Hi Petr, all
Isn't it possible to check for OS version and suggest the LO version
accordingly?
This would be a good test for the upcoming EOL of Windows XP, in less
than a
year from now :)
It makes sense. Could you please report this into bugzilla and add
ke...@suse.cz into CC? I am
Good morning Kendy, all
I am terribly sorry, I messed the description of the test; I wanted to
ask you to install 3.5.2 RC1 (3.5.2.1), and wrote 3.5.1 RC1 instead :-(
Can you please try with 3.5.2 RC1? That should offer you an update to
the 3.5.2 RC2 (and point to the pre-release download
Hi Sophie, all
I'm not Pedro or Rimas, but I would have time to have a look for the end
of next week. If you think I'm not enough skilled, no problem.
Excellent! You are certainly more skilled, experienced and knowledgeable
about OOo/LO than I am. Thank you for jumping in!
Regards,
Pedro
Hi Christian
Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia
reports problem)
http://ask.libreoffice.org/question/1459/secunia-psi-reports-insecure
also on the mailinglists)
i.e. version info of soffice.exe, not the one in the about dialog.
I didn't check that and now I
Hi all,
Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia
reports problem)
I think Secunia has already fixed the numbering so that the warning it gone
for version 3.5.1.
But the Version number in the file Properties for 3.5.2rc2 is now 3.5.0.202
instead of 3.5.2.2
Unless
Hi all,
Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia
reports problem)
I think Secunia has already fixed the numbering so that the warning it gone
for version 3.5.1.
But the Version number in the file Properties for 3.5.2rc2 is now 3.5.0.202
instead of 3.5.2.2
Unless
Hi Michael, all
I'm looking at another few Windows specific bugs that
are of interest. Particularly with the new drmemory tool and Jesus'
windows / debug builds - we should be able to progress here quickly.
It'd be wonderful if we could get these traces for Windows specific
bugs.
I'm quite
Hi Petr, all
Please, do not take this that we do not take care about openSUSE/SUSE
users. We do a lot of things for them. It is only about my packaging
work and about that I underestimated the demand for 3.5.
Actually I was talking about SUSE LibreOffice for Windows (which is
apparently a
Hi Michael, all
I'm looking at another few Windows specific bugs that
are of interest. Particularly with the new drmemory tool and Jesus'
windows / debug builds - we should be able to progress here quickly.
It'd be wonderful if we could get these traces for Windows specific
bugs.
I'm quite
Hi Petr, all
Please, do not take this that we do not take care about openSUSE/SUSE
users. We do a lot of things for them. It is only about my packaging
work and about that I underestimated the demand for 3.5.
Actually I was talking about SUSE LibreOffice for Windows (which is
apparently a
Hi Rainer, all
It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept.
It is true that this model tends to accumulate regressions. Unfortunately
it is not easy to measure if adding more features is attracting more users
than repelling users because of regressions/unsolved problems...
Hi Rainer, all
It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept.
It is true that this model tends to accumulate regressions. Unfortunately
it is not easy to measure if adding more features is attracting more users
than repelling users because of regressions/unsolved problems...
Hi Kendy
Working perfectly under Win XP Pro x86 SP3, except that the Pre-release
page still shows RC1...
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/
Regards,
Pedro
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Jan Holesovsky ke...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi there,
Please, is here anybody who can check
Hi Nino, all
Having false-positives ist bad, of course.
But IMO false-negatives are worse :-/
Couldn't agree more :)
There were at least 3 guys that were particularly helpful on the second Bug
Hunting Session while I was online (probably there were many more). I
thanked them publicly on IRC
Hi Michael, all
Well - I guess the -idea- is prolly to try to show the user the key
that is written on their keyboard, rather than a generic 'Ctrl' for
Control - it can show 'Control' (if that is what is written there) or
somesuch.
I think it would make sense for different countries
Hi Stefan, all
All we should need is localised versions of key names like Ctrl, Del,
Ins (that are on almost every keyboard [1], but whose names can
change) and global versions of key names for
alphanumeric/script-specific keys (which might not be on every
keyboard, but whose names are the
Hi Rimas, all
I think you'd just have to choose which label to use. Correctly matching
key names with the keyboard model is hardly impossible. I would say you'd
just have to choose whether to use Inserir or Insert, and stick to that
choice. Which strings you would choose would be completely up
Hi Michael, all
Well - I guess the -idea- is prolly to try to show the user the key
that is written on their keyboard, rather than a generic 'Ctrl' for
Control - it can show 'Control' (if that is what is written there) or
somesuch.
I think it would make sense for different countries
Hi Stefan, all
All we should need is localised versions of key names like Ctrl, Del,
Ins (that are on almost every keyboard [1], but whose names can
change) and global versions of key names for
alphanumeric/script-specific keys (which might not be on every
keyboard, but whose names are the
Hi Kohei
The truth is that different people have different pet peeve bugs they
want backported to 3.4.x, and we can't respond to all of them because
it's extra work. Backporting a change is not free, someone has to
review the change and make sure that change won't introduce regressions.
And
Hi Tor, all
and it's Pedro even!
I'm almost sure this wasn't a compliment... Still I'm glad that I'm
not the only one who has this opinion :)
I can't guarantee that it is installed by default (I NEVER use the
default install option on any software) but it is selected by default
when I switch
do you mean 3.4.5-rc1 ?
No. That was almost a month ago :)
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ANNOUNCE-libreoffice-3-4-5-1-tag-created-3-4-5-rc1-tt3585973.html
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Hi Kendy, all
JFYI - the service that warns you that there is a newer LibreOffice
version out is up running, and when you have Beta1, it should inform
you about the availability of Beta2, and offer you to redirect to its
download page.
Should there be troubles with this, please report
I do not know at all how bug fixes for Portable LibO Builds will be
proceeded. I believe hints in
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Version are not
useful.
What do you think?
Are there any specific Portable LO errors?
I assume that the Portable version works 100% like
it seems that Impress in LO 3.5.0 crashes under *MS-Windows* in
slideshow mode when you try to show a slide with a linked movie (menu
Insert - Movie and Sound...).
Yes. I can confirm that, although I couldn't find the Bug report.
Impress crashes instantly when switching to Slideshow mode.
Hi
7362ca8-b5a8e65-af86909-d471f98-61464c4 *is* Beta1, this is the way we
can identify it, now it is documented in mail archives, so... :)
:) Fair enough :)
I'm glad Petr is on it. I hope he doesn't give up that easily ;)
--
Pedro
___
LibreOffice
LO stores information about a selected JRE in the user profile at
config/javasettings_*.xml. Can you verify that just deleting that file from
the bad old user profile would already be enough to solve the crash?
Yes, I can confirm that. I made some extensive testing.
This problem occurs if
Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed.
Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ?
that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix.
Yep. I would say so :)
Conclusion
LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7;
Right
Hi Petr
IMHO, community can't support too many stable versions. Customers who
need it, have to pay someone for it. We should leave 3.3 and concentrate
on making 3.5 the best release ever.
I couldn't agree more. But someone made up this concept of rock
solid and Enterprise ready. To make
Hi all
Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3:
Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID:
Hi all
Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3:
Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29.
Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java
Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID:
The problem arises again:
For Beta0 testing Petr Mladek suggests getting the latest from
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/
(this machine builds and uploads quite frequently)
Thorsten Behrens suggests
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases
Hi Korrawit, all
So, what should we do to each group of bugs? Anyway, I'm not sure
whether there are how many bugs in each group, or even there is any
bug in some group. Maybe we need separate discussion?
This isn't simply a matter of checking and reporting bugs. It involves
the Quality of a
Hi Michael
Seems that Eike picked this to -3-4 shortly after you mentioned it ;-)
of course, if there are more annoying, but trivial / obvious fixes we
need to get into 3.4.5 it'd be great to know ASAP - the freeze for 3.4.5
RC1 is early next week, and I'd really like not to see
Hi Michael
Seems that Eike picked this to -3-4 shortly after you mentioned it ;-)
of course, if there are more annoying, but trivial / obvious fixes we
need to get into 3.4.5 it'd be great to know ASAP - the freeze for 3.4.5
RC1 is early next week, and I'd really like not to see
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the
upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be
enabled on the Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java tab page, and that
File - Wizards - Letter... (which uses Java) looks reasonable.
Would be
Hi Tor, all
Thank you for all the replies
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily
builds from the central
Hi Michael
There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the
master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't
include that fix?
Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1
will be coming next week or so I think).
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
feature branches and merges...
Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was
Hi Norbert
the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not
keep track of it.
I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to
provide a log file for each build
E.g.
I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time'
:) Thank you, then :)
Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into
Central repository before time X are included in the source that is
pulled after time X... I think?
And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info
Hi all
Looking at the Release Plan chart
http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png
and wiki
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3.
This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which
only
sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and
bear in mind timezone :-))
Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :)
for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since
otherwise you would not have found the file to start with.
Hi Andras
You use your Windows with an administrator account. It is not
recommended, however I know that many people do this. Therefore
LibreOffice can write into its own Program Files folder.
This is how all personal Windows XP PCs work. Only in
companies/schools/etc does it work
We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as
*only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human
convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier.
That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert
it is less reliable and at
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the
upcoming LO 3.4.5. I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be
enabled on the Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java tab page, and that
File - Wizards - Letter... (which uses Java) looks reasonable.
Would be
Hi Tor, all
Thank you for all the replies
Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version
control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I
understand it.
Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily
builds from the central
But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to
their local clones of it, and then at some (much) later stage push
outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are
feature branches and merges...
Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was the time a change was
http://people.canonical.com/~bjoern/bibisect-3.5.lzma
contains:
- 53 complete office installs between the creation of the core repo and the
-3-5 branchoff (thats 5000 commits)
- at 450MB each, that would be ~22GB total
- however, it is only 749MB total download size, thats 15MB per
Hi all
Looking at the Release Plan chart
http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png
and wiki
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3.
This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which
only
We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as
*only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human
convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier.
That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert
it is less reliable and at
Hi Petr, *
It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find
exactly the problems that it was supposed to find.
It is clear that we should have used the name alphaX. Well, the plan
was public and nobody protested against the beta0 name ;-)
You seem to be taking the
Hi Petr, *
It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find
exactly the problems that it was supposed to find.
It is clear that we should have used the name alphaX. Well, the plan
was public and nobody protested against the beta0 name ;-)
You seem to be taking the
We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed
in parallel with the stable release.
Excellent news!
Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is
scheduled for today?
Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases
on Windows
We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed
in parallel with the stable release.
Excellent news!
Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is
scheduled for today?
Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases
on Windows
Hi Rainer
Since you asked not to discuss on the Bug Tracker here is my opinion:
The function Back doesn't make any sense. If the idea is to Undo the
values that you changed and you haven't Saved then you already have
the Cancel button.
If the goal is to return to LO default values then the user
Hi Rainer
Since you asked not to discuss on the Bug Tracker here is my opinion:
The function Back doesn't make any sense. If the idea is to Undo the
values that you changed and you haven't Saved then you already have
the Cancel button.
If the goal is to return to LO default values then the user
Hi all
This is my final request about this subject.
Can you please make some sense out of the version naming convention?
I was about to reinstall version 3.4.4 (after it was overwritten by
3.5.0 Beta0) and I already had an unpacked install folder on my
desktop. The only way I could verify that
Hi again Andras
We have 5 repositories now: core, binfilter, dictionaries, help, and
translations. Therefore there are 5 git commit IDs in the About box
separated by dashes. These are good identifiers of the build, at least
these uniquely identify the source code that the build was made from.
Hi Korrawit
That is, if your 4f11d0a is the first group of IDs in About box, it's
the core repository's commit ID.
Yes, obviously. Sorry for the confusion.
I thought Andras was referring to the single 8 letter/number code
added to the Windows install folder name.
Where does that come from?
No need to know. It is just a random (or not so random) sequence of
hex digits. If nothing documents it to have some significance, don't
assume it to have any significance.
Thank you for the clarification. It does have some significance.
Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs
Hi Lionel
Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not
comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring
to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author)
timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch?
That would
No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our
current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string.
Oh, I see! But then it would be easier to use the pretty printing
date instead of having 2 strings to compare for each repository. That
would be a nice improvement.
What I was proposing
As posted already yesterday, it is not unlikely that beta1 will have about
the same troubles. If so, those will be fixed before beta2, which will make
that version fine for larger testing.
Really??? Not _unlikely_?
The Devs are actually going to release a Public Beta in this state?
I hope
Hi all
This is my final request about this subject.
Can you please make some sense out of the version naming convention?
I was about to reinstall version 3.4.4 (after it was overwritten by
3.5.0 Beta0) and I already had an unpacked install folder on my
desktop. The only way I could verify that
Hi again Andras
We have 5 repositories now: core, binfilter, dictionaries, help, and
translations. Therefore there are 5 git commit IDs in the About box
separated by dashes. These are good identifiers of the build, at least
these uniquely identify the source code that the build was made from.
On my build of the master (Build ID:
2c09f50-43e9388-090bcba-3bf3b94-05891e7 on Ubuntu 10.04 x86_64) the
button Close in the dialog Insert - Fields - Other... (Ctrl+F2) does
nothing. Other buttons (Insert and Help) work as expected. The only way
to close the dialog is to click the cross
Hi Korrawit
That is, if your 4f11d0a is the first group of IDs in About box, it's
the core repository's commit ID.
Yes, obviously. Sorry for the confusion.
I thought Andras was referring to the single 8 letter/number code
added to the Windows install folder name.
Where does that come from?
No need to know. It is just a random (or not so random) sequence of
hex digits. If nothing documents it to have some significance, don't
assume it to have any significance.
Thank you for the clarification. It does have some significance.
Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT IDs
Hi Lionel
Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not
comparable (one cannot say which one is greater) without referring
to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author)
timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch?
That would
Hi guys
I was copying cells between two open spreadsheets, one in 3.4.4 final
and another on LibO-dev 3.5.0 ( a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94) aka
master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35 from Win-x86@6
When I pasted a cell containing a formula, it got pasted as the
resulting value. This happens both ways.
No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our
current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string.
Oh, I see! But then it would be easier to use the pretty printing
date instead of having 2 strings to compare for each repository. That
would be a nice improvement.
What I was proposing
May I add to the known limitations listed below that the Icon showing
on the program window for all applications in Windows is the
StarOffice 5.2 icon?
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42979
Although this has been dismissed as cosmetic, it is a regression from
3.4 and it is a major
May I add to the known limitations listed below that the Icon showing
on the program window for all applications in Windows is the
StarOffice 5.2 icon?
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42979
Although this has been dismissed as cosmetic, it is a regression from
3.4 and it is a major
Hi Christian
I.e. does the number of errors
potentially affect the quality and reliability of the binaries?
Not necessarily. But it would be suspicious if for example the Mac
ones that are below 10 errors suddenly spike to 50 or more and still
be green. Then it is worth to have a look what
So if Tinderbox #9 finished successfully 2 days ago with 176 errors
and today with 846(!!!), doesn't that sound suspicious?
Yes, it does - but only if it is the same machine, the same builder.
In your initial post you were comparing different builders, and there
it is rather irrelevant.
No
Excellent! Thank you all for the answers ;)
Now onto some real bug swatting :)
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Hi Rainer
and we should try to waste as few as many time as possible. For me it's
annoying to have to check every day various folders whether we have new
builds. currently I mostly search in vain, and sometimes I find something I
can't use;
You can speedup the process by looking into
78 matches
Mail list logo
