Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Joerg Sievers wrote: Hi Martin, Hi there! Martin Hollmichel wrote: I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. I have modified some things in the Wiki without changing or deleting the content or the meaning of it: Me too.

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Mathias, >> a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees >> (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and >> gets enabled via --enable-dbgutil at the configure line. We should >> rather advertise this a bit more, because people then get assertions >>

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Thorsten Behrens wrote: > a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees > (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and > gets enabled via --enable-dbgutil at the configure line. We should > rather advertise this a bit more, because people then get assert

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, > Unfortunately they will also get assertions with a vanilla build, > which makes this less useful. I wasted a lot of time trying to > track down the cause of an assertion, assuming it was due to a > change I had introduced, before discovering it still occurred > with a clean checkout.

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Martin Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately they will also get assertions with a vanilla build, > which makes this less useful. I wasted a lot of time trying to > track down the cause of an assertion, assuming it was due to a > change I had introduced, before discovering it still o

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:25 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. What do they mean exactly? Hi Kohei, a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees (that's the defau

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 07:15 +0200, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germa?ßISO-8859-1?Q?ny wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > > What do they mean exactly? > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build Excellent. Tha

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Kohei, > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > What do they mean exactly? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http:/

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Thorsten, On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:25 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > > What do they mean exactly? > > > Hi Kohei, > > a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at th

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:22 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > Mathias Bauer already pointed out that a operational build bot system is > essential and solves the problems you mention here, we need to make this > a priority That sounds fantastic, thank you. :-) Kohei ---

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > What do they mean exactly? > Hi Kohei, a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and gets en

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Mathias Bauer already pointed out that a operational build bot system is essential and solves the problems you mention here, we need to make this a priority, Martin 2) IMO, requiring that the developer of the cws make the binary install set available to the QA personnel has the following downs

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:28 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > > > > > >> modified version of the child workspace policies on > >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies >

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Martin Hollmichel wrote: Eike Rathke wrote: [...] | A CWS must be built on at least two platforms in the "product" version | (Windows and one UNIX platform) How will we ensure that non-Hamburg based CWSs can be built on these platforms and install sets be made available? I'm not sure ab

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Martin, On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies#Build_Configurations | A CWS

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http:// wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies Several points: - I'll fix typos in the wiki directly. - I do not understand "There will be no minor versions in a C

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida schrieb: > If we have an automated buildbot that provides an installation set, it's > a different story, though. IMHO it more or less boils down to this point. As long as we are not able to create builds for any CWS on any platform in a few hours we will always have hurdles to overc

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we have an automated buildbot that provides an installation set, it's > a different story, though. > There's supposed to be buildbots for said platforms - number and speed of those can clearly be improved upon, though. We've had intermittent trouble

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Oliver, On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 10:07 +0200, Oliver Craemer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote: > Hi, > > good work, but I miss the point where it is mentioned that there must be > a link to the installsets for the QA. This should not be a "nice to > have" but a "must", otherwise the QA rep

[dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi, good work, but I miss the point where it is mentioned that there must be a link to the installsets for the QA. This should not be a "nice to have" but a "must", otherwise the QA representative has to ask the cws owner for the installsets (with the delay which maybe occurs because of diffe

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Peter, Peter Junge wrote: defined wrong. Please refer included link . Done! Cu, Jogi http://qa.openoffice.org/qatesttool http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Jsi -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Joerg Sievers Nagelsweg 5

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. I have modified some things in the Wiki without changing or deleting the content or the meaning of it: - We should use the common wording in the communi

[dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Michael, Michael Meeks schrieb: Hi Martin, On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies Thi

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Moin Peter :-) Peter Junge schrieb: Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Tog

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experienc

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a > modified version of the child workspace policies on > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies This looks like an improvement :-) th

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > modified version of the child workspace policies on > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies#Build_Configurations | A CWS must be built on at least