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
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Linux_x86_Release_Configuration/libr
> 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 a
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
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Linux_x86_Release_Configuration/libreoffice-3-5/
It is done on the release build machine => it shou
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
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
> discussion right here.
>
+1
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 comm
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 tar
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 prop
Hi Pedro,
On Friday, 2011-12-09 20:34:34 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> I urge everybody to make sure that EVERY regression detected from
> 3.3.x to 3.4.x is fixed/added to the 3.4 branch
>
> E.g. A bug fix such as this
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
> needs to be "cherry picke
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 differen
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 02:13:12PM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino 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
Hi Petr,
Petr Mladek wrote (09-12-11 18:20)
could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the
libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them.
good idea!
[...]
Linux (still not uploaded):
will have to wait for those though ;-)
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.or
> 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 Pedro,
Pedro Lino wrote (09-12-11 21:34)
I think this carries (from a QA point of vue) a much heavier
responsibility and care than the change from 3.4.4 to 3.5.0 (which is
"experimental")
Thanks. I agree with all you write, also the snipped parts.
Bugs that will not be fixed in 3.4.5, will
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
h
2011/12/9 Pedro Lino :
>
> 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 Files folder.
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
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Pedro Lino 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 after time X..
> 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 s
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Lino wrote:
> 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.
> http://dev-builds
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.
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/lib
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 the about dialog from the tested
> build. We might
Hi Rainer,
2011/12/9 Rainer Bielefeld :
> Petr Mladek schrieb:
>> could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the
>> libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them.
>
> is that a parallel installer?
>
Yes, it is.
BTW I can tell that it installed fine on my Windows XP32.
Petr Mladek schrieb:
Hi guys,
could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the
libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them.
Hi,
is that a parallel installer?
CU
Rainer
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail ad
Hi guys,
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 the about dialog from the tested
build. We might want to
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Pedro Lino 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 merges...
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 a
> 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 <1
Hi there,
just a short forward of this little post on the developer list, which might be
very interesting for QA guys too.
Best,
Bjoern
- Forwarded message from Bjoern Michaelsen
-
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 14:59:53 +0100
From: Bjoern Michaelsen
To: [email protected]
Sub
Cor Nouws wrote (29-11-11 21:36)
Will post more details soon :-)
Ah well, what is soon ;-)
On the wiki, I added a section with the draft for the later to create
separate wiki page:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5#DRAFT_for_page_with_info_for_bug-hunting_sessio
> 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
> 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
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).
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 repos
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 10:05 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both
> > upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5.
...
> 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
> 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" repositor
> 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.
>
> Wou
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
