Re: Set current and next-minor-version, next-major-version aliases in BZ
Hi Kay, On 2015-02-24 00:39, Kay Schenk wrote: Is there some way to associate aliases with actual field values in BZ? I'm thinking it would be useful to have alias assignments for Version, such as: * current alias to be used for 4.1.1 (I see we already have used current for Version, but I don't know if this is a hard assignment or what). * next-minor-version alias to be used for 4.1.2 * next-major-versoin alias to be used for 4.2.0 This would be very useful to track bugs for next releases, etc. Bugzilla currently doesn't know the concept of version- or milestone aliases. It's a good idea though. I suggest to submit it to them [1]. Bugzilla already supports name aliases for bug-ids, so extending this to other fields makes a lot of sense. [1] https://www.bugzilla.org/developers/reporting_bugs.html Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: QA team privileges
Hi Eric, On 2015-02-19 23:52, Erik Engstrom wrote: I am trying to assign an issue to myself, and I have been advised that I need QA team privileges to do so. You are now in our bugzilla's qa-team group and can confirm bugs and edit the bug fields. I am working on and have submitted a patch to the following bug: Issue #125897 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125897 Many thanks for the patch! I took the liberty to apply it [1]. [1] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1661077 Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: recent BZ changes -- some custom fields missing?
Hi Kay, We had an update to our BZ instance about a month ago. In all honesty, I didn't give the update a thorough review. Now, I see that our Release Blocker button, and Request Review button seem to be missing. Can someone else confirm this? or is it just my situation. Thanks. I can confirm that this was the case. The migration of these bits must have gone wrong: The release-blocker flags were still there, but none were activated, so I re-enabled the 4.1.2-blocker flag. The request-review flag was also still there but there were no groups left that were allowed to request or grant reviews of a patch attachment. I'm not sure what the original setting was, but I think every registered user could request the review and every member with can-confirm rights could grant the review. I reset these bits accordingly. Thanks for finding and reporting these problems! Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Bugzilla] Please add version 4.1.2 to Target field
On 28.01.2015 16:44, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: On 27.01.2015 21:39, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Resending again with modified subject line. Bugzilla admins, if you need more admins in the team just call for help. Thanks, Andrea. Based on past pattern, we'd add 4.1.2-dev now, and 4.1.2 once that version has released, yes? For the target field we should use the version on the horizon (i.e. 4.1.2) and for the version field the versions where new bug reports are useful (i.e. 4.1.2-dev). Great. It looks like you (or someone else) added these value, yes? Yes, I've added them to the active categories (products). Too bad that is still a bit painful because it still has to be done manually. Last time I checked the REST API these things weren't supported there yet. When I was done doing that in parallel to my regular work it was already so late that I didn't have time to write a done mail before going AFK. I've also added a 4.1.2 Release Blocker flag, so we're set with that also. Thanks! Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Bugzilla] Please add version 4.1.2 to Target field
On 27.01.2015 21:39, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Resending again with modified subject line. Bugzilla admins, if you need more admins in the team just call for help. Thanks, Andrea. Based on past pattern, we'd add 4.1.2-dev now, and 4.1.2 once that version has released, yes? For the target field we should use the version on the horizon (i.e. 4.1.2) and for the version field the versions where new bug reports are useful (i.e. 4.1.2-dev). Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Bugzilla permissions
On 19.10.2014 14:28, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Forwarding to the QA list so that a Bugzilla admin can give proper rights to Ankit. Andrea Thanks for pointing this out. This can be easily overseen otherwise. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=44244 Comment #19 from Ankit Kumar Tekriwal ankittekriwa...@gmail.com I want to take this issue to resolve. I don't have the proper rights to Take. So provide me the permissions to assign it to me. Done. Ankit now is member of the bugzilla groups edit-bugs, can-confirm and qa-team. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.1 RC1 based on revision 1614049
On 29.07.2014 09:50, Herbert Duerr wrote: On 28.07.2014 18:01, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 28/07/14 17:44, Pedro Lino wrote: Hi Juergen In case no one has noticed, Nightly builds for the Windows OS have been failing since July 22nd... http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win Based on your previous answer I assume this is a Tinderbox problem only but it would be worth to check/fix it? I know and it seems a space problem, maybe the new languages were too much. It is no source problem and will have no effect on the release build. If somebody feels responsible to track this down and communicate the problem to infra it would help ... Any help is appreciated Please monitor the JIRA issue [1] for the status of this problem. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8123 With the disk-space issue fixed (thanks Gavin!) the nightly build ran fine again and created its install sets [1]. Since that nightly build is currently switched to the release branch the revision it built is identical to the RC1 revision 1614049 that will be soon available with all release-candidate languages from its page [2]. [1] http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/ [2] http://s.apache.org/aoo_devsnaps Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.1 RC1 based on revision 1614049
On 28.07.2014 18:01, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 28/07/14 17:44, Pedro Lino wrote: Hi Juergen In case no one has noticed, Nightly builds for the Windows OS have been failing since July 22nd... http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win Based on your previous answer I assume this is a Tinderbox problem only but it would be worth to check/fix it? I know and it seems a space problem, maybe the new languages were too much. It is no source problem and will have no effect on the release build. If somebody feels responsible to track this down and communicate the problem to infra it would help ... Any help is appreciated Please monitor the JIRA issue [1] for the status of this problem. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8123 Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Missing Bugzilla components
On 16.07.2014 22:39, Andrea Pescetti wrote: The Native-Lang product in Bugzilla is missing some components: ca-XV - Valencian (AVL) ca-XR - Valencian (RACV) Can those be added? Thanks! Done. We already had ca for Catalan though. AFAIK it is different from the above. Or should it have been renamed to one of the above? Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Not able to change status of bugs in Bugzilla
On 14.07.2014 06:25, Amali Praveena Soban Kumar wrote: I'm doing verification of bugs in AOO4.1.1; I'm not able to change the status of bugs in Bugzilla. Can you please check that? It should work now. Please check. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?
On 17.06.2014 10:33, Pedro Lino wrote: I'm afraid something is broken in the new Nightly script. The script won't/didn't update the links at http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win so now even if build 1602869 is available at http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/ the link is still pointing at http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1602434.exe which doesn't exist. Now it is ok. After a new Nightly is successfully compiled the Snapshots page needs to be updated (if compiling fails then it keeps pointing at the last successful build which is perfect) Hope this is easy to fix. The page and its links are recreated regularly, but until it is recreated there is a short period when the links are not yet up to date. This explains why the links are good now. AFAIK the ci.apache.org system has no easy way to directly trigger the page update when a build is finished. If anyone knows a way please provide the details. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?
Hi Pedro, On 13.06.2014 13:01, Pedro Lino wrote: Would it be possible to keep the last successful nightly instead of deleting it? Currently there is no nightly available for Windows because compiling revision 1602143 failed. This makes sense but it is a bit tricky to accomplish. I tried it anyway by modifying the mv install bits to web buildbot step [1]. [1] http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/51/steps/mv%20install%20bits%20to%20web/logs/stdio If everything works as expected then old install sets will be kept directly in place if new ones are not available. Alternatively the name of the installer could be improved to Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1600883.exe (i.e. with the revision number appended) and this would solve the problem of overwriting previous builds as well as allowing the tester to keep track of which installer is which... A great idea but I'm afraid I can't help with this. Volunteers are invited. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?
Hi Jan and Pedro, On 13.06.2014 14:03, jan i wrote: On 13 June 2014 13:54, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: On 13.06.2014 13:01, Pedro Lino wrote: Alternatively the name of the installer could be improved to Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1600883.exe (i.e. with the revision number appended) and this would solve the problem of overwriting previous builds as well as allowing the tester to keep track of which installer is which... A great idea but I'm afraid I can't help with this. Volunteers are invited. Rereading Pedro's request I saw that we already do this, e.g. our latest successful win-nightly build produced [1] three files with such names. [1] http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/50/steps/mv%20install%20bits%20to%20web/logs/stdio This would also require an automatic cleanup routine, otherwise we fill the disks within a week. I see it as a very dangerous idea. No worries. Currently we keep only one revision, but even if we kept more of them the cleanup step could be quite simple, e.g. by adding a line using find X -ctime N -delete to a buildbot step could easily accomplish this. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Hi Rainer, On 26.05.2014 20:13, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for Bugzilla. +1 Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in the meta-issue; ! Critical major normaltrivial ! Total ---!-!-- P1 !1 . . . ! 1 P2 !. . . 1 ! 1 P3 !. 4 5 . ! 9 ---!-!-- Tot!1 4 5 1 ! 11 Regressions are also an important consideration. So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity trivial has been considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue 124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been rised to major or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361 A higher severity was very much warranted for this data loss. Data loss sounds a bit like an abstract concept but in this case it was I had a perfectly fine presentation, saved it and some pics are gone!!!. So the meta-issue helped to identify that this important issue was not properly flagged and would have been overlooked if we had only used the query as suggested. +1 for the meta-issue then. Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not [2]? For the references [1], [2] or [3] in your mail I cannot find their actual links, but I think I know what you mean. As said the meta-issue is only intended as a publicly visible reminder and best-effort overview what should eventually get into an eventual bugfix release if we decide whether we'll need one. The meta-issue helps with this discussion. +1 for the meta-issue. Whether they really should get into an eventual bugfix release would be decided later by requesting the blocker flag. I'd say good criteria for such issues are: - regressions - crashes - data losses * risk of new regressions So even if a bug is only minor; if it is a regression, a fix is available and low risk it should get into a bugfix release. Such a bug would not be caught by a query for major issues, but IMHO they are great candidates anyway. Should we decide that our bugfix releases must only contain fixes for bugs with major severity then this is fine as well. The bugs below this level would be removed from nomination. I'd advise against ignoring such fixes though. With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3] [...] Such systematic working is the only way for real progress. This systematic work is very important indeed and I appreciate and have the deepest respect for our QA volunteer who work on it. If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not simply visible in the bug reports. For anything else queries like https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamedlist_id=149854namedcmd=Potential411Blockers (shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity (20 reports per day, not only 2). I'm logged in and have all the rights needed but I can't see that query. On the other hand the meta-issue is visible to everyone without any trouble... Best regards, Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
On 26.05.2014 13:14, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: my experience is that such tracking bugs are not useful. The time invested in adding dependencies (what is rather uncertain, who can know how many bugs are missing and on what facts the various contributors added the bugs to the Meta) should be invested (with much more benefit) into careful review of the related BZ bugs and completion of information in the BZ bugs. I disagree that they are useless. As long as we're not sure if or when we should do a 4.1.1 and what changes could get into it such a meta-issue gives an easy overview of the candidates and their status: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/showdependencytree.cgi?id=124985hide_resolved=0 If we decide to make a bugfix release then the appropriate milestone target and its release-blocker flag will be created. Once the issue candidates have been reviewed and their bug fields (target and blocker) have been adjusted only then the meta-bug becomes irrelevant. But up to that point it is a good tracking mechanism with global visibility, clear accountability of who suggested what and direct links to the candidate issues. I recommend not to create tracking bugs what can be replaced easily by queries and if there is no evidence that they are necessary for the bug fixing process. And if there is a decision that the tracking bug should be created please follow [...] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blockerbug_severity=criticalbug_severity=majorbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=CONFIRMEDbug_status=ACCEPTEDbug_status=REOPENEDf3=OPf4=versionf5=versionf6=CPf8=cf_bug_typej3=ORlist_id=149754o4=regexpo5=regexpo8=equalspriority=P1priority=P2query_format=advancedv4=^4.1v5=^4.2v8=DEFECT Currently this query just yields bug 124891 which indeed looks like a good candidate. I suggest to FUP this discussion on the qa@openoffice.apache.org list. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Re issue 124599
On 04.04.2014 17:39, Andre Fischer wrote: On 04.04.2014 17:34, Andre Fischer wrote: On 04.04.2014 17:01, Andre Fischer wrote: Issue 124599 is the release blocker that requires a second RC. We have a bug fix, the patch is attached to the issue. Question is, how to proceed without Juergen to approve the release blocker flag? Does anybody else feel like a stand in for Juergen or should I just proceed? After all, if I stop his vote, I should probably fix the bug so that we/he can start the next vote. -Andre Herbert just reminded me that the upload speeds on the weekend are so much better then during the week. So I think that it would be good to check in the patch right now, start the builds and upload. Then we can decide on Monday how to proceed. -Andre New SVN revision is 1584753. New builds for this revision are being prepared and will hopefully finish uploading over the weekend. On Monday or latest on Tuesday everything should be ready again and we can decide then how to proceed. If things go as expected we could start a new vote early next week. Since the eventual RC2 will be very similar to the RC1 (with the exception of the installation experience on Windows) I recommend to use the extra time for further checking of the original binaries until the new builds become available. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Fwd: [Bug 124386] Improve Help for Version Selector
Forwarding to the QA mailing list.
Original Message
Subject: [Bug 124386] Improve Help for Version Selector
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:05:31 +0100
From: Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org
Reply-To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org d...@openoffice.apache.org
Members of our QA team requested a clarification of the Version field
used in our bugzilla instance. There are other terms that could need
some clarification too.
So before I request ASF-Infra to change our bugzilla installation by
using the patch [1], I'd like to ask for lazy consensus to request this
change in our bugzilla installation.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=82837action=diff
In particular the help text for version should be changed from
The version field defines the version of the software the bug was
found in.
to
The oldest version of the software the bug can be found in.,
Also the help text for assigned to should be changed from
The person in charge of resolving the ${terms.bug}.
to
The person in charge of progressing the ${terms.bug}.
because we sometimes need more info, specific testing, etc. from others.
The help text for operating system should be changed from
The operating system the $terms.bug was observed on.
to
The operating systems the $terms.bug can be observed on.
because AOO problems are often impacting multiple platforms.
Since many entries in our bugzilla database are not about bugs, but
about new features or enhancements I'd also like to use the term issue
instead of bug, when Bugzilla refers to such an entry.
Herbert
-
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
[Bug 119006][Bug 123681] Restore windows problem on Mac OS X
Since the OSX windows restore problem is very popular in our forums, our mailing lists and in bugzilla I'd like to advertise my fix for that (rev 1571205) and invite testers. A build of the latest trunk with the fix is available at [1]. [1] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/AOO_Mac64_Test.dmg Herbert (who doesn't like features that break working apps) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
[RELEASE]: New snapshot is ready
On 13.02.2014 17:08, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: the snapshot is still uploading but the wiki page is already updated and the links should now work when the upload is finished. Means if the link don't work yet try again some time later. Available languages are: ast bg cs da de el en-GB en-US es eu fi fr gd gl hi hu it ja km ko lt nb nl pl pt pt-BR ru sk sl sr sv ta th tr vi zh-CN zh-TW Now all the snapshots are uploaded. There are builds for Windows [1], for Mac [2] (with OSX=10.7), for Linux Intel 32bit [3] and for Linux AMD 64bit [4]. [1] http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/snapshot/windows/ [2] http://people.apache.org/~jsc/developer-snapshots/snapshot/macos/ [3] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/developer-snapshots/snapshot/linux_x86 [4] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/developer-snapshots/snapshot/linux_x86-64 The development snapshot Wiki page is updated too, but due to server problems it is currently inaccessible. [5] http://s.apache.org/devsnaps Happy testing! Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
New SNAPSHOT available (based on r1560772)
New snapshot builds based on the feature freeze revision (according to the release plan [1]) are available at [2]. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Planning [2] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/developer-snapshots/snapshot/ The development-snapshot CWiki page [3] has been partially updated, but since Markup was disabled [4] in the latest Confluence update the process of updating this page has become incredibly painful and will take some more time. [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds [4] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2011/11/why-we-removed-wiki-markup-editor-in-confluence-4/ I suggest to move this page into our MediaWiki instead where generated markup can be directly used. I also suggest to use a different name for these kinds of snapshots, because the buildbots provide a different of snapshot [5] that are not built for maximum compatibility. How about renaming the release-like snapshots to milestone? [5] http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#linsnap Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: BUGZILLA/FAQ
Hi Rainer, On 07.11.2013 09:23, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: it would be great if some volunteers would help to replace the question marks on https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/BUGZILLA/FAQ by useful contents. I updated the topics - good sample docs - the bug status confirmed - bug summary in general and split the pseudo tags in summaries topic into two: - bracketed branch names - deprecated pseudo tags I hope you like the changes. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Need QA (test) volunteers on MacOS Mavericks
Hi Yu Zhen, Hi Edoardo, Hi Anethasundas, Edoardo is asking if we must do new Mac tests using 4.0.1 as there are no OS X version at http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/.http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ I think we can use 4.0.1 for overall quality assessment on Maverick MacOS before 4.1 is available, how do you think? Yes, we often get questions about the compatibility of AOO with the latest OSX 10.9 and these questions are about AOO401, that was released three weeks before OSX 10.9. So it would be good if we had a qualified answer for that. Testing the trunk version of AOO on MacOSX will become an interesting topic after my branch rejuvenate has been integrated. We'll provide regular snapshots for OSX then. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Skills, Resources and Mentors
On 01.10.2013 07:14, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Tal Daniel schrieb: But I couldn't edit the wiki page (I'm logged in to as Talchu). Hi, I can confirm that problem. I am not familiar with with cwiki, but I added myself to Directory of volunteers, where I currently also can't find a way how to edit that page. It seems currently cwiki only can be edited by very few persons? I cannot edit pages in the cwiki either. I was able to do it last week, but this week I can't, because the edit-page option is missing. Is this lock-out a collateral damage of the release notes being protected? Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Skills, Resources and Mentors
On 01.10.2013 14:03, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote: On 01.10.2013 07:14, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Tal Daniel schrieb: But I couldn't edit the wiki page (I'm logged in to as Talchu). Hi, I can confirm that problem. I am not familiar with with cwiki, but I added myself to Directory of volunteers, where I currently also can't find a way how to edit that page. It seems currently cwiki only can be edited by very few persons? I cannot edit pages in the cwiki either. I was able to do it last week, but this week I can't, because the edit-page option is missing. Is this lock-out a collateral damage of the release notes being protected? The web page says: No edit restrictions are defined for this page. This is under Tools/Restrictions menu item. Do you see something differenent? I'm logged in and that Restrictions page says that: No view restrictions are defined for this page No edit restrictions are defined for this page But the Edit link that used to be on the page (left to the Share link) is missing. That edit link is still visible on a page that I haven't refreshed since last week. I'm sure it will be gone there too if I reload the page. Also the Add link, which used to be between the Share and the Tools link is missing. I was able to edit it (of course). It looks like Andrea was as well. Do you happen to have the admin role in our CWikis? Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: propose a further RC3 for AOO 4.0.1
Hi Yuzhen, On 22.09.2013 10:47, Yuzhen Fan wrote: For RC3, could you please share a little bit more on the impact to the functions of the AOO, from testing perspective? QE have been doing RC build acceptance test on RC1 and RC2 from last week, we'd like to know then evaluate what level test we need to consider for RC3. Thanks! Thanks for asking. I created the detailed list of changes and issues fixed by RC3: http://people.apache.org/~hdu/izlist_aoo401_rc2_vs_rc3.htm In short the relevant changes were fixes for the AOO's SDK on Windows, which is only developer-testable and it doesn't impact end users. Another important update in the respin was that the just finished Turkish translation was integrated for RC3, even though it was way past the original l10n deadline. So from an end-user perspective RC2 and RC3 are identical except that now there is a Turkish localization. All testing results can be reused. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Call for verification on resolved show stopper issues for AOO 4.0
On 08.07.2013 21:21, Ricardo Berlasso wrote: I'm not really sure what is needed because I see no field or flag to indicate that the fix was verified. Add a comment is enough? Change the Status: from RESOLVED to VERIFIED and add the comment. If the way it was verified was non-obvious from the issue itself then please add some details on how it was verified, e.g. on which platforms it was tested. Herbert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
