On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Joel Madero wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> So we need to set an official, every two week (or maybe 3?) time for our
> meetings...I say we set it in stone, we
> either meet that day or we cancel the meeting (no more moving it around, I
> think it gives a bad message, leads to
Hi All,
So we need to set an official, every two week (or maybe 3?) time for our
meetings. Mostly this has been at 1300 GMT/UTC (before 1400 GMT/UTC) on
every other Friday. This time is *slightly* inconvenient for me (quite
early) but if it's the easiest on everyone else I say we set it in
st
Hello Yifan, *,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:03:33PM +0800, Yifan Jiang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
[import of old test cases]
> > AFAIK, Yi Fan already ported all useful test cases. I think that he
> > ignored some trivial tests that did not make much sense.
Actually, what I mentioned in the previous email refers to Tinderbox #6
Oddly enough, Tinderbox #16 (still named W2008R2...) hasn't failed since
April 1st because it is not compiling since then :)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Master-daily-builds-for-Win
Le 10/04/13 17:50, Dan Lewis a écrit :
Hi Dan,
> I have filed this bug because I can not get LibreOffice to test
> the settings I enter into
> Tools > Options > LibreOffice Writer > Main Merge. It freezes everytime.
> All the information I enter is copied from the Account Settings in
> Thun
I have filed this bug because I can not get LibreOffice to test
the settings I enter into
Tools > Options > LibreOffice Writer > Main Merge. It freezes everytime.
All the information I enter is copied from the Account Settings in
Thunderbird. I have verified that the password I entered wil
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I see that you both use a bit different logic, so we need to decide how
> we count the 6 and 9 months. I understand it the following way:
>
> + the release is defined by the minor version release, e.g. 3.6
> or 4.0
>
Robinson Tryon píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 10:12 -0400:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Rainer Bielefeld
> Rainer wrote:
> "So I believe we should mark the not-release-3.3 as inactive, what means
> they will stay for the bugs where they are used, but can not be used for
> new bug reports (except by
Robinson Tryon wrote:
Rainer described
this as "not-release-3.3 [builds]". I think we're mostly in agreement
Hi Robinson,
I hope so. Priority for decisions how to use the Versions Picker are
developers' needs, and their interest (as Michael stated) is to find out
where the bug appeared (for
Robinson Tryon wrote
> Oh, certainly. Perhaps Pedro meant that we shouldn't remove *all* of
> the 3.3 builds from the picker, for this very reason. Rainer described
> this as "not-release-3.3 [builds]". I think we're mostly in agreement
> here :-)
Yes, exactly. I just read the title of Rainer othe
Michael Meeks píše v St 10. 04. 2013 v 10:25 +0100:
> Hi Robinson,
>
> On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 19:52 -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> > As Pedro mentioned, and as far as I understand it, our next step is to
> > pick an EOL date for each of our builds and then go update the wiki
> > pages. I'd be happy
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:04:48AM -0700, Pedro wrote:
>> The point here is that if a version is past the EOL and nobody will fix bugs
>> in that branch, there is no point in reporting bugs first observed in 3.4 or
>> 3.5 (otherwise you
Hi Rainer
Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
> you are completely wrong, I doubt that you read the linked texts.
I did read the texts. Have you considered the hypothesis that YOU might be
wrong?
You are confusing QA work with a reporter's work. Someone who submits a bug
is going to report the version whe
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:04:48AM -0700, Pedro wrote:
> The point here is that if a version is past the EOL and nobody will fix bugs
> in that branch, there is no point in reporting bugs first observed in 3.4 or
> 3.5 (otherwise you should NOT remove 3.3 from the list either)
Nope. That a bug app
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Rainer Bielefeld
wrote:
> Pedro wrote:
>
>> Does this also mean that 3.4 versions can already be removed from the
>> bugzilla Version picker? And 3.5 versions after the 18th of this month?
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> no, we can't. Version info in BZ should show where the bug
On 04/10/2013 07:55 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:36:20PM -0400, Dan Lewis wrote:
Next question. Has there been a change in where LibreOffice is
located? I installed LibreOffice 3.6.6.2 using the commands you gave
me above. This installed it in /usr/lib/libreoffi
Pedro schrieb:
The point here is that if a version is past the EOL and nobody will fix bugs
in that branch, there is no point in reporting bugs first observed in 3.4 or
3.5 (otherwise you should NOT remove 3.3 from the list either)
Hi Pedro,
you are completely wrong, I doubt that you read the
Hi Rainer
Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
> Version info in BZ should show where the bug appeared (or
> at least has been observed the first time)
The point here is that if a version is past the EOL and nobody will fix bugs
in that branch, there is no point in reporting bugs first observed in 3.4 or
3
Pedro wrote:
Does this also mean that 3.4 versions can already be removed from the
bugzilla Version picker? And 3.5 versions after the 18th of this month?
Hi Pedro,
no, we can't. Version info in BZ should show where the bug appeared (or
at least has been observed the first time), also see
<
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:36:20PM -0400, Dan Lewis wrote:
> Next question. Has there been a change in where LibreOffice is
> located? I installed LibreOffice 3.6.6.2 using the commands you gave
> me above. This installed it in /usr/lib/libreoffice rather than
> /opt/libreoffice3.6. As a res
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
> Seems reasonable - 3.6.x will last a bit longer because of the jump to
> 4.0 I think; currently planned at 9 months.
So End of Life occurs 6 months after the official release date of the final
release for each branch (usually final version is x.x.7) and occurs after 9
Hi Robinson,
On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 19:52 -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> As Pedro mentioned, and as far as I understand it, our next step is to
> pick an EOL date for each of our builds and then go update the wiki
> pages. I'd be happy to help update the ReleaseNotes wiki pages, or to
> ping pmlade
The last successful build is from April 8th at 5 AM.
Dev support needed here :)
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Master-daily-builds-for-Windows-are-broken-tp4048968.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rainer Bielefeld schrieb:
I am thinking about a Version picker cleanup by removing most 3.3.
Versions.
Hi,
unfortunately that only will bring progress for the Bugzilla Version
Dropdowns, but not for the BSA Vrsion selectors before a fix for "Bug
55460 - BUGZILLAASSISTANT: Exclude inactive v
24 matches
Mail list logo
