On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:31:55 +0200
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Thursday 18 of August 2011, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > Is that true in practice? Sw and writerfilter have a hard
> > depedency on
>
> Correction: Writerfilter does not. It doesn't change anything though.
How does sw? With a quick look I n
Is there any way we could have our own api website too? And possibly
improve the documentation?
Could we do that under a nice license like CC-non commercial?
--
Marc-André Laverdière
Software Security Scientist
Innovation Labs, Tata Consultancy Services
Hyderabad, India
On Thu 18 Aug 2011 02:04
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> However, I can't help noticing that the template layout is ... er, not
> suitable for easy use:
>
How about attached patch? Does that address your points?
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
diff --git a/TEMPLATE.SOURCECODE.HEADER b/TEMPLATE.SOURCECODE.HEADER
index 974b321..f1fa4c2 100644
On Thursday 18 of August 2011, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:31:55 +0200
>
> Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 of August 2011, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > > Is that true in practice? Sw and writerfilter have a hard
> > > depedency on
> >
> > Correction: Writerfilter does not.
Hi Lubos,
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:59:49 +0200
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> grep msfilter sw/Library_*.mk
Meh, I am not fully awake yet. Yes, sw uses filter. The structure is
still true and valid for the rest of the project. There were some
exceptions (marked in red on the picture), most of them where r
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> So without much ado the simplified layout that I myself find sane
> (and hopefully you will like it too):
>
> d.tdf.o <- domain
> |
> \ - PACKAGENAME (if the hosted packages are more than libreoffice)
> |
> \ - latest (symlink to latest version folder)
>
julien2412 wrote:
> I rm -rf connectivity + comphelper to be sure, without success.
> Would it need a "make clean && make" ?
>
Hi Julien, Kohei fixed that meanwhile - always good to look at
http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html if you
experience a breakage (and either go back to an e
On Thursday 18 of August 2011, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > However, I can't help noticing that the template layout is ... er, not
> > suitable for easy use:
>
> How about attached patch? Does that address your points?
It does, but does it really need to be so chatty to repea
Marc-André Laverdière wrote:
> Is there any way we could have our own api website too? And possibly
> improve the documentation?
> Could we do that under a nice license like CC-non commercial?
>
Well, only if we write the content under that license. :)
(FWIW, the OOo DevGuide is PDL-licensed, th
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 00:41 +0200, Xisco Faulí wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I took a look to the problem related to the Adress Data Souce Wizard
> ( it's not loaded on master ) and it's not caused by the changes i've
> been working on.
Yeah, I looked into that.
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/
Hi *,
for 3.4.3 rc1, we're now uploading builds to a public (but
non-mirrored - so don't spread news too widely!) place, as soon as
they're available. Grab them here:
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/
If you've a bit of time, please give them a try & report *critical*
bugs not yet
Hi all,
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:21:54 +0200
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> It does, but does it really need to be so chatty to repeat the
> obvious facts that each contributor's copyright relates only to
> portions created by that contributor and that all rights are reserved
> by each contributor? I was t
Astron wrote:
> I've attached a new patch and a screenshot to the bug (no one expected
> this any more, I know...). Does anyone want to have a look [1]?
> It basically changes the caption again (to "Embed OpenDocument file")
> and adds a little descriptive line. I'd love if someone code review
> bo
Hi,
I have just pushed the ccache for MSVC to dev-tools:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/ccache-msvc
>From the README.txt it should be pretty obvious what to do to make it
work for you on Windows, so hope it will help you :-)
I have no measurements how much does i
Hi,
I think Kohei has covered most of the questions below but..
On 17/08/11 19:49, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Hi,
[...]
So I don't know when to close a bug. When it is fixed in master?
yes, and normally the committer does that, is it a rule? I don't know,
it's just what I and at least I know o
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 01:57 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Guards are used and badly abused in the code, especially with the
> infamous SolarMutex...
> anything that would make that code slower or fatter than it already is
> (with virtual functions and all), especially for corner-case
> 'you-are
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 23:08 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Hi Dmitry - yes, the two different methods are surely confusing. As
> for the "wrong value", that very much depends on the mental model of
> rectangles you're using. In a discrete geometry world (aka "pixel"),
> the GetWidth() is correct
Noel Power wrote (18-08-11 11:16)
For example, bug #40079; it is fixed in master, so I closed it. But
now it shows up as not blocking "LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs"
anymore (it is striked out),
when we want a bug to be fixed in the 3.4 release then we need to get
the patch into the gener
Hi Cor,
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 22:49 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be backported in this case? ...
>
> That is a separate decision. And if the choice is no, there still is the
> problem: bug fixed in master, and is tricked out in most annoying for
> 3.4.x ..
Ah - but if it is
On 18/08/11 10:39, Cor Nouws wrote:
Noel Power wrote (18-08-11 11:16)
For example, bug #40079; it is fixed in master, so I closed it. But
now it shows up as not blocking "LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs"
anymore (it is striked out),
when we want a bug to be fixed in the 3.4 release then we
Michael Meeks wrote (18-08-11 11:49)
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 22:49 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
Shouldn't it be backported in this case? ...
That is a separate decision. And if the choice is no, there still is the
problem: bug fixed in master, and is tricked out in most annoying for
3.4.x ..
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> I have just pushed the ccache for MSVC to dev-tools:
>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/ccache-msvc
>
Neat! For consistency, copied the ccache.exe binary over to
http://dev-www.libreoffice.org/extern/ccache.exe
where we seem to collect ra
Hi Lionel, all,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:49:43 +0200
Lionel Elie Mamane
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't see any way in bugzilla to say things like:
> bug present / not present in master / libreoffice-3.4, ...
> bug fixed / not fixed in master / libreoffice-3.4, ...
>
> There is only *one* version fie
On Thursday 18 of August 2011, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:21:54 +0200
>
> Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > It does, but does it really need to be so chatty to repeat the
> > obvious facts that each contributor's copyright relates only to
> > portions created by that contr
Noel Power wrote (18-08-11 11:54)
Well I wasn't really trying to answer that question but more give the
developer-centric detail about getting a patch into the dev/release
branches. But... it f the bug has been fixed, it is fixed right, it has
to be marked as such, and in this case approval is as
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:59 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I tried building LibreOffice with svn trunk gcc
> It dies in soltools with:
..
> The appended patch fixes this problem by adding 'this->' qualifiers.
Thanks ! - pushed this (I hope it was still relevant).
All the best,
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:39:01 +0200
Cor Nouws wrote:
> This explanation still does not cover the case where a bug ís fixed
> in master, but not in the release A branch, where it is listed as
> annoying. Having is stricken out, cause of the fix in master,
> erroneously gives the impression that it
Hi Lubos,
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 12:02 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> And do we have somebody like that? Who can decide if it is ok to change the
> template to this version?
Yes - and yes it's fine.
> > Just an idea: IIRC we have a git hook
> > that warns about commiting files with merge
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 12:09 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> The solution to that is simple: Before adding a bug to the "most
> annoying for 3.4" bug is has to have a 3.4 target. If it has not, I
> should not be added there.
This thread starts to look like noise. Is there a concrete inst
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote (18-08-11 12:09)
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:39:01 +0200
Cor Nouws wrote:
This explanation still does not cover the case where a bug ís fixed
in master, but not in the release A branch, where it is listed as
annoying. Having is stricken out, cause of the fix in master,
erron
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Bielefeld wrote (18-08-11 11:57)
This explanation still does not cover the case where a bug ís fixed in
master, but not in the release A branch, where it is listed as annoying.
Having is stricken out, cause of the fix in master, erroneously gives
the impression that it is fixe
Hi Terence,
On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 11:50 -0400, Terrence Enger wrote:
> Resolution: I hereby resolve that I shall ask about my next
> rebuild problem *before* I confuse things beyond
> description.
Heh - unfortunately, incremental building can be fraught with problems
- mostly around depen
Hi Cor,
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 15:44 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote:
> A. If I find an issue, is it OK if I mail this list or just ping on IRC?
> Just to prevent adding bugs that are already noticed (not in bugzilla)
> and maybe even fixed in master after I udated?
Personally, I think regression
Hi
I am Investigating this and 3 issues jumps immediately
1) size of the VM (if using VirtualBox) for download: a few to dozens of
Gigabytes
2) Windows License: EULA, Compilers and SDKs
3) your favorite flavour of Linux
Sad, because 2) is quite hard to setup and most desired.
Olivier
Em 17-
New Page 1