Re: AOO 4.1.9 Info

Hi all, Am 27.12.20 um 14:49 schrieb Jim Jagielski: > The AOO419 branch has been created. > The version numbers, et.al. have been bumped. > The Release Status page has been cloned: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.9 First test builds for Windows are available at: h

Re: AOO 4.1.9 Info

Am 27.12.20 um 14:49 schrieb Jim Jagielski: The AOO419 branch has been created. The version numbers, et.al. have been bumped. The Release Status page has been cloned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.9 thanks a lot for making this effort - and to wear the release ma

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...? > On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >

Re: [lazy consensus] Addition in release notes because of Big Sur (was: How should we proceed with BigSur?)

Am 27.12.20 um 19:30 schrieb Dave Fisher: On Dec 27, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: On Dec 27, 2020, at 04:39, Jörg Schmidt wrote: -Original Message- From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 12:50 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often. First

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM Peter Kovacs wrote: > > On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog > > article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article > > moot with the actual release? > > Yes I think it

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

All good points, which was exactly what I was looking, and hoping, for. Thx. Glad to see that people are actually thinking hard about these things not only from a community development aspect, but also from a, for lack of a better word, strategic viewpoint. > On Dec 28, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Peter

RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

> -Original Message- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:18 PM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: > [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur) > > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually >

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes I think it is worth it and we should

Proposed change for download page

Hello, there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit. The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version. I would therefore like to suggest that in

Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit. The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version. I wo

RE: Proposed change for download page

Hello, > -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page > > Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: > > there was currently in the forum the cas

Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: Hello, -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: there was cur

Re: Proposed change for download page

https://www.openoffice.org/download/ also refers to OS X <=10.6 versions, which we do not provide. That should be removed as well, IMO. > On Dec 28, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > Hello, > > there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also > available

Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 16:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski: https://www.openoffice.org/download/ also refers to OS X <=10.6 versions, which we do not provide. That should be removed as well, IMO. when you select this item, then you get a hint what you can do instead. IMHO we have agreed in the past that thi

Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus: Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb

RE: Proposed change for download page

> -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:42 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page > I've prepared the update: > https://openoffice-org.staged.apache.org/download/index.html > > If i

Re: Proposed change for download page

Hi Marcus, Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus: > Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >> Hello, >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] >>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Proposed change for

RE: Proposed change for download page

> -Original Message- > From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:58 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page > > Hi Marcus, > > Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus: > > Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 sch

Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 16:58 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Hi Marcus, Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus: Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: Hello, -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject:

Re: Proposed change for download page

Hi Marcus, Am 28.12.20 um 17:27 schrieb Marcus: > Am 28.12.20 um 16:58 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Hi Marcus, >> >> Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus: >>> Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: Hello, > -Original Message- > From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]

RE: Proposed change for download page

> -Original Message- > From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de] > Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 5:31 PM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page > > > Please note that the download page for every language needs > > to

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article moot with the actual release? Yes

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus: Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote: Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs: On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote: Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog article about this a

Re: Call for Proposals: Apache OpenOffice Devroom at FOSDEM 2021 (online)

Last call: don't be shy! Let's take FOSDEM as an occasion for an overall "state of the project" where we inform each other on the current status and ways forward. All talks will be pre-recorded as Peter wrote, so no problem with timezones; but after each talk we will have a live "questions and

Re: Call for Proposals: Apache OpenOffice Devroom at FOSDEM 2021 (online)

Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Last call: don't be shy! Let's take FOSDEM as an occasion for an overall > "state of the project" where we inform each other on the current status and > ways forward. > > All talks will be pre-recorded as Peter

Re: MWiki Developer Guide Blank Pages

On 17/12/2020 Carl Marcum wrote: I think I've fixed the blank pages problem in the Developer Guide. ...and I think I've read all the MWiki-related mails sent to this list by now, so I'll answer! Thank you guys for fixing the long-standing bug. I documented, back at the time, the MWiki setup

Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote: my personal opinion is very simple: for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the current state of the web pages, a history is not needed (in my opinion). This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, like the main OpenOffice.org site)