[Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-06 Thread Pedro
I would sincerely like to thank TDF for totally ignoring QA people. http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Dailies-by-banch-td4021883.html Although I agree that structuring the Dailies in a more user friendly is a good idea maybe the people who use it daily could be consulted... BTW is this wha

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-06 Thread Michael Meeks
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 03:08 -0800, Pedro wrote: > I would sincerely like to thank TDF for totally ignoring QA people. Surely it was input from people doing QA and wanting to encourage others to do so that caused the change ? we're always trying to improve. I'm sorry if the way the change

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-06 Thread Pedro
Michael Meeks-2 wrote > I'm sorry you're upset - apologies if we broke some workflow / links of > yours. On the other hand - asking for some new symlinks can be done more > elegantly :-) So, in your book what is really important here is that the symlinks could be better and that I was rude?

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-06 Thread mariosv
Hi Pedro, I am with what you want. But, go in a nice way, on how to get the things are made, I think is always better. Sometimes the technicians are in their own world, and do not see how others are colaborating, and how important are all colaborations for the project. At the end the only target fo

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Pedro, On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 08:11 -0800, Pedro wrote: > You (whoever did this) Actually, I've no idea who did this :-) we should find out, perhaps Norbert knows. > could have done exactly the same while showing some consideration for the > few people who still bother with QA and anno

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Petr Mladek
Hi, Pedro píše v Čt 06. 12. 2012 v 08:11 -0800: > You (whoever did this) could have done exactly the same while showing some > consideration for the few people who still bother with QA and announcing the > changes here first. Apologies are nice but avoiding having to apologize is > much better...

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Pedro
Hi Michael Michael Meeks-2 wrote >> BTW the build organization improved a lot. Well done! > > So you're generally happy with the change ? [ it'd be nice to avoid the > back-compat symlinks if that works for everyone since they'd clutter the > top-level with two inter-mingled un-related con

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Pedro
Hi Petr Petr Mladek wrote > PS: Sigh, I need some time to recover from depress. I wanted to do > something good effectively and did not expected so strong negative > reaction :-( > > -snip- > > Is the change really so painful? Sigh I do believe you are over-worked. There is really no need to b

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Petr Mladek
Pedro píše v Pá 07. 12. 2012 v 05:55 -0800: > Hi Petr > > > Petr Mladek wrote > > PS: Sigh, I need some time to recover from depress. I wanted to do > > something good effectively and did not expected so strong negative > > reaction :-( > > > > -snip- > > > > Is the change really so painful? Si

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Petr Mladek
Pedro píše v Pá 07. 12. 2012 v 04:42 -0800: > Hi Michael > > > Michael Meeks-2 wrote > >> BTW the build organization improved a lot. Well done! > > > > So you're generally happy with the change ? [ it'd be nice to avoid the > > back-compat symlinks if that works for everyone since they'd clu

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Dailies by branch

2012-12-07 Thread Pedro
Hi Petr Petr Mladek wrote > In fact, I do not understand why the mail was so negative when you like > the change after all. Because the final result was good. As you started moving items around you left folders with different contents for the same tinderbox because symlinks worked only in one