janI wrote:
Apache 4.x is available (and now even faster) for continued work by all
translators
Perfect. So we settled on "Apache OpenOffice 4.x" as descriptive name,
with "aoo40" as machine name. This is actually very good, so links will
be preserved.
If anybody want to work on a languag
On 9 August 2013 09:17, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/8/13 4:33 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 8 August 2013 15:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/8/13 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>> On 07/08/2013 janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > We have to convert them
On 8/8/13 4:33 PM, janI wrote:
> On 8 August 2013 15:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/13 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2013 janI wrote:
On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> We have to convert them all in po, merge
> against the latest templates from 4.0
On 8 August 2013 15:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/8/13 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > On 07/08/2013 janI wrote:
> >> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>> We have to convert them all in po, merge
> >>> against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure
> >>> pla
On 8/8/13 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> We have to convert them all in po, merge
>>> against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure
>>> place/project and use new languages on demand
>> No problem, I
On 07/08/2013 janI wrote:
On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
We have to convert them all in po, merge
against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure
place/project and use new languages on demand
No problem, I would have preferred another way, but this is less work no
On 8/8/13 10:15 AM, janI wrote:
> On 8 August 2013 08:06, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/13 8:44 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Sch
On 8 August 2013 08:06, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 8:44 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> >>> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > On 8/7/13 1:51 P
On 8/7/13 8:44 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt w
On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On 8/7/13 11:47
On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt
On 8/7/13 2:04 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI
On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> >> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On 8/6/13 6:4
On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andre
On 7 August 2013 13:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> >>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>
> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 6 August 2013 17:1
On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> > On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> >>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
> > On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, And
On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> It is important that we don't fa
On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> > On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >
> >> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >>>
> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, s
On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
>>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
>>> need to be evaluated aga
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate
the old proposed bloc
On 6 August 2013 15:05, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
>> high-urgency issues? [...]
>>
>
> Good plan. I'm adding some remarks below, to see the release not only from
> the users point of view, but from the community pe
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
>>> high-urgency issues? [...]
>>
>> Good plan. I'm adding some remarks below, to see the release not only
>> from
On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
>> high-urgency issues? [...]
>
> Good plan. I'm adding some remarks below, to see the release not only
> from the users point of view, but from the community perspective t
Rob Weir wrote:
a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
high-urgency issues? [...]
Good plan. I'm adding some remarks below, to see the release not only
from the users point of view, but from the community perspective too.
3) Use the "release blocker" flag to propose
On 6 August 2013 06:51, O.Felka wrote:
> Am 05.08.2013 23:34, schrieb David Gerard:
>
>> On 5 August 2013 22:32, janI wrote:
>>
>>> When I consider what I hear in the "real" world, I would prefer a fast
>>> release, solving the most important issues. We always have the
>>> possibility
>>> to make
Am 05.08.2013 23:34, schrieb David Gerard:
On 5 August 2013 22:32, janI wrote:
When I consider what I hear in the "real" world, I would prefer a fast
release, solving the most important issues. We always have the possibility
to make a 4.02 if really needed.
x.0.x releases monthly are the wa
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 5 August 2013 22:32, janI wrote:
> >
> >> When I consider what I hear in the "real" world, I would prefer a fast
> >> release, solving the most important issues. We always have the
> pos
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 22:32, janI wrote:
>
>> When I consider what I hear in the "real" world, I would prefer a fast
>> release, solving the most important issues. We always have the possibility
>> to make a 4.02 if really needed.
>
>
> x.0.x relea
On 5 August 2013 22:32, janI wrote:
> When I consider what I hear in the "real" world, I would prefer a fast
> release, solving the most important issues. We always have the possibility
> to make a 4.02 if really needed.
x.0.x releases monthly are the way to go. I think LibreOffice really
got t
On 5 August 2013 21:55, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> > Am 08/05/2013 08:16 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >
> >> It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
> >> hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed. So I wonder if we can aim
>
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
> hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed. So I wonder if we can aim
> for a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
> high-urgency issues? We could al
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 08/05/2013 08:16 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
>> hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed. So I wonder if we can aim
>> for a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to addres
Am 08/05/2013 08:16 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed. So I wonder if we can aim
for a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
high-urgency issues? We could also use this opp
Top posting.
+1.
The quality of 4.0 is beyond what we used to see in the past. There are many
users rather disappointed in the forum, especially Calc users. Many have to
downgrade.
The sooner we correct that, the better, especially if we can do that before
September.
Hagar
Le 05/08/2013 20
It looks like some regressions slipped through into AOO 4.0.0, and I'd
hate to wait until 4.1 to see them fixed. So I wonder if we can aim
for a 4.0.1 release in the next few weeks to address the specific
high-urgency issues? We could also use this opportunity to roll in
whatever new translation
37 matches
Mail list logo
