed.
> >
> > The README is now named README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows.txt.
> >
> > The zip and the related .asc, .md5, .sha1, and .sha256 files all
> have the base name
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86.zip
> >
> > The two scripts also have simpler names:
> >
> > APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> > REVERT-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> >
> > The files are still available at
> >
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/Windows>
> [knmc]
> the link should read
> <
[orcmid] 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows/>
[orcmid] 

Right you are.  Thanks for the quick check.
> 
> Regards
> Keith
> >
> > Now it is worth testing enough to know there is no regression and that
> APPLY and REVERT operate properly as before.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

BETA 0.2.0 IS NOW AVAILABLE

This is a cleanup version.  It is hoped that this will be the last change 
before bumping the version to 1.0.0 and making general availability.

One important change:

The names of the files have been changed.  

The README is now named README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows.txt.

The zip and the related .asc, .md5, .sha1, and .sha256 files all have the 
base name
apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86.zip

The two scripts also have simpler names:

APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat
REVERT-4.1.2-patch1.bat

The files are still available at

<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/Windows>

Now it is worth testing enough to know there is no regression and that APPLY 
and REVERT operate properly as before.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 21:08
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> BETA 0.1.0 WITH AUTOMATED SCRIPTS IS NOW AVAILABLE
> 
> The scripts make life much easier, since users don't have to go hunting
> for anything and digging around in operating-system locations.
> 
> You should be able to go through the procedure that uses the automated
> steps pretty easily.
> 
> It is very important to know the difficulties that arise or whether
> there were none.
> 
> The material is available at
> <http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 18:01
> > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >
> > Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.
> >
> > It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other for
> > reverting the patch.
> >
> > The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well as
> > the new one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files
> that
> > are present in the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the
> patch
> > and also to remove it.
> >
> > Next steps:
> >  * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that
> > operation on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.
> [orcmid]
> 
> Done
> 
> It is also much easier to work through the patch checks using the
> scripts.
> >
> >  * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-
> file
> > scripts as well as the manual procedure if ever needed.
> [orcmid]
> 
> Done
> 
> >
> >  * Although the Zips already carry executable code (i.e., DLLs) there
> > may be some Antivirus push-back where the policy is to not allow .zip
> > files with scripts in them.  The README will also have to address that
> > possibility.
> [orcmid]
> 
> I forgot that at the last minute.  I will put that into the next
> version.  Meanwhile, those who check these procedures should report any
> AV objections they ran into.
> 
> 
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 09:58
> > > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> > >
> > > Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has
> been
> > > introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
> > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > > patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> > >
> > > This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and
> > Keith
> > > McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be
> discussed
> > > in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
> > > <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.
> > >
> > >
> > > By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on
> > Windows.
> > > In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server
> > > where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to
> > > accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the
> > > procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties
> using
> > > the text files, especially on Windows.
> &

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 21:24
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Dennis;
> Attached is an odt file with mark-ups and comments for a couple of
> changes for the readme. For the general public release I have been
> working on a draft of a more formal format that can be used as a
> template for future situations such as this.
> 
> Keith
[orcmid] 

Thanks Keith.  The markup was simple enough to reflect in the 0.2.0 BETA that 
is going up shortly.

 - Dennis
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 13:49
> >> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >>
> >> Attached is a text file with the tests that I ran and the results of
> >> each. The only problem encountered was in verifying tl.dll.new with
> the
> >> .asc signature file. This was due to the web of trust issue discussed
> >> earlier in this thread.Patricia's signature had not been certified by
> >> anyone. One I elevated the Owner Trust level and certified it the
> >> verification passed.
> >>
> >> I will finish reviewing the latest documentation and send any
> comments
> >> or suggested changes under separate cover.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Keith
[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 13:20
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
[ ... ]
> PS:
> However, I've a point that could be improved.
> 
> The name of the script files are very long. Same for the Readme. Inside
> the zip'ed file there is no need to repeat the complete patch name
> structure. IMHO they're better recognizable when it's just an
> "Apply.bat", "Revert.bat" and "Readme_Win.txt".
> 
> 
[orcmid] 

I looked into the naming.  These changes will help:

 1. There is no longer any need for -apply in the names now that there is a 
single distribution that provides a script and provides manual instructions as 
an alternative.

 2. There is no reason to mention -Windows in the name of a .bat file, since 
that is where those run these days.

 3. I still want to be specific to 4.1.2-patch1 so that it is always clear what 
these are about, wherever the materials happen to be found on an user's PC.  
That should be evident without examining the .bat file or even knowing how to 
do that without causing it to be executed [;<).  (It's a bit like the reasoning 
to have the README available to download directly so it can be read without 
downloading the full .zip.)

I'll do all of this in a 0.2.0 beta that I'll build today, Sunday.  There are 
some other suggestions that I will look into, after those are in the dev SVN, 
that may improve the text more.  At this point, I am concerned about 
introducing regressions.

 - Dennis
> 
> Thanks a lot for providing the script files. This will be a great help
> for the normal users.
> 
> If you need more details or tests just tell me.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Thanks for the checking, Marcus.

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 13:20
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Am 08/12/2016 06:07 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > BETA 0.1.0 WITH AUTOMATED SCRIPTS IS NOW AVAILABLE
> >
> > The scripts make life much easier, since users don't have to go
> hunting for anything and digging around in operating-system locations.
> >
> > You should be able to go through the procedure that uses the automated
> steps pretty easily.
> >
> > It is very important to know the difficulties that arise or whether
> there were none.
> >
> > The material is available at
> > <http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> 
> great to have now a script-based installation. Here is my test procedure
> on Windows 10 Home:
> 
> APPLY script:
> 
> - When starting the script I get a "... Windows SmartScreen has
> prevented the start of a not recognized app. To run this App,
> Administrator permission is needed ..." message. Doing so, it started
> but showed a message [1] that Administrator permission is needed. I've
> verified that nothing was done or changed.
> 
> - When starting with right-clicked "Run as Administrator" the script
> showed some useful information [1], renamed the old file and copied the
> new file.
> 
> REVERT script:
> 
> - When starting the script I get a "... Windows SmartScreen has
> prevented the start of a not recognized app. To run this App,
> Administrator permission is needed ..." message. Doing so, it started
> but showed a message [1] that Administrator permission is needed. I've
> verified that nothing was done or changed.
> 
> - When starting with right-clicked "Run as Administrator" the script
> showed some useful information [1], deleted the new file and renamed the
> old file back to the old name.
> 
> At the end both scripts are working successfully.
> 
> [1] The command line window where the output information is shown uses a
> *very little* font size (looked like 4pt or similar) and is therefore
> nearyl unreadable. I had to increase the font size in the properties of
> the window (click on the icon in the top left corner).
[orcmid] 

The font size is not under control of the script.  I have no idea what has it 
be so small in your case.  Changing it should be persistent now.
> 
> PS:
> However, I've a point that could be improved.
> 
> The name of the script files are very long. Same for the Readme. Inside
> the zip'ed file there is no need to repeat the complete patch name
> structure. IMHO they're better recognizable when it's just an
> "Apply.bat", "Revert.bat" and "Readme_Win.txt".
[orcmid] 

Well, yes, especially the Readme.  At this late point, I'd like to get to 1.0.0 
without risking any regression in the text.  I don't like these things becoming 
mysteries if separated from the packages.

I will give it serious consideration.

> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot for providing the script files. This will be a great help
> for the normal users.
> 
> If you need more details or tests just tell me.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 18:01
> >> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >>
> >> Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.
> >>
> >> It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other
> for
> >> reverting the patch.
> >>
> >> The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well
> as
> >> the new one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files
> that
> >> are present in the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the
> patch
> >> and also to remove it.
> >>
> >> Next steps:
> >>   * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that
> >> operation on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > Done
> >
> > It is also much easier to work through the patch checks using the
> scripts.
> >>
> >>   * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-
> file
> >> scripts as well as the manual procedure if eve

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 13:49
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Attached is a text file with the tests that I ran and the results of
> each. The only problem encountered was in verifying tl.dll.new with the
> .asc signature file. This was due to the web of trust issue discussed
> earlier in this thread.Patricia's signature had not been certified by
> anyone. One I elevated the Owner Trust level and certified it the
> verification passed.
> 
> I will finish reviewing the latest documentation and send any comments
> or suggested changes under separate cover.
> 
> Regards
> Keith
[orcmid] 

Thanks Keith.  The copy-paste error in the APPLY :FAIL3 message will be fixed.  
Thanks for being so attentive and meticulous.  Your test log is wonderful.

 I'm gratified that the Administrator Permissions pain has been alleviated on 
both admin and standard Windows 7 accounts.

I look forward to anything else you come up with.  I anticipate that we can go 
to 1.0.0 for the next round and make general availability next week.

 - Dennis
> 
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> 
>   BETA 0.1.0 WITH AUTOMATED SCRIPTS IS NOW AVAILABLE
> 
>   The scripts make life much easier, since users don't have to go
> hunting for anything and digging around in operating-system locations.
> 
>   You should be able to go through the procedure that uses the
> automated steps pretty easily.
> 
>   It is very important to know the difficulties that arise or whether
> there were none.
> 
>   The material is available at
>   <http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>
> <http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows> .
> 
>- Dennis
[ ... ]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

BETA 0.1.0 WITH AUTOMATED SCRIPTS IS NOW AVAILABLE

The scripts make life much easier, since users don't have to go hunting for 
anything and digging around in operating-system locations.

You should be able to go through the procedure that uses the automated steps 
pretty easily.

It is very important to know the difficulties that arise or whether there were 
none.

The material is available at 
<http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 18:01
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.
> 
> It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other for
> reverting the patch.
> 
> The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well as
> the new one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files that
> are present in the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the patch
> and also to remove it.
> 
> Next steps:
>  * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that
> operation on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.
[orcmid] 

Done
 
It is also much easier to work through the patch checks using the scripts.
> 
>  * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-file
> scripts as well as the manual procedure if ever needed.
[orcmid] 

Done

> 
>  * Although the Zips already carry executable code (i.e., DLLs) there
> may be some Antivirus push-back where the policy is to not allow .zip
> files with scripts in them.  The README will also have to address that
> possibility.
[orcmid] 

I forgot that at the last minute.  I will put that into the next version.  
Meanwhile, those who check these procedures should report any AV objections 
they ran into.


> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 09:58
> > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >
> > Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been
> > introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> > patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and
> Keith
> > McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed
> > in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
> > <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.
> >
> >
> > By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on
> Windows.
> > In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server
> > where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to
> > accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the
> > procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties using
> > the text files, especially on Windows.
> >
> > Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for
> > which the Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not
> > produce Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that
> is
> > still the case.  The files have been confirmed to be usable using the
> > utilities built for use on Windows.
> >
> > For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be
> considered.
> > HTML does not have white-space incompatibility problems across
> different
> > platforms. The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of
> > verifying its authenticity.
> >
> > In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform
> > use of text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that
> > automatically apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement
> file
> > produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using
> an
> > unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> > > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> > >
> > > T

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Beta version 0.1.0 is now nearing completion.

It will include two scripts, one for applying the patch, the other for 
reverting the patch.

The .zip will also have a copy of the original 4.1.2 tl.dll as well as the new 
one.  These are used in the procedures to verify the files that are present in 
the OpenOffice configuration in order to apply the patch and also to remove it.

Next steps:
 * Additional path testing of the two scripts and verification that operation 
on Windows XP and on Windows 10 work as expected.

 * Updating of the README to reflect the availability of the batch-file scripts 
as well as the manual procedure if ever needed.

 * Although the Zips already carry executable code (i.e., DLLs) there may be 
some Antivirus push-back where the policy is to not allow .zip files with 
scripts in them.  The README will also have to address that possibility.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 09:58
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been
> introduced into the files (and the .zip) at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> 
> This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and Keith
> McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed
> in replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at
> <https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.
> 
> 
> By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on Windows.
> In some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server
> where the above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to
> accommodate for this incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the
> procedure, please indicate whether there are (now) difficulties using
> the text files, especially on Windows.
> 
> Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for
> which the Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not
> produce Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that is
> still the case.  The files have been confirmed to be usable using the
> utilities built for use on Windows.
> 
> For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be considered.
> HTML does not have white-space incompatibility problems across different
> platforms. The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of
> verifying its authenticity.
> 
> In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform
> use of text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that
> automatically apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.
> 
> Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement file
> produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using an
> unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> > To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> >
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> >  * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
> >The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
> >library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
> >on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
> >the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> >The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
> >procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
> >archive as well.
> >
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> >  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
> >Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
> >and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
> >integrity of the download and, in the case of the
> >digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
> >the download.
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> >  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
> >.md5, and .sha25

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Alpha version 0.0.1 of README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt has been 
introduced into the files (and the .zip) at 
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

This version reflects suggestions by Marcus Lange, Pedro Lino, and Keith 
McKenna.  Suggestions that are not (yet) implemented will be discussed in 
replies to their messages and on the bugzilla issue at 
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.


By its nature, this material is intended for users operating on Windows.  In 
some cases, incompatible forms are used on the Subversion server where the 
above files are situated.  Version 0.0.1 attempts to accommodate for this 
incompatibility.  In continuing to verify the procedure, please indicate 
whether there are (now) difficulties using the text files, especially on 
Windows.

Users of Linux systems may have difficulties with some utilities for which the 
Windows versions of the same tool (e.g., md5sum) do not produce 
Linux-acceptable line endings.  It is useful to know if that is still the case. 
 The files have been confirmed to be usable using the utilities built for use 
on Windows.

For future versions, the use of HTML instead of text will be considered.  HTML 
does not have white-space incompatibility problems across different platforms. 
The HTML will also be digitally-signed as a means of verifying its authenticity.

In addition to possibly using HTML as a better form for cross-platform use of 
text, attention will now move toward introducing scripts that automatically 
apply the change, replacing all of steps 9-18.

Meanwhile, it is valuable to continue testing that the replacement file 
produces no regression or introduction of any defects not seen using an 
unmodified Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 20:31
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> 
> The files to be used in testing are at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> 
> The files to be tested and reviewed are
> 
>  * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
>The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
>library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
>on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
>the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> 
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
>The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
>procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
>archive as well.
> 
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
>  * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
>Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
>and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the
>integrity of the download and, in the case of the
>digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
>the download.
> 
> REQUESTED TESTING
> 
>  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>.md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>difficulties that may have been encountered.
> 
>  * If you performed the procedure, report
> * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>   account used (administrator or standard user).
> * report whether the procedure succeeded
> * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>   please summarize the problems and how you over-
>   came any of them
> 
>  * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>see as important improvements before making general
>release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> 
> The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-
> knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is
> important in achieving that.
> 
> Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orc...@apache.org
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 09:21
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Feedback for the .zip file:
> 
> Do you have a reason in mind for the "apply" in the file name? I would
> delete this as I don't see a benefit and it would shorten the file name.
[orcmid] 

I used the apply suffix to allow for there being a (semi-)automatic version 
that worked automatically later.  I would then propose hotfix or something for 
that.  This allowed for both to exist at some point.

I'd rather not change that now since folks know to look for it by that name, it 
is used in the readme, etc.

> 
> When extracting a ZIP file I cannot stand it when no subdirectory is
> included and the files are extracted where the current directory is at
> the moment. So, I've to search for the new files.
[orcmid] 

The Extract ... tool for Windows automatically creates a folder to put 
everything into, although it will be in the same folder as the .zip.  So having 
a folder in there simply adds an extra level.  That is using the Windows 
extract. 

Other tools, such as WinZip also allow the user to choose a folder destination, 
although it might take more work, and knowledgeable users of Zip tools know how 
to tell what to do that works according to the README.

> 
> Therefore please include a "files" dir (or similar name) into the ZIP
> file.
[orcmid] 

The normal choice would be something like 4.1.2-patch1-apply :).
> 
> 
> 
> Feedback for the README file.
[orcmid] 

Thank you.  I will go over all of the suggestions on the README that have come 
in so far, and provide an update today.


> 
> Line 25:
> It should be improve into "please consult a knowledgable person (e.g.,
> family member work colleauge, acquaintance) that is able to assist you".
> At least for me it sounds better.
> 
> Line 41.
> Put all OPTIONAL things at the section end.
> 
> Line 44/45:
> old: "... that are part of the system.installed."
> new: "... that are part of the installed system."
> 
> Line 64/65:
> One "which" is double.
> 
> Line 86-89:
> I don't know if this is necessary for this process. I think it would
> just foster help requests to the dev@ mailing list.
> 
> Line 111:
> I would write ", the .zip file is available to use.".
> 
> Line 114:
> One "or" is double.
> 
> Line 131:
> No, there is no folder extracted. Please include one (see at the top of
> this mail).
[orcmid] 

Did you not use the Windows "Extract ..." action on the context menu?

> 
> Line 147:
> IMHO this was stated already. Please don't rename the new file in the
> ZIP file. Otherwise the user has to do an additional file rename which
> should not be done.
[orcmid] 

That must be a misunderstanding.  I don't propose anything like that.

> 
> Line 153:
> The same for the ASC file.
> 
> Line 183 and 186:
> Both parts can be described together to save 1 step.
> 
> Line 208:
> This step should be avoided (see at the top of this mail).
> 
> Line 222-231:
> As stated previously (line 86-89).
> 
> Line 240:
> To give (again) the hint that OpenOffice should be closed before
> renaming the files would be nice to the user.
> 
> 
> I hope this feedback is helpful for you.
[orcmid] 

Yes, thank you.  I will look more closely when making the edits.

> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 08/03/2016 05:31 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> > The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> >   * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
> > The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
> > library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
> > on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
> > the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> > The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
> > procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
> > archive as well.
> >
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
> >   * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
> > Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
> &

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

For tracking the [TESTING] of the 4.1.2-patch1 binary for windows, I have 
created task Issue 127065,
<https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127065>.  Comment 7 there already 
speaks to the untrusted identification situation.

I am adding an abridged version of this message from Carl with the part 
relevant to certificate trust.  Note that most of us who have worked on 
4.1.2-patch1 and provided digital signatures will find that identity will be 
reported as untrusted based on the Web-of-Trust technique PGP software uses.  
We can, of course, verify the fingerprints and Apache account identity and 
certify each other.  That will change the status for those of us in this 
particular circle but not necessarily for anyone who does not already trust the 
identification of enough of us.

I don't think there is any way to get into this in our README files.  However, 
this is useful for any future contributions we might make to the page at 
<http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> or anything supplemental that 
is oriented to the users of Apache OpenOffice and their particular range of 
skills.

> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 03:30
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> On 08/04/2016 06:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 08/05/2016 12:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >> On 08/04/2016 02:21 PM, Marcus wrote:
[ ... ]
> >>>>* apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >>>
> >>> I don't know if this is OK or still bad:
> >>>
> >>> gpg --verify apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
> >>> apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
> >>> gpg: Signature made Tue 02 Aug 2016 06:24:08 AM CEST using RSA key
> ID
> >>> D456628A
> >>> gpg: Good signature from "keybase.io/orcmid (confirmed identifier)
> >>> "
> >>> gpg: aka "orcmid (Dennis E.
> Hamilton)"
> >>> gpg: aka "orcmid Apache (code
> >>> signing)"
> >>> gpg: aka "Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
> >>> "
> >>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> >>> gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to
> the
> >>> owner.
> >>
> >> I get this on sig checks also. There's probably a step we're missing
> to
> >> specify "trust" locally.
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
> >
> 
> signing Dennis' key locally worked for me.
> On Linux I use:
> gpg --default-key 9553BF9A --sign-key D456628A
> 
> If the key you want to sign it with is already the default key you can
> omit the "--default-key 9553BF9A" part.
> Sometimes you may have to prefix the ID's with "0x" to denote hex.
> 
> If you trust this is Dennis' key you can send his key back with your sig
> now attached and it will have more trust.
> gpg --send-key 0xD456628A
> 
> If a few people do it the warning should go away. Web-of-trust  :)
> 
> Carl
[orcmid] 

The warning will go away for us who have created a mutual Web-of-Trust but it 
won't help those who are not in that circle or have not somehow determined to 
trust in it themselves.  This is still useful advice about how to do it.

PS: I don't think the dist-level KEYS file is updated automatically, so the 
release KEYS set needs to be refreshed to work.  (We can check that by waiting 
for a while to see if Carl's trust of Dennis's key shows up.)


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:47
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Replies in line
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.
> >
> > The files to be used in testing are at
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/Windows>.
> >
> >  The files to be tested and reviewed are
> >
> > * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt The description of the
> > procedure for applying a corrected library file to installed copies
> > of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 on Windows.  Read this first before
> > deciding to download the Zip file and attempting the procedure.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip The Zip archive
> > containing the files to be used in the procedure.  There is a copy of
> > the README within the archive as well.
> >
> > * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5 *
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256 Files that
> > provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash, and an SHA256 hash that can
> > be used to verify the integrity of the download and, in the case of
> > the digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of the download.
> >
> >
> > REQUESTED TESTING
> >
> > * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, .md5, and
> > .sha256 files against the .zip, report any difficulties that may have
> > been encountered.
> >
> [knmc]
> checked the zip against all of the signatures with the following
> results:
> .md5 matched
> .sha256 matched
> .asc failed with error not enough information to verify signature.
> 
[orcmid] 

Had you installed my PGP key (in the current KEYS file)?  
How did you download the .asc file?

[ ... ]
> >
> [knmc]
> In section 10 of the procedure section the line "Open the folder
> selected in step (7)" should read "Open the folder selected in step (8)"
> 
> On the whole I found the README difficult to follow with information out
> of sequence and extraneous information such as not accepting help from
> unsolicited phone calls. Not bad information, just out of place in a
> process document. Now that I have some available time I will get out my
> "blue pencil" and mark-up the document.
[orcmid] 

Note that someone has already spell-checked the document and I will do so in 
the future.

And all suggestions are welcome.

> 
> One improvement for the average user would be to automate the process
> with a .bat file that could find the proper folders and do the copy and
> rename procedures.
[orcmid] 

Oh duhh!

Yes, there is no reason a .bat file can't be included in the package.  With 
"Run as Administrator" that should also relieve the pain for folks on 
non-Administrator accounts who are able to provide/select administrator 
credentials.

I would leave the longer instructions, perhaps in an Appendix, for those who 
prefer the manual procedure or who otherwise have reservations/problems about 
running a script.

Something to work on over the next day or two while also gaining more results 
from the current testing.


> 
> > The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in
> > applying this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of
> > more-knowledgable users who appreciate the difficulties of
> > non-experts is important in achieving that.
> >
> > Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> > +1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> > X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> >
> 
> 
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Thank you, Pedro.

Thanks for the spell-checking too!  

Yes, the comment about quickstarter was misplaced and should go where there is 
mention of turning it off.

I did not notice the date change situation when I applied the procedure.  I 
think the date is preserved in the File Explorer listing. I will double-check 
the date business.

I also note that 

 * there are two list items (3) in the procedure.  That will be corrected.

 * the final location of the material is incorrect, and that will be repaired 
also.

 - Dennis

PS: The .odt attachment appears on the qa@ list mailings and that archive.  I 
think it may be good to create a bugzilla issue on this testing so anyone can 
post and also access attachments.  I will do that today.

> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 09:08
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> Hi all
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   REQUESTED TESTING
> 
>* [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>  .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>  difficulties that may have been encountered.
> 
> 
> 
> ​Checked md5 and sha256. No problem.​ Assuming advanced users will be
> doing this, they probably have the tools to check. Such tool is not
> included in any program included in the Windows OS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>* If you performed the procedure, report
>   * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
> account used (administrator or standard user).
>   * report whether the procedure succeeded
>   * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
> please summarize the problems and how you over-
> came any of them
> 
> 
> 
> ​Tested under Windows 7 x64 SP1 using an admin account. Procedure was
> successful. I would recommend to rename the file from dll.new to dll in
> the unzip folder (step​ 16) and _after_ that copy it to \OpenOffice
> 4\program\ (step 15)
> 
> This allows the file to retain the date. If the file is renamed after
> moving to \OpenOffice 4\program\ it will change date/time to the current
> date/time.(Obviously the Created date is not modified but from a user
> perspective that is not evident)
> 
> ​Following the​ same logic, it would be wiser to copy tl.dll.old to the
> patch folder (or any non-system folder) and if needed rename the file to
> tl.dll _before_ copying to \OpenOffice 4\program\ when reverting the
> patch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>* [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>  confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>  see as important improvements before making general
>  release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>  Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> ​There are some typos (and a confusing sentence) in the readme file.
> Please check the attached ODT (created with the patched AOO)​
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Pedro



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Testing of an Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 procedure is requested.

The files to be used in testing are at 
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows>.

The files to be tested and reviewed are

 * README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt
   The description of the procedure for applying a corrected
   library file to installed copies of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2
   on Windows.  Read this first before deciding to download
   the Zip file and attempting the procedure.

 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip
   The Zip archive containing the files to be used in the
   procedure.  There is a copy of the README within the
   archive as well.

 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.asc
 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.md5
 * apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Win_x86.zip.sha256
   Files that provide a digital signature, an MD5 hash,
   and an SHA256 hash that can be used to verify the 
   integrity of the download and, in the case of the 
   digital signature, the authenticity and accuracy of
   the download.  

REQUESTED TESTING

 * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc, 
   .md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any 
   difficulties that may have been encountered.  

 * If you performed the procedure, report 
* the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of 
  account used (administrator or standard user).
* report whether the procedure succeeded 
* if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
  please summarize the problems and how you over-
  came any of them

 * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or 
   confusing information in the README.  Describe what you 
   see as important improvements before making general
   release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
   Apache OpenOffice on Windows.

The goal is to provide as much as we can to assist Windows users in applying 
this fix with confidence and success.  The experience of more-knowledgable 
users who appreciate the difficulties of non-experts is important in achieving 
that.

Thank you for any effort you invest and the feedback you provide.

 - Dennis
 

 


  
 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QA] Testlink Guest Account

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Theodore,

What little I have turned up suggests that the TestLink system is *not* being 
used.

The format for TestLink test cases is useful.  But that account is not being 
maintained.

That leaves open the question of where to put defined test cases on an 
ASF-supported system, such as one of the Apache OpenOffice wikis.

Suggestions and some initiative on those lines are welcome.  

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:41
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [QA] Testlink Guest Account
> 
> Great questions!
> 
>  1. We don't assign test cases to people, generally.  Generally, QA
> contributors select bugzilla issues and assign to themselves as QA
> person so that others know someone has raised their hand.
> 
>  2.There has not been any updating of TestLink since 2014-08-15 and the
> latest test is AOOTest-2186 created on 2014-04-22.
> 
> Here's the description:
> 
>This Projekt is only a playground to find out what is possible
>with testlink and what not, and how we manage this tool.
> 
> Others can indicate (1) who is administering the AOOTest account on the
> TestLink site and also (2) how we coordinate between that and the
> bugzilla.
> 
> In any case, the format recommended for Test Cases should be honored,
> whether or not they are posted to TestLink.  Ideally, test cases would
> be compiled on Wiki pages belonging to the project, so that their
> archival preservation is assured.  Let's see who knows more about this.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Buddy Matula [mailto:buddymat...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 20:08
> > To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: [QA] Testlink Guest Account
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > My name is Theodore Matula and I would like to start running test
> cases
> > on
> > TestLink. I already made an account, but my account only has Guest
> > privileges. Do I have to request for test cases to be assigned to me?
> > Any
> > advice on the next steps would be appreciated. My TestLink username is
> > buddymatula incase it is needed.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Theodore Matula
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QA] Testlink Guest Account

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Great questions!  

 1. We don't assign test cases to people, generally.  Generally, QA 
contributors select bugzilla issues and assign to themselves as QA person so 
that others know someone has raised their hand.

 2.There has not been any updating of TestLink since 2014-08-15 and the latest 
test is AOOTest-2186 created on 2014-04-22.
 
Here's the description:

   This Projekt is only a playground to find out what is possible 
   with testlink and what not, and how we manage this tool.

Others can indicate (1) who is administering the AOOTest account on the 
TestLink site and also (2) how we coordinate between that and the bugzilla.

In any case, the format recommended for Test Cases should be honored, whether 
or not they are posted to TestLink.  Ideally, test cases would be compiled on 
Wiki pages belonging to the project, so that their archival preservation is 
assured.  Let's see who knows more about this.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Buddy Matula [mailto:buddymat...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 20:08
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [QA] Testlink Guest Account
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My name is Theodore Matula and I would like to start running test cases
> on
> TestLink. I already made an account, but my account only has Guest
> privileges. Do I have to request for test cases to be assigned to me?
> Any
> advice on the next steps would be appreciated. My TestLink username is
> buddymatula incase it is needed.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Theodore Matula


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

So long as you still have use of the old email address, you can do this.

Using the old email address, send a message to
 with UNSUBSCRIBE in the 
subject and body.  A message will be sent to that email asking
for confirmation.  Reply to that message in the manner specified
and it should work.

Note that dgoldfi...@asb.org is not subscribed to this (qa@) list and you will 
need to subscribe it if you intend to follow the list in the future.

If you don't have use of the old address, you need to tell us what it is so 
that we can show you how to unsubscribe it.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: David Goldfield [mailto:dgoldfi...@asb.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 05:42
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> Hi. I'll be switching email addresses and I'd like to know if there's an
> email address I can use for a quick unsubscribe from this list.
> 
> 
> 
> David Goldfield
> 919 Walnut Street
> 
> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107
> 
> 215-627-0600
> FAX: 215-922-0692
> mailto:dgoldfi...@asb.org
> http://www.asb.org
> Amazon Smiles ASB
> http://www.asb.org/images/Amazon_Smiles.jpg
> Serving Philadelphia's and the nation's blind and visually impaired
> population since 1874.
> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:57 AM
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> > It seems to me that RESOLVED - RESOLVED is too mysterious and RESOLVED
> >>> - NOTOURBUG is not much better than NOTANISSUE.
> >>>
> >>> RESOLVED - HANDLED might be closer, with the comment that achieves
> >>> this explains how it is handled. (I.e., documentation, workaround,
> >>> whatever.)
> >>>
> >>> I'm not in love with that term and don't know how it works for
> >>> non-native English-language participants.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I like it as it is more general. However, what about RESOLVED -
> MANAGED?
> >> This word is maybe better known in the world. This term shows that
> >> the issue has some work in it and was tackled. With a closing comment
> >> you can see where and why it was successful managed (resolved).
> >>
> >
> > from Jira I also know that RESOLVED - DONE is a common way to say that
> > an issue was successfully resolved.
> >
> 
> NOT_AN_ISSUE seems a bad option. The problem which is affecting someone
> is dismissed. In my opinion it is as as offensive as WORKSFORME (used in
> LibreOffice) and WONT_FIX (used in both projects)
> 
> HANDLED, MANAGED only applies if there are workarounds (which is not
> always the case).
> 
> NOTOURBUG means that the Devs looked at it and although they recognize
> it's a problem, there is nothing they can do because the problem is
> somewhere else.
> I agree it's a but short and rough but it's difficult to be nice and
> meaningful with a single word (or glued words). This can be further
> explained in the Comments when changing status if the developer is in
> such a mood...
> 
> NOTABUG could be used instead of WONT_FIX (when it's reported as a bug
> but AOO decides it is working as expected) and DECLINED when it's a
> suggestion/enhancement (and AOO decides it is not
> interesting/productive)
> 
> Just my 2 cents ;)
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Many interesting ideas, ...

> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 03:35
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> On 03/22/2016 05:02 AM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 03/22/2016 10:00 AM, schrieb Marcus:
[ ,,, ]
> >> [ ... ] what about RESOLVED -
> MANAGED?
> >> This word is maybe better known in the world. This term shows that
> the
> >> issue has some work in it and was tackled. With a closing comment you
> >> can see where and why it was successful managed (resolved).
> >
> > from Jira I also know that RESOLVED - DONE is a common way to say that
> > an issue was successfully resolved.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> Having a RESOLVED - DONE would be especially good for tasks also.
> 
[orcmid] 

MANAGED is interesting because of its flexibility. How it was managed should be 
accounted for in the commentary.

DONE does seem to apply to Tasks and Enhancement requests.

DECLINED also seems to apply to both Tasks and Enhancements.  It is also a 
counterpart to ACCEPTED in those cases.

At qa@ Pedro Lino made some useful observations about how terms impact 
reporters and observers of the Bugzilla activity.

In respect to that, I have been using WONTFIX as a way to indicate that we have 
no capacity to do anything about an issue, especially a longstanding one.  This 
is primarily a way of discouraging non-project commenters arguing among 
themselves and to also indicate that the issue is understood, recognized, and 
continued lobbying is not useful.  I think DECLINED may be useful in some of 
those cases, but WONTFIX is more truthful when the project doesn't have a way 
to do anything.  NOTFIXING is closer to the reality.  (CANTFIX would also 
indicate that the problem is not with the issue, but with project capability at 
this time.)  The door is not closed completely, but it is not clear when the 
door will ever be opened.

I agree that we do need a diagram and a description of the general application 
of Bugzilla categories and resolution cases.  We might also need to revisit how 
the search defaults work with respect to the various categories.  This seems 
like a good Wiki [update] effort.  We also don't want to split things into so 
many categories that application and understanding becomes more difficult.

Looking forward to the further discussion,

 - Dennis



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 16:53
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> > It's not about to draw the line between issues that are resolved and
> > verified solutions. It's about to differentiate issues that are in the
> real
> > application and therefore need to be fixed in the source code. Here we
> use
> > (or better should use) RESOLVED - FIXED.
> >
> > But what about issues that are also reporting a problem but the
> solution
> > (if there is any) is somewhere else? RESOLVED - FIXED doesn't fit,
> RESOLVED
> > - NOT_AN_ISSUE also not.
> >
> 
> Why not use the same nomenclature as the "sibling project"? RESOLVED -
> NOTOURBUG
[orcmid] 

It seems to me that RESOLVED - RESOLVED is too mysterious and RESOLVED - 
NOTOURBUG is not much better than NOTANISSUE. 

RESOLVED - HANDLED might be closer, with the comment that achieves this 
explains how it is handled.  (I.e., documentation, workaround, whatever.)
 
I'm not in love with that term and don't know how it works for non-native 
English-language participants.

> 
> I believe Apache QA needs a flowchart such as
> 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/c/c4/Unconfirmed_Bugs_Status_ 
Flowchart_Version_0.1.pdf
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/c/cb/Unconfirmed_Bugs_Status_Flowchart.odg
[orcmid] 

That's a useful companion topic.  (The PDF is apparently defective - Acrobat 
Reader doesn't see anything in it on Windows.)

The .odg works though. I don't like that flowchart much.  I don't think it 
covers the range that is needed for us.   Perhaps it is incomplete and just 
deals with the front-end of issue triage?




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Thanks for the "None" Target, Marcus.

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 15:38
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> Am 03/20/2016 09:08 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > We seem to have a number of issues in BZ that are now listed
> > as Resolved/Fixed but don't seem to pertain to an actual
> > upcoming release.
> >
> > Examples:
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126652
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126828
> >
> > Can we add something like "N/A" or the like to our Target
> > Milestone field rather than the default "--" so we know
> > these should never be considered for a release?
> 
> sounds reasonable. I've added an "None" to the list of available
> milestones for many products (the application modules and related
> things).
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I want to clarify this.

I think the problem might be that "Resolved - Fixed" is being used incorrectly. 
As far as I know, there are many cases where this resolution is used where one 
of "Resolved - Not an Issue" (though not too often), "Resolved - 
Irreproducible", "Resolved - Won't Fix", or "Resolved - Obsolete" should be 
used.

Is that what you are seeing, Kay?

In those cases, it is preferable to change the resolution.

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 14:09
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field
> 
> Kay Schenk wrote:
> > We seem to have a number of issues in BZ that are now listed
> > as Resolved/Fixed but don't seem to pertain to an actual
> > upcoming release.
> 
> Everything that was marked RESOLVED FIXED will be in 4.2.0. So 4.2.0 is
> a perfectly valid value for these cases.
> 
> Just to be clear: 4.1.2 was a maintenance release and issues had to be
> approved as release blockers in that case. 4.2.0 will be a normal
> release, made from trunk, so everything that is on trunk (untile a
> certain moment when we will decide to branch) will be into it
> automatically. So the target is 4.2.0 in those cases.
> 
> Regards,
>Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Bugzilla

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

What is the user id and email address used on your Bugzilla account?

Also, please provide an introduction of yourself indicating a little about your 
experience with QA and how you propose to conduct it with issues on the 
OpenOffice bugzilla.  That is, what kind of results do you propose to provide?

Also, how familiar are you with Apache OpenOffice as an user?

Thank you for your offer and interest, I am certain that however you contribute 
it will be welcome.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Candaises Williams [mailto:candaiseswilli...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 09:40
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Bugzilla
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> Please add me to the QA Team in Bugzilla.  Thanks
> 
> --
> 
> *Warmest Regards,*
> 
> *Ms. Candaises C. Williams*
> 
> 
> *“There are two ways of spreading light: *
> 
> *To be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.” ― **Edith Wharton*
> 
> 
> 
> *“An attitude of positive expectation is the mark of the superior
> personality.” ― **Brian Tracy*
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Food for Thought

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Cut-and-paste error.  

This was posted on the dev@ openoffice.apache.org, a list some of you should be 
on even though QA-related discussions are not that often.  The dev@ list is the 
list of record for certain matters.  

It is valuable for someone on the QA list to gate-keep in both directions as 
necessary to have folks up-to-date wherever they prefer to subscribe.

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 13:51
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: FW: Food for Thought
> 
> This was posted on the dev@ openoffice.apache.org, a list some of you
> should be on even though documentation-related discussions are not that
> often.  The dev@ list is the list of record for certain matters.
> 
> The list post is something for our specialized lists to understand about
> how work gets done on the Apache OpenOffice project,
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Food for thought: <https://communitywiki.org/DoOcracy>
> 
> The Apache OpenOffice project, and other Apache projects, are more like
> do-ocracies than any other form of project governance.  The distinct
> karma for committers and also PMC members is fundamentally related to
> the Foundation requirements concerning IP provenance of project code
> bases and other artifacts, although that is often referred to as a
> meritocracy arrangement.
> 
> For example, no one on the Apache OpenOffice project has executive
> authority, although there are particular accountabilities for
> committers, PMC members, and the PMC Chair (who is an officer of the
> Foundation).
> 
> For another example, there are no assignments to give out or ways other
> than suggestion and recommendation to direct effort.  This is probably
> what is most confusing to outsiders and also to the many advocates for
> AOO who would like to see particular expressed needs met.
> 
>  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orc...@apache.org
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: Food for Thought

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

This was posted on the dev@ openoffice.apache.org, a list some of you should be 
on even though documentation-related discussions are not that often.  The dev@ 
list is the list of record for certain matters.

The list post is something for our specialized lists to understand about how 
work gets done on the Apache OpenOffice project,

 - Dennis

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Food for thought: <https://communitywiki.org/DoOcracy>

The Apache OpenOffice project, and other Apache projects, are more like 
do-ocracies than any other form of project governance.  The distinct karma for 
committers and also PMC members is fundamentally related to the Foundation 
requirements concerning IP provenance of project code bases and other 
artifacts, although that is often referred to as a meritocracy arrangement.  

For example, no one on the Apache OpenOffice project has executive authority, 
although there are particular accountabilities for committers, PMC members, and 
the PMC Chair (who is an officer of the Foundation).

For another example, there are no assignments to give out or ways other than 
suggestion and recommendation to direct effort.  This is probably what is most 
confusing to outsiders and also to the many advocates for AOO who would like to 
see particular expressed needs met.  

 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: hello am new here

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Greetings, David,

Please tell us a little about what you have in mind for doing QA and what your 
background and skills are.

We don't usually assign QA projects, but that takes a longer explanation.

Let us know a bit more about what you are expecting to do and what your 
experience is and we can be more helpful.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: david tilahun [mailto:davvo1...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 16:17
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: hello am new here
> 
> can you assign me a small project qa
> 
> --
> 
> you'll never see
> what
> lies ahead
> if  you keep on
> looking
> back.
>   ---
> Jean
> Redpath, leaving the land


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Introduction as QA volunteer

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Benoit Goderre [mailto:benoit.gode...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 22:05
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Introduction as QA volunteer
> 
> Thank you Dennis for your answer.
> 
> I definitely agree that VMs have a lot of great advantages, as you
> mentioned.
> 
> I checked the Win 10 insider license and I don't think it is a
> possibility.
> 
> What do you guys do? Do you have a licensed VM for your testing?
> 
[orcmid] 

I can only answer for myself.

I assume you mean a license Guest OS installed in a VM.

I only have two installed guests for the moment.

I have one Windows 10 Insider installed under the Hyper-V Manager that is part 
of Windows 10 Pro on a machine that has the necessary hardware capability for 
Hyper-V.  I obtained that license during the Windows 10 Insider Technical 
Preview (and at the time the Hyper-V host was a now-upgraded Windows 8.1 
device).

I also have one Windows XP guest installed under Virtual Box on another 
machine.  The XP license is one I have from an MSDN subscription.  This is not 
for testing though - I need it as a web-development server.  Virtual Box does 
not work well on the machine that has Hyper-V.  The advantage of Hyper-V over 
Virtual Box is that Hyper-V will install 64-bit versions of Windows on a 64-bit 
Host.

I don't have a current MSDN subscription, so I don't know what OS licenses 
there are for test use at this time.  If you are at an academic institution, 
there may be suitable subscriptions available via the institution.  Apache 
Committers have been eligible for free Microsoft MSDN subscriptions in the 
past.  Those generally provide licenses to several operating-system 
installations for test purposes, with OS install ISOs available for download 
from the MSDN site.  (I notice that I have existing keys for all versions from 
Windows XP through Windows 8 but not 8.1 and 10, released after my last MSDN 
subscription expired.)

I don't know of any other avenue in the case of Windows guests for installation 
in/as VMs.

For testing on Linux of course, the easy solution is to install under Virtual 
Box on whatever host you have available.

I don't know what solutions are available for running OSX as a guest OS in a VM.
 [ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Introduction as QA volunteer

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think the recommendation for using a VM is so that a machine used for 
production is not necessarily disturbed when conducting tests that may lead to 
crashes that have collateral damage.

And, a VM can be backed up and reconstituted more readily.

I also suspect that it was written by Mac/POSIX-oriented developers who only 
use Windows and maybe some Linux flavors in VMs [;<).

Whatever the reason, you are correct about licensing requirements for the guest 
OS.

 - Dennis

PS: For Windows 10, and a VM on hardware that is capable of satisfying the 
Windows 10 hardware/VM requirements, you might be able to obtain a Windows 
Insider licensed install.  You might need Windows 7 or later on the host PC 
though.  (This arrangement may have been changed since it worked for the 
Windows 10 Technical Preview.) 


> -Original Message-
> From: Benoit Goderre [mailto:benoit.gode...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 21:44
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Introduction as QA volunteer
> 
> Nice to meet you Barinuadum!
> 
> While the software itself is free, I believe you would need licensing
> for
> the OS needed when creating a VM.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:16 AM, barinuadum.bariy...@outlook.com <
> barinuadum.bariy...@outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Benoit,
> >
> > I believe virtual box is free. So no licensing is required.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/8/16, 12:14 AM, "Benoit Goderre" 
> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >I am thankful for this opportunity to join the team of volunteers as
> a
> > >Quality Assurance Specialist. My name is Benoit Goderre and I have
> four
> > >years of experience in the software industry. My favorite technique
> is
> > >exploratory testing.
> > >
> > >As I wish to start to contribute to the project, I have several
> questions:
> > >
> > >
> > >   1. Is this project still going on? When I checked the QA page, I
> saw
> > >   that the last entry was made in 2013.
> > >   2. If yes, which feature(s) would need the most testing, or which
> > >   feature(s) have the most chances to contain bugs (so I can
> contribute
> > and
> > >   not just test rock solid, if those ever exist, features).
> > >   3. Also, in the documentation section, it is mentioned that
> Virtual Box
> > >   is recommended. While I have a decent amount of experience with
> VMWare
> > (and
> > >   I don't think Virtual Box should be much different), the usual
> problem
> > lies
> > >   in the licensing when it comes to VM. Is there some information on
> this
> > >   topic?
> > >
> > >Thanks again for your time and I wish to speak with you soon.
> > >
> > >Best Regards,
> > >
> > >Benoit
> >


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[QUESTION] Assigned Defect Reports and QA

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I am using Urmi's message just as a reminder about a question that has been in 
the back of my mind.

When students and others come here to work on QA, what is it QA is thought to 
be?

So, what do those who have asked to be part of the QA operations here regard as 
what they are called upon to do and what skills are to be demonstrated?

I'm asking because, normally, QA is not about making fixes.  

Quick fixes and simple fixes are generally what we think of as something a 
developer that is new to the project could start with in making contributions 
to the code.

QA encompasses rather different areas.  Identifying a defect in the code and 
even preparing a tested patch can and has happened.  Yet, as welcome as that 
is, it is not, in my mind, what QA is about.  In particular, much QA requires 
an understanding of the product, but not of its code.

I am not making reference to the use of QA as a meta-activity related to the 
quality and repeatability of a development and delivery process.

I am thinking of QA for AOO as an activity that is involved with confirming 
reported defects, obtaining sufficient precision and reproducibility to ensure 
that different defects/symptoms are not being confused together, and then to 
verify that a repair, if produced, actually cures the defect that is reported.  
This activity can well isolate a defect and its occurrence so much that a 
developer can find a single or connected cause.  The person conducting the QA 
might even do that.  I tend to think the QA person has put on a different hat 
when that happens.

Another aspect of QA is focused attention to the product that gives rise to 
defect reports, either in documentation, in product behavior, and also in 
product usability.  (This last is not regarded by some as a proper matter for 
QA, but that is a separate topic.)

I am not out to discourage anyone from finding fixes to reported defects, or 
even identifying defects on their own.  I just want some clarity on what those 
who have asked be part of QA here how they see what their contribution is.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Urmi Shah [mailto:shahur...@outlook.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 11:34
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Assign Defect Reports
> 
> Hello,
> I am fairly comfortable with the process now. Can you please assign a
> set of defect reports to me?
> Thank you,
> Urmi Shah


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I was forgetful.

The data summary is available in a PDF at <http://s.apache.org/YFT>.  A 
qualitative analysis is at <http://s.apache.org/SNg>.  The following note is 
more comprehensive than that.

It is helpful, if you please, to bring discussion of this topic to the dev@ 
list so the discussion is all in one place.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forwarded Note - - - - - - -

To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
[BCC to Project Management Committee and users@ oo.a.o]

SUMMARY

The top-level analysis of Bugzilla issue handling has been completed for all 
issues opened on the project through December 31, 2015.  

The complete tabulation is in the PDF document at <http://s.apache.org/YFT>.

It remains the case that since the establishment of Apache OpenOffice as an ASF 
Top Level Project in November, 2012, the accrual of unresolved issues exceeds 
40%.  That is, for every 100 new issues, on the average more than 40 of them 
will be unresolved indefinitely.  

In contrast, although there is a very large number of unresolved issues that 
remain in the Bugzilla from its history as part of OpenOffice.org, that 
previous technical debt was, proportionally, under 20%.  

Some highlights:

 * Even though the monthly rate of new issues and comments on issues has been 
decreasing significantly since mid-2014, the rate of technical debt as the 
proportion of unresolved issues has not improved.  

 * Although a reduction to 35% unresolved-issue is seen in the last 5 months of 
2015, this may be distorted by issues created and then resolved in the staging 
of AOO 4.1.2 release candidates and QA on the candidates.  Results for the 
first-quarter of 2016 are needed to determine if this is a new trend or a 
hiccup.

DETAIL AND QUALITY MATTERS

This is a rough analysis, although the consistent trend is difficult to explain 
away.  

Refinement requires a closer look at the nature of issues and understanding of 
exactly what resolution means, not just what being left unresolved means.  

There is also a suspected disconnect with regard to what is considered an issue 
and how the ways of closing an issue are actually applied.  

 * Closing of a new issue as a duplicate qualifies as a resolution.  The 
incidence of long-standing issues that continue to receive duplicate reports is 
useful to understand in this case, and that requires more detail.

 * Some issues are closed as Resolved Fixed when the fact of the matter is that 
there was insufficient detail to understand and confirm the issue and the 
reporting party failed to provide additional information (if it was even 
requested).

 * Some comments on issues tailgate possibly-different problems onto known 
ones, although the resemblance may be superficial and the issues need to be 
split.

 * Enhancement/feature requests are not distinguished.

 * Resolved issues are sometimes closed without obtaining confirmation that 
incorporation of the identified resolution in distributed code actually 
addresses the originally-reported difficulty.

 * Some issue reports are closed as not issues because they are declared user 
problems and kicked to the Community Forum.

These may all have small effects.  We will know only by looking more closely 
into Bugzilla details.

The last case deserves more careful attention.  

The next-in-line users of Apache OpenOffice distributions consist of around 50 
million users who are mainly individuals and 87% of whom are using Microsoft 
Windows.  Such casual users, whatever their limited experience in 
trouble-shooting and describing problems, are the main users of this software.  
The usability issues they encounter are important to the project; even though 
they may not involve bugs in the code, they point to defects in the product.  
Capturing those experiences and recognizing them as real issues for the user 
community is important.  That feedback is important for determining and making 
available workarounds and advice.  It can also inform changes to the software 
that might ameliorate those difficulties for non-experts.  Here's a simple 
example: having an easy-to-use option for resetting the user profile.

FUTURE STEPS

Along with extending the current analysis into the first quarter of 2016, 
exploration of the nature of unresolved and resolved issues will be introduced.


 - Dennis




> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:33
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: FW: [DISCUSS] SUSTAINABILITY: Issue Clearance Quality +
> Technical Debt
> 
> 
> From the Chair,
> 
> From "A Maturity Model for Apache Projects,"
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-
> model.html>
> 
> "QU50: The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
>in a timely manner."
> 
> It is also a recommended practice to a

[RISK?] FW: Daily/Nightly builds for Windows?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[BCC PMC and QA Lists. This is a serious topic for dev@ community discussion.]

Can we have some visibility on this, please?

The last aoo-win7 ASF Buildbot success was on 2015-07-28.  Thereafter, the 
Buildbot reported exceptions until 2015-10-03.  There have been no reports at 
all from that Buildbot since.

For 4.1.2, the only current builds were the Release Candidates.  This left very 
little time for QA testing, with each new RC required retesting to some degree. 
 Those were very short windows.

This also means that the only way to verify anything about Windows functions by 
developers, QA, and anyone else is to have the personal means and the computer 
capacity to do development builds, matching the build parameters and other 
dependencies used for release builds.  Isn't that too select and narrow for the 
attention that is required?  

This seems to be at least a quality risk.

There is also a question of exactly what the present capability and capacity is 
in contrast to what is required to support continuous integration of Windows 
builds.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 03:58
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Daily/Nightly builds for Windows?
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Now that 4.1.2 is out and development is again active, I believe it
> would
> be good to have the Apache OpenOffice buildbots releasing daily binaries
> for Windows as well?
> 
> This has been broken long before the 4.1.2 RC stage but maybe now
> someone
> could give some love to the buildbot?
> 
> With nearly 1 million downloads per day for the Windows platform alone,
> I
> believe that it would make sense to make sure that AOO is improved and
> that
> any regressions are detected early.
> 
> Best regards,
> Pedro


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Should i change the status of a bug if i really think it is a bug

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Dolores,

Thanks for wanting to be careful about confirming reported defects.  It is all 
about developing your judgment.  Don't be too worried.  If you are not 
confident about something, see if you can make tests that provide clear-cut 
confirmation.  

EXAMPLE

Concluding that #126609 is a duplicate of #125894 is a judgment call.  It seems 
all right.

#125894 comments are not completely systematic.  I can understand why it is not 
marked confirmed.  It may also be that some of the commenters do not have the 
karma to make that change, or it is left for any other reason.  The commenters 
may also be describing different cases.

It *appears* that choice of the insertion point is a factor, as is the kind of 
insertion being made.  That is, what is the insertion "tied to. (page, 
paragraph, character and paragraph settings about page splitting may be a 
factor)"

This will take more analysis, because there appear to be so many cases.  This 
is complicated farther by interoperability considerations with Microsoft Word 
formats.  

My thinking is that this needs to be broken down better.  For example, there is 
what happens "natively" in Writer, when a document is created and saved as an 
ODT, closed, and then used to launch Writer again.  

How well does the Writer -> .odt -> Writer case work?  When does the overlap 
happen and when does it not?  Is there a difference when opened in LibreOffice 
Writer instead of OpenOffice Writer?  Is there a difference when the .odt is 
opened or produced in a current version of Microsoft Word (2013 or 2016) 
relying on its ODF support?  (Windows Wordpad also accepts/produces simple .doc 
and .odt documents.  Another place that might reveal more about this.)

For the Microsoft Word cases there are Word -> .doc -> Writer, and Writer -> 
.doc -> Word also.  Also Word -> .docx -> Writer (but not the reverse).  The 
problems could be in the conversions, depending on what the Writer -> Writer 
case reveals.

What to do?

You might want to identify a clearly reproducible case and provide an account 
from which anyone can reproduce the situation, starting with the simplest 
interoperability case.

Next steps are based on what your analysis reveals.  There are many moving 
parts.  That's not so bad, if the reproducible case is very clear and not 
confused with any other possible case.  There might be different bugs involved 
[;<), although the symptoms appear the same at the level of reporting so far.

At some point, especially for .docx and .odt, it may be necessary to examine 
the files themselves using Zip and XML viewers/editors, to see if there is some 
discrepancy that can be seen in the files themselves.  The .odt file may be the 
most revealing.

If you determine that there is more than one distinct situation, it might then 
be time to split the incident report into multiple ones.

Good luck.  Don't worry too much.   Anything you accomplish is a gift to the 
project.  And if you work a case analysis, similar to what I have given, that 
itself will be a reusable analysis for others to employ.

Keep asking questions.

 - Dennis











> -Original Message-
> From: Dolores Zurdo Consuegra [mailto:dolores.zurdo.consue...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 08:45
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Should i change the status of a bug if i really think it is a
> bug
[ ... ]
> But the last bug i found it (Issue 126609
> ), i think it was
> duplicated from *Issue 125894
> *
> In this last bug, we can see different users for example:
> 
> 
>- oyekani...@yahoo.com
>- Prakrut Bhatt 
> 
> They say that they could replicate the bug, but it is still like
> unconfirmed.
> 
> So my question is:
> Should the status of this bug be as confirmed or I'm changing the bug's
> status too fast?
> 
> I'm asking this because i don't want to start to declarer bug too fast,
> in
> case i'm doing it wrong. If it is so, please tell me, so i could review
> and
> change all the things that i have done so far. :-)
> 
> Thank you very much,


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [BUGZILLA] The OS field is not sorted and could be therefore improved

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

I suggest that a lazy consensus be started on dev@ and, absent any
objection, go ahead.

(You could probably just do it.  An account on dev@ is appropriate though.)

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 11:40
> To: qa@ 
> Subject: [BUGZILLA] The OS field is not sorted and could be therefore
> improved
> 
> When creating a new issue (or for an existing one, if you want to choose
> a better one), then IMHO the users expect a different sorting.
> 
> Therefore I want to improve the list to get the most used systems at top
> like the following:
> 
> All
> Windows, all
> Windows XP
> Windows Vista
> Windows 7
> Windows Server 2008
> Windows Server 2012
> Windows 8, 8.1
> Windows 10
> Mac OS X, all
> Mac OS X, 10.7
> Mac OS X, 10.8
> Mac OS X, 10.9
> Mac OS X, 10.10
> Mac OS X, 10.11
> Linux, all
> Linux 32-bit
> Linux 64-bit
> Unix, all
> Solaris
> FreeBSD
> OS/2
> Other OS
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

In case not subscribed [BCC to Phani Sri]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 15:34
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Phani Sri [mailto:phanisr...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:37
> > To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2
> >
> > Hello QA Team,
> >
> >  how to download Apachi OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2.
> >
> >  I have downloaded from the following link but I was unable to install
> > it.
> >
> > Can anyone help me.?
> >
> > I appreciate your time.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Sri
> 
> [orcmid]
>Which of the files did you download?  Give the full name.
> 
>(E.g., something like
> Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.2_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe)
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Phani Sri [mailto:phanisr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:37
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2
> 
> Hello QA Team,
> 
>  how to download Apachi OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2.
> 
>  I have downloaded from the following link but I was unable to install
> it.
> 
> Can anyone help me.?
> 
> I appreciate your time.
> 
> Thanks
> Sri

[orcmid]
   Which of the files did you download?  Give the full name.

   (E.g., something like 
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.2_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe)

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: karma needed on a query

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

OK, here's a start:




This picks up more than does Pescetti's stored query.  I have not dug into it 
enough to see what additional filter is required to get down to the 25 of that 
query.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 09:31
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Herbert Duerr (Apache) ; Rob Weir (Apache)
> 
> Subject: Re: karma needed on a query
> 
> Am 10/16/2015 12:51 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
[ ... ]
> > Thanks for looking into this. I think the BZ admins can make a
> > search public without the need for a BZ login, but I can't. Take a
> > look at the "easy hacks"  link on --
> > http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html
> >
> > as an example.
> 
> @Herbert, Rob:
> Do you you have maybe an idea how to reach this?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: karma needed on a query

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 15:51
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: karma needed on a query
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/15/2015 02:37 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 10/15/2015 09:20 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >> The following query is being referenced in the release notes for
> >> 4.1.2 for "fixed issues"--
> >>
> >>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=170710&named
> cmd=4.1.2_approved_and_fixed&remaction=run&sharer_id=7
> >>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I do not have "rights" to make this "public" without
> >> the need for a BZ login. Can one of our BZ admins make this happen?
> >
> > I've not found an option to enable this query for every BZ user even
> > when they are not logged-in. The query Therefore I've put this query
> > to the footer of every BZ webpage.
> >
> > When you go into your BZ preferences and then into your saved
> > searches, maybe you can see a special option for oyur own queries.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Marcus
> 
> Thanks for looking into this. I think the BZ admins can make a
> search public without the need for a BZ login, but I can't. Take a
> look at the "easy hacks"  link on --
> http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-development.html

[orcmid] 
I searched the administration panel and I couldn't find anything either.
I think the creator of the stored search has to specify the necessary 
permissions.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: New QA Volunteer

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Welcome Frank,

Power users, such as I think you will find yourself to be, are perfect for 
checking the boundaries and confirmation of defects for Apache OpenOffice.

Your participation is very welcome.

Others will suggest good places to start.

An important immediate case is verifying that there are no regressions in the 
current AOO 4.1.2 release candidate and confirming that the defects claimed to 
be fixed are (1) evidently fixed and (2) have no unintended consequences.

Please ask questions [;<).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Frank Dusett [mailto:frdus...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 05:42
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: New QA Volunteer

Hello,

I am a long time user and advocate of Openoffice software.  I can't
remember precisely when my first introduction to Openoffice was, but it
would have been around 8 -10 years ago.  Openoffice has enabled me to work
on office files and documents, without having to afford Microsoft's Office
software.  The extensiveness of capability and cross-compatibility, coupled
with ease of use, has kept me as a long time user of Openoffice.

Having experienced the benefits of the Openoffice software family, I want
the opportunity to give back, in any way that I can offer.  Reading that
there is a place for debug verification, I believe that is something that I
can be of immediate assistance with.  I love trying to push the limits of
software that I utilize, so this definitely fits.

I have office and technical skills, but not programming experience.  I am a
long time CAD operator, and business office software user.  Currently I am
a proposal process engineer working for KUKA Systems Aerospace Group.  If
any of my professional skills or experience can be of use as an Openoffice
volunteer, I would be thrilled to offer my contributions.

Kind regards,

Frank L Dusett


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[PROPOSAL] QA Prioritization on Reports

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your willingness.

I don't think we are as organized as you seem to be thinking (and happy to be 
mistaken).

I am providing a proposal in response to your great question.

This may be too many words. All assistance in making this clear, with any 
questions, suggestions, objections, whatever: please provide on this thread.

 - Dennis

PROPOSAL

We have a growing backlog (also known as a technical debt) and an useful way to 
deal with that is,

 1. Stop (by progressively reducing the rate of growth of) the growth of the 
backlog.  That means looking at new ones to see how they can be confirmed, and 
resolved or assignable to a developer in the case of confirmed defects.  (Even 
if you are prepared to work on it and own it, follow these stages so others 
know what is going on.)

 2. Work on the older ones (what is called technical debt as they age).  I 
would suggest, in particular, older ones for which (1) duplicates keep showing 
up or (2) there is still ongoing comments against them.  There are ways to 
detect those, but watching the OOo-issues list is a big start.  I assume 
everyone on the QA list is also subscribed to .

 3. GOOD PRACTICE.  Because this is a self-organizing voluntary effort, what I 
recommend is that, when an issue or block of issues is taken on for QA 
scrutiny, post a message *here* announcing the numbers or ranges that are being 
taken on.  Also, add yourself as the QA contact on the issue, so others know 
there as well.  That provides a heartbeat and indication that others should 
look for low-hanging fruit elsewhere.  When you are done with ones you have 
examined (no matter what the outcome), announce that and adjust the QA contact 
on the issue if necessary.

I think that is an ideal practice, all other factors considered.

EXCEPTION

When the project is driving for a release, there will be release blockers.  
Keep an eye on those.  Also, be prepared to do a regression test, if possible, 
to confirm whether the release candidate appears to cure the defect or not.  
This should involve follow-up at the issue.  Not all reporters are in a 
position to install release candidates in a safe way.  When the release 
happens, that is a good time to see if the reporters can then update and 
confirm whether the problem is cured.  


-Original Message-
From: Alex Korsakov [mailto:aleksey.korsako...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 04:11
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [QA]Some batch of reports

Good day to all! I'm a newbie in a QA, but I understand "how it works" 
and already work with unconfirmed defects in Bugzilla, but I wanna ask 
you to assign to me some batch of reports. I think it would be more 
productive for me. Thanks.

PS sorry for bad English


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Update at the end ...

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 14:22
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

I have a suggestion with regard to reproducibility of reported defects.

First, it is important to reproduce using the same release and platform as the 
reporter if at all possible.  

If the user has a configuration that is not available for confirming yet the 
bug can't be reproduced with the current released version on the same platform, 
that should be reported so that others can take a look.  Also, the reporter 
should have the opportunity to see if they can deepen the information about 
their case.

If the incident can't be reproduced with a development build, be certain that 
it can be reproduced with the current release on the same platform.  If not, 
treat that as if it is the previous case.  

If it is a defect that is confirmed for the current release and not 
reproducible for an in-development release, please confirm the defect and set 
the target for fix to the coming version.  If there is a workaround until an 
update is released, provide that.

 - Dennis

PS: I have no thoughts on when such an issue should be marked resolved.  I 
would recommend waiting until the next release has a release candidate, at the 
earliest, and there is a final check.  (These are good regression checkers.)


  Duhh.  The obvious time to mark it resolved is when the reporter(s) confirms 
that the problem does not occur with a new release.  


PPS: It is easy for users to see similarities in their own experience and add 
their report as a comment to a current issue.  The only way I know to determine 
that is to ask for more detail and if there is indication of a clear 
difference, create a new issue and lead the user to it.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

[PROPOSAL] On Reproducibility of Defects

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I have a suggestion with regard to reproducibility of reported defects.

First, it is important to reproduce using the same release and platform as the 
reporter if at all possible.  

If the user has a configuration that is not available for confirming yet the 
bug can't be reproduced with the current released version on the same platform, 
that should be reported so that others can take a look.  Also, the reporter 
should have the opportunity to see if they can deepen the information about 
their case.

If the incident can't be reproduced with a development build, be certain that 
it can be reproduced with the current release on the same platform.  If not, 
treat that as if it is the previous case.  

If it is a defect that is confirmed for the current release and not 
reproducible for an in-development release, please confirm the defect and set 
the target for fix to the coming version.  If there is a workaround until an 
update is released, provide that.

 - Dennis

PS: I have no thoughts on when such an issue should be marked resolved.  I 
would recommend waiting until the next release has a release candidate, at the 
earliest, and there is a final check.  (These are good regression checkers.)

PPS: It is easy for users to see similarities in their own experience and add 
their report as a comment to a current issue.  The only way I know to determine 
that is to ask for more detail and if there is indication of a clear 
difference, create a new issue and lead the user to it.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [QA] Can't confirm bug report

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I've added you to qa-team, Alex.

Let the list know if that is not enough.

And thank you for the energy you are bringing to Apache OpenOffice QA.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Alex Korsakov [mailto:aleksey.korsako...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:22
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: [QA] Can't confirm bug report

Hi! I Can't confirm new defect reports, as you say in "Easy QA Task". I 
already have Bugzilla account, but i can't change the status of the bug. 
Maybe I do something wrong? Thanks. Sorry for bad English)

p.s. already created two my bug report))


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: STATE OF AOO: Overall Bugzilla Activity through July 2015

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

This message has received some discussion already on dev@ oo.a.o.  I think it 
might be of particular interest for QA participants.

One clarification.  The queries for open issues only counted issues that have 
no resolution of any kind.  As far as Bugzilla queries go, issues in DUPLICATE, 
..., WON'T FIX, and CLOSED state are viewed as resolved.

This analysis says nothing about the quality of those numbers, only that they 
are the numbers that we have at this high level of overview.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 19:57
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: STATE OF AOO: Overall Bugzilla Activity through July 2015

In looking for visible indicators of project activity, I created an overview of 
Bugzilla activity from November 2012 through July 2015.

This is a high-level view of gross activity and does not provide fine details.  
There is still an interesting picture.

My complete tabulation is available in a PDF document at 
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-07-BZ-OverallActivity-2015-08-05-dh.pdf>.

Here is a summary of what I captured.

  2012-11: #121299 First new issue in the Bugzilla of the AOO Top Level Project.
  2015-07: #126439 Last new issue in the Bugzilla at the end of July, 2015.

By years, (2012 and 2015 partial)

 20122013   2014   2015 
 
  9292136   1739441 BZ items/month
  133 198170 65 New issues/month
(averages are rounded to whole numbers)

As of 2015-08-05
  * the oldest open issue is #497 created 
2001-03-02
  * 24115 issues still open from before
  November, 2012
  *  2232 issues remain open of the 5139
  new issues from November, 2012
  through July, 2015
  *   192 issues remain open of the 452
  of those created in the first
  7 months of 2015

The most noticeable aspects are the steady decline in monthly Bugzilla items 
(i.e., entries of all kinds) and in the number of those that are introduction 
of new issues.

The next observation is of the tremendous number of open issues that preceded 
the commencement of Apache OpenOffice following the incubation period begun in 
June 2011.

To see other patterns, it is necessary to examine finer details.  I propose to 
do that only for 2015, so we have a better community understanding of what is 
happening with issues at this time.

I have no interpretation of these trends, and the burden inherited by Apache 
OpenOffice, other than noticing what they are.


 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Here is where the link to my copy of the promised paper can be found, as well 
as a link (doi) to the definitive source.

 - - - - - -

The PDF of the paper about RCT (Repaired Change-Tracking), "Tracked Changes: 
Navigating the Document-Format Anti-Pattern," provides a pattern-like model for 
the interoperability assurance for WYSIWYG document using standard 
document-file formats.  The author's final submission version is available for 
download in the bibliographic entry at 
<http://nfoworks.org/notes/2015/06/n150601.htm>.

A key finding in this paper is that in the absence of a profiled envelope in 
which there is interoperability assurance when interchanging documents using a 
format such as ODF, there is no prospect for such interchange working properly 
with change-tracking in the files.  

Conditions on which such an envelope can be established and change-tracking 
accomplished in a dependable way are sketched.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 17:02
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: FW: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

In the activities referenced in this note, the contribution of a coherent QA 
process is critical.  It is important for the formulation of tests, for the 
application of assessment procedures, and for the addition of tests found 
necessary as the result of incident reports and other cases found not covered 
by an evolving suite of tests.

 - Dennis 

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 16:24
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

I took advantage of Corinthia as a place to build up materials on ODF 
Conformance/Compliance Assurance testing of software products, since creating 
profiles of feature compliance figures in the scope of the Apache Corinthia 
(incubating) project.

The material is relevant, of course, to Apache OpenOffice and other 
implementations of ODF.

The proposed structure for development of files, procedures, and assessments is 
at <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Corinthia/ODF>.

I have updated the ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance Helix sketch there.  
The connected treatment of ODF 1.2 Conformance that has been linked from that 
sketch has also been updated.  That overview is at 
<http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602.htm> and a trial diagram of the 
different conformance layers is at 
<http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602b.htm>.

I am starting to put more effort into this material, including coming up with 
minimal test cases as baby steps.

My papers from DChanges 2014 are also relevant to this effort.  Although the 
"Anti-Pattern" paper is about repairing change-tracking, a key conclusion is 
that one can't achieve an envelope within which interoperable interchange of 
changed-tracked documents is possible without have a surrounding envelope in 
which there is reliable interchange without any change tracking.  The 
"Anti-Pattern" paper provides a sketch of how one can establish that, and some 
principles that must be honored.  

I have not put authors versions of my DChanges 2014 papers on-line yet.  I will 
do so in the coming week.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:50
To: d...@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers Available

The final versions of papers on change-tracking from DChanges2014 have been 
published.  You can see the table of contents of the proceedings at 
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723147> by selecting to see the "Table of 
Contents."

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

In the activities referenced in this note, the contribution of a coherent QA 
process is critical.  It is important for the formulation of tests, for the 
application of assessment procedures, and for the addition of tests found 
necessary as the result of incident reports and other cases found not covered 
by an evolving suite of tests.

 - Dennis 

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 16:24
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

I took advantage of Corinthia as a place to build up materials on ODF 
Conformance/Compliance Assurance testing of software products, since creating 
profiles of feature compliance figures in the scope of the Apache Corinthia 
(incubating) project.

The material is relevant, of course, to Apache OpenOffice and other 
implementations of ODF.

The proposed structure for development of files, procedures, and assessments is 
at <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Corinthia/ODF>.

I have updated the ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance Helix sketch there.  
The connected treatment of ODF 1.2 Conformance that has been linked from that 
sketch has also been updated.  That overview is at 
<http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602.htm> and a trial diagram of the 
different conformance layers is at 
<http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602b.htm>.

I am starting to put more effort into this material, including coming up with 
minimal test cases as baby steps.

My papers from DChanges 2014 are also relevant to this effort.  Although the 
"Anti-Pattern" paper is about repairing change-tracking, a key conclusion is 
that one can't achieve an envelope within which interoperable interchange of 
changed-tracked documents is possible without have a surrounding envelope in 
which there is reliable interchange without any change tracking.  The 
"Anti-Pattern" paper provides a sketch of how one can establish that, and some 
principles that must be honored.  

I have not put authors versions of my DChanges 2014 papers on-line yet.  I will 
do so in the coming week.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:50
To: d...@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers Available

The final versions of papers on change-tracking from DChanges2014 have been 
published.  You can see the table of contents of the proceedings at 
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723147> by selecting to see the "Table of 
Contents."

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: how to close a non-recommended ENHACEMENT issue?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I notice that there has been no further discussion about this and the requested 
guidance is not forthcoming.

I find the way incidents are handled on the AOO Bugzilla to be rather 
distressing, especially with the rapid closing and rebuffs to the submitters.  

I attempt to be more considerate by example although it is not something I have 
the capacity to accomplish one-handed.  I have already requested that such 
issues be assigned to me instead of being abruptly closed.  I must renew that 
request.

One problem is that users see definite issues and they are rebuffed for not 
being expert reporters and not limiting their input to code defects.  The 
categories in the Bugzilla are also brittle, not allowing us to recognize the 
broader conditions that may apply in the disposition of an issue report.

There is also not much help in triage of defects and enhancement requests.  
Having a visible process might help users to understand what is necessary while 
honoring the effort they make to identify and demonstrate issues of concern to 
them.

I don't like cross-posting, I am going to raise this separately on the 
dev-openoffice list as well.  However the project has limited capacity at this 
time, I think this is a critical user-facing area that needs to be addressed.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Cem Kaner [mailto:ka...@kaner.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 07:38
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: how to close a non-recommended ENHACEMENT issue?

I agree that it is useful to close bad recommendations. 

My role in this project is as a teacher whose students replicate/evaluate 
unconfirmed OOo bugs as one of their course requirements. Through this lens, I 
review maybe 100 bugs per year. It's a limited but nontrivial sample. I have 
the concern that sometimes it seems that an active volunteer sometimes treats 
real bugs or legitimate suggestions as dumb ideas or old and settled issues. So 
there is the obvious process question: How does the line get drawn. But there 
is clearly stuff in the database that can be a distraction rather than a source 
of ideas for improvement.

-- cem kaner

> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:30:06 -0500
> Subject: Re: how to close a non-recommended ENHACEMENT issue?
> From: r...@robweir.com
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > What is the procedure for closing an ENHANCEMENT issue when the
> > enhancement is not recommended?
> >
> 
> IMHO, the set of all open ENHANCEMENT issues comprise a "wish list"
> which volunteer developers are welcome to dip into if they want.   We
> will always have more such enhancement requests than we can address.
> This is true of every project.  Only a dead project has no more ideas
> for enhancement,
> 
> But if an idea is objectively bad then we should probably close it.
> For example, if it would break a standard, break another feature,
> perhaps if it is redundant, etc.   I recall reading about a survey
> Microsoft did of Office 2003 users, asking them what features they
> wanted added to Office.  When the survey results were tallied they
> found that many of the feature requests were already in the product,
> but hard to find.
> 
> Does this make sense?   Just because no one has implemented a feature
> yet does not mean the idea is a bad one.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
[ ... ]
  


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

FW: QA

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I missed that you are already in Bugzilla and have built the code.

Are you also subscribe to the list qa@openoffice.apache.org ?  (I am asking 
because you are uncertain about your first post being seen by the list.  You 
can always check the archive too.  It is at 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-qa/ and I think you already 
know that.)

I recommend that you subscribe to d...@openoffice.apache.org also.  This is 
where all decisions about the project are worked out.  There is often not much 
about QA, but there are posts on issues.  There are also issues raised on 
us...@openoffice.apache.org.  These are not as definite as QA about bugs and 
regression.  It might interest you because it is relevant to testing and 
usability in many cases.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 09:00
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: QA

Yes, your question appeared on the list.  This is an international community.  
Please allow for time differences and that this is not a high activity list.

Here is information posted for another new-comer:

>>>> Do you already had a look at http://openoffice.apache.org/qa.html and the 
>>>> pages mentioned there?
>>>> 
> >>>> Maybe you just start off to familiarize yourself with our Bugzilla
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/ ?


-Original Message-
From: Buddhi Eashwarage [mailto:buddhie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 22:32
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: QA

Hi,

I posted a question on this mailing list.May i know did anyone see that?

Regards
Buddhi


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: QA

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Yes, your question appeared on the list.  This is an international community.  
Please allow for time differences and that this is not a high activity list.

Here is information posted for another new-comer:

 Do you already had a look at http://openoffice.apache.org/qa.html and the 
 pages mentioned there?
 
>  Maybe you just start off to familiarize yourself with our Bugzilla
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/ ?


-Original Message-
From: Buddhi Eashwarage [mailto:buddhie...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 22:32
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: QA

Hi,

I posted a question on this mailing list.May i know did anyone see that?

Regards
Buddhi


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 09:17
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org; qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

Any objections to enabling the "useqacontact" field in Bugzilla?

Per the BZ doc:

"This allows you to define an email address for each component, in
addition to that of the default owner, who will be sent carbon copies
of incoming bugs."

I think this would be useful, so then we can divvy up bug reports for
QA, while not interfering with the primary dev assignment.  What we
have right now is awkward, since we're using the assignment field for
both Dev and QA.

If no objections I'll enable this on Thursday.

-Rob