Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

Hi! Here an older mail... It was not sent to the list, only to Rainer... I skipped everything, but my schema... Am 07.06.2012 15:01, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi there! [...] [Second schema] 3.6.0.00x for alphas 3.6.0.0x0 for betas 3.6.0.100 for RC (example) and/or release 3.6.0.200 for RC

[Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.6.0 beta1 available

Hi *, for the upcoming new version 3.6.0, we today upload a first beta1 build that is (almost) feature-complete. For further milestones on the way towards 3.6.0, please refer to our release plan timings here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.6_release Builds are now being upload

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Submission Assistant Update

Rainer Bielefeld wrote: > I added the missing new components on > and renamed > "Printing / PDF export", with a little luck now the update should > work. > Yep, works. Cheers, -- Thorsten Behrens SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5,

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 11:14:05PM +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote: > And yes, the "we" here is now including you, Joel. :-) Apropos: If you are able, it would be great if you could join the next QA call - it will be on 2012-06-12 14:00 UTC. Some things are easier to coordinate on the pho

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

On 08/06/12 18:33, Joel Madero wrote: > I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a > helpful classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel > like we should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner. this state does exist, it is called "NEW

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a helpful classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel like we should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner. This could be as simple as making it ASSIGNED TO and have it blank or just default l

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Hello Joel, all, First, a big thank you from me! :-) On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Joel Madero wrote: > 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm doing > the following if there hasn't been action for 30+ days: > a. If it's stated that the bug was fixed in a recent re

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:13:10PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > Why is the ~ necessary? Just do > + 3.X.YalphaZ - for alpha releases > + 3.X.YbetaZ- for beta releases > + 3.X.Y.Z - for release candidates > > And to answer your question for pkgsrc: it knows about "a

[Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

I guess my next question is, if I'm not an "experienced user", can I really be messing with this at all? I think the flow isn't great and it would be much better to have a CONFIRMED status and then for the developers to assign themselves to projects, preferably tackling higher priority bugs first a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > 1. About dialog: > > > It has to be user friendly. Last release candidate is the final build, > so we must not mention "RC" in the version. The current scheme is: > > + 3.X.Y alphaZ - for alpha release >

[Libreoffice-qa] Bug Submission Assistant Update

Hi Thorsten, I added the missing new components on and renamed "Printing / PDF export", with a little luck now the update should work. Can you please try again? Best regards Rainer ___ List N

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't > say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I > would mark as NEEDINFO. I think that this is a bad policy as we can't > expect users t

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

One more thing to add to this. Last night when I did some (I think I did about 25-50 so it wasn't too many) I was doing the following: If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I would mark as NEE

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:57:15PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > > Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: > > > > > > 3.6.0~alpha1 > > > 3.6.0~al

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > > Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: > > > > > > 3.6.0~alpha1 > > > 3.6.0~alpha1

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Well, a 3.6.0~alpha1 would appear as 3.6.0alpha1 in about with a underlined > ;-) > Unless you escape it somewhere. (bdtd, but it's so minor that I ignored it > whenever I uploaded something like that) Also, ~ has a meaning in gi

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: > > > > 3.6.0~alpha1 > > 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 > > 3.6.0~beta1 > > 3.6.0.1 > > I really like it. I

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:45:11PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: > > > > 3.6.0~alpha1 > > 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 > > 3.6.0~beta1 > > 3.6.0.1 > > I really like it. I woul

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 17:25 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Just as an hint. Ubuntu/Debian would use something like: > > 3.6.0~alpha1 > 3.6.0~alpha1+daily20120606 > 3.6.0~beta1 > 3.6.0.1 I really like it. I would like to use it in the future for git tags and source tarballs. The problem m

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Alpha1 available from ppa [was: LibreOffice 3.6.0 ALPHA1 test builds available]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 02:25:13PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > Ubuntu Precise builds are for Ubuntu Precise and nothing else. That being > > said, > > this alpha release contains a packaging bug still that makes testing it very > > hard: The styles are not yet found at their current location. >

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Hi Joel, On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:49:52PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over at > freedesktop bugs > [...] > I hope I'm not overstepping, just trying to help as much as possible as it > seems like there is a bit of a back log. If th

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Alpha1 available from ppa [was: LibreOffice 3.6.0 ALPHA1 test builds available]

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 00:41 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:26:55AM +0530, dE . wrote: > > Are these static builds? Cause when extracting from RPMs, they complained > > of missing libpng on Gentoo. I guess that dE is talking about the upstream builds from http://dev-bu

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Hi Joel, On 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > 1. If there has been a request for information and there has been no > response for 30+ days I'm putting NEEDINFO > > 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm > doing the following if there hasn't been action

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.6.0 ALPHA1 test builds available

2012/6/8 Michael Meeks : > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 00:36 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 10:45:51AM -0700, Pedro wrote: >> > Does "Bad luck" mean "Tough luck for Windows 2000 users because we are not >> > even going to try to fix that"? >> >> Also please consider yourself

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.6.0 ALPHA1 test builds available

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 00:36 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 10:45:51AM -0700, Pedro wrote: > > Does "Bad luck" mean "Tough luck for Windows 2000 users because we are not > > even going to try to fix that"? > > Also please consider yourself part of "we". Ah - I t

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Hi Joel, On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: > Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over > at freedesktop bugs This is prolly best on the libreoffice-qa list (I just CC'd it) - but it's interesting on the hackers list too. Your cleanup sounds

[Libreoffice-qa] [Fwd: Re: Cleaning bug list]

I guess this should have been CC'd here ... Forwarded Message From: Joel Madero To: Rainer Bielefeld Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Cleaning bug list Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:49:52 -0700 Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over

[Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...

* Present: + Norbert, Eike, Stephan, Bjoern, Markus, Michael M, Rainer, Michael S, Mirek, Andras, Kendy, Petr, Cedric * Completed Action Items + 3.6 blocker: Java not detected on Windows (fixed thanks to Stephan) + send list of new bugzilla component names (Michae