Rimas Kudelis píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 08:31 +0200:
> 2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė:
>>> Maybe QA has a different meaning for me. But it really pisses me off
>>> the lack of concern about these details.
I wonder where this strong opinion comes from. How often do you check
about dialogs in other ap
Hi,
2012/2/15 Petr Mladek :
> 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
> another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
>
> Will this be enough for QA people?
>
>
> 5. Wait if real users complain.
>
> Olav says, that they already complain?
>
>
> I prefer the 4th solu
Petr Mladek wrote:
> > One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is
> > easily would be to implement my suggestion from
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about
> > dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this:
> >
> > LibreOffice 3.5.0
Petr Mladek schrieb:
LibreOffice 3.5.0
Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3
Hi Petr,
indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists.
I prefer your suggestion (or similar):
Version: 3.5
Tag: 3.x.y.z
Buid-ID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
NO RC info, we can publish such relations in the
On 15/02/12 07:31, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
> I think the other vendors do it the other way around (well, at least
> Mozilla does, AFAIR): their RC releases indicate themselves as final, so
> after renaming, this simply becomes true, and no recompilation is necessary.
rebuilding sounds like a bad i
Rainer Bielefeld píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:28 +0100:
> Petr Mladek schrieb:
>
> >> LibreOffice 3.5.0
> >> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3
Hmm, I do not like "LibreOffice twice. :-)
> Hi Petr,
>
> indeed, i Rea several questions in user mailing lists.
>
> I prefer your suggestion (or similar):
Andras Timar píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 13:07 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/2/15 Petr Mladek :
> > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
> > another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
> >
> > Will this be enough for QA people?
> >
> >
> > 5. Wait if real users complain.
>
Hi Petr,
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
>another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
>
>Will this be enough for QA people?
Of course; this might have the opposite problem that people wil
Hi all,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:48:56PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Petr,
>
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 12:20 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > 4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
> >another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.
> >
> >Will this be enough f
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Also detecting the tag might be a bit error prone. If you want to
> extract a tag in git, it creates just another branch. I am not sure how
> to safely detect that it was created from a branch.
And if you build from source tarball
Hi Petr, all
Petr Mladek wrote
>
> What about having the following for the beta builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
> BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
>
> and the following for rc builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
> BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
>
On Wednesday 15 February 2012, Petr Mladek wrote:
> What about having the following for the beta builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
> BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
>
> and the following for rc builds:
>
> LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
> BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorio
Petr Mladek schrieb:
What about having the following for the beta builds:
LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
and the following for rc builds:
LibreOffice 3.5.0.x
BuildID: iwohm-noinaog-nzorioinoih-mfowiom
Hi,
for me that solu
A second try, after sending this message just to Rainer - sorry for that
Am 15.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Florian Reisinger:
Am 15.02.2012 18:10, schrieb Rainer Bielefeld:
Petr Mladek schrieb:
What about having the following for the beta builds:
LibreOffice 3.5.0beta1
BuildID: iwohm-noin
On 15/02/12 18:29, Florian Reisinger wrote:
> A second try, after sending this message just to Rainer - sorry for that
>
> Am 15.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Florian Reisinger:
>> Am 15.02.2012 18:10, schrieb Rainer Bielefeld:
>>> Petr Mladek schrieb:
>>>
What about having the following for the bet
Hi Nino,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 05:45:00PM +0100, Nino Novak wrote:
> However you decide - any chance to have the same strings returned also when
> invoking "libreoffice --version" cli command? (consistency ...)
Sounds good to me. I would assume Petr to do the relevant changes for the
About-Di
Hi all,
I added a bibisecting Howto to the wiki, please try getting started with
bibisecting and report back if you are missing information on how to proceed.
And remember: Bibisecting a bug will make it much more likely that your bug
will be fixed quickly as a bibisected regression is much easier
Hi Petr,
could you please update the ReleasePlan wiki page[1] and add
tags around the table under Blocker Bug Nomination?
I'd like to transclude the table into the German translated page so that it
gets updated automatically there.
(I've just tried it with a test page so it has been proved to
18 matches
Mail list logo
