On 12/08/2011 05:19 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
+ back-port Java 7 to 3.4 if no show-stopping regressions in B0
(Stephan)
AA: + enable Java 7 in 3.4.5 check RC1 feedback (Stephan)
Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the
upcoming LO 3.4.5. I
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
I'm new to this QA system, but wouldn't it be useful to know when
(date/time) this was added?
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.
Sure, in our case there are central repositories
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
I'm interest in the time a change was committed to the central
repository by a developer
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
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,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:43:11PM +, Pedro Lino wrote:
What do you mean complete office install?
A dev-install with these configure-flags:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/bibisect/build.sh#n34
So no mozilla/binfilter/help/dictionaries, but most bugs
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
2011/12/9 Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com:
I uninstalled it sometime later and found all these leftovers
http://db.tt/GbdTzk0y
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
Petr Mladek wrote:
could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the
libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them.
[snip]
I suggest to use the last daily builds from the following tinderboxes:
For your convenience, I've copied the latest builds over to
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino pedl...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
So, really, rather than time at which the tinderbox pulled, I argue
that recorded commit time of the HEAD node is a better identifier to
put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a
branch) a proper
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:04:36AM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
So, really, rather than time at which the tinderbox pulled, I argue
that recorded commit time of the HEAD node is a better identifier to
put in tarball
Pedro Lino píše v Pá 09. 12. 2011 v 19:07 +:
Hi all
could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the
libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them.
It would be great if you replay this mail and describe your feeling.
Please mention the git commit IDs from
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote:
Hi,
Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*)
Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight.
The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the
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
Petr Mladek píše v So 10. 12. 2011 v 00:54 +0100:
Cor Nouws píše v Pá 09. 12. 2011 v 22:44 +0100:
Linux (still not uploaded):
will have to wait for those though ;-)
Fridrich uploaded 32-bit build at
20 matches
Mail list logo
