Difference between revisions of "ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-02-23 IRC log"
(ReleaseStatus Minutes 2009-02-23 IRC log)
|Line 217:||Line 217:|
(16:20:44) kai_a hat den Raum verlassen<br>
(16:20:44) kai_a hat den Raum verlassen<br>
(16:21:33) ja_: bye bye
(16:21:33) ja_: bye bye
Latest revision as of 18:53, 16 March 2010
(14:57:22) ja_: Moin
(14:57:57) MechtiIde: moin moin
(14:58:20) MechtiIde: ja_, Hello Joost
(14:58:42) MechtiIde: I think about to put the link of the wiki in the topic here
(14:58:50) UweL [n=chatzill@nat/sun/x-19517bab3cb9ea45] hat den Raum betreten.
(14:59:03) MechtiIde: but it is not possible for me
(14:59:13) MechtiIde: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ReleaseStatus_Minutes#Agenda_for_next_meeting
(14:59:46) You need to be a channel operator to do that
(15:00:10) _rene_: MechtiIde: yes, this channel has topic-lock on....
(15:00:25) MechtiIde: _rene_, I see that ;-)
(15:00:25) _rene_: MechtiIde: you you need to be op to change it...
(15:00:31) sophi: hi all
(15:00:37) _Nesshof_: moin
(15:00:44) MechtiIde: _rene_, I know that ;-)
(15:00:59) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@i577A8F31.versanet.de] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:01:53) jrahemipour: hi *
(15:02:02) _Nesshof_: ok, lets start with 3.1 release status
(15:02:18) _Nesshof_: first item on our list: localization35 status
(15:03:10) MechtiIde: I guess we can't keep the timeline
(15:04:41) jrahemipour: When do we get the new localization builds?
(15:05:29) _Nesshof_: release engineering not here today ?
(15:06:33) ***_Nesshof_ waits a few seconds more
(15:06:47) blauwal [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:06:55) jrahemipour: I think, we need at least one week for testing, when the new builds are available
(15:06:55) ivo [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:07:00) rafaella [n=Rafaella@nat/sun/x-3628c8ed569b4727] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:07:09) ivo: hi *
(15:07:14) rafaella: hi
(15:07:47) _Nesshof_: there are our loc% experts ! :-)
(15:08:21) jrahemipour: So again the questions :-)
(15:08:34) jrahemipour: When do we get the new localization builds?
(15:08:41) ivo: ok
(15:08:49) ivo: I am working on the cws right now
(15:09:05) ivo: I expect the builds to be ready for testing tomorrow or wednesday
(15:09:13) ivo: for linux and windows
(15:09:16) VolkerMe [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:09:51) jrahemipour: So we get a new deadline for testing and bugfixing?
(15:09:51) ivo: I merged all the strings again onto the cws to ensure this time none will be lost
(15:09:55) rafaella: ivo, can you provide solaris as well?
(15:10:08) MechtiIde: ivo, do we get them on the same place obnly with a new date?
(15:10:12) ivo: rafaella, can make them
(15:10:18) ivo: np
(15:10:31) _Nesshof_: what should be the new deadline for reviewing the builds and QA approval for that cws ?
(15:10:41) rafaella: jrahemipour, 1 week for testing?
(15:10:45) _Nesshof_: ivo: are we still talking about loc%35 ?
(15:11:00) sophi: rafaella: +1
(15:11:07) jrahemipour: rafaella: Yes, please :-)
(15:11:29) MechtiIde: It is very little time before CEbit
(15:11:44) ivo: _Nesshof_, yes!
(15:11:45) _Nesshof_: so new deadline March 5th ?
(15:11:57) rafaella: _Nesshof_, provided we get the new builds by wednesday, the new testing deadline is ;March 4th, ok?
(15:12:08) ivo: MechtiIde, yes I will upload them onto the web server
(15:12:19) rafaella: _Nesshof_, March 5th even better...
(15:12:22) ivo: MechtiIde, I will remove the prev. ones
(15:13:09) MechtiIde: ivo, thanks
(15:13:52) _Nesshof_: we then expect a build on master with all localization not before March 12th
(15:14:14) _Nesshof_: for broad testing then available March 15th
(15:14:46) jrahemipour: ivo: Is it possible, that the cws builds will install seperately? We hat the problem, that they register as 3.0
(15:14:57) _Nesshof_: sophi: the new string detected on m2 will be removed as masterfix for m3, sorry for that
(15:15:14) sophi: _Nesshof_: thank you!
(15:15:15) _Nesshof_: jrahemipour: should be a OOo-Dev build then
(15:15:22) MechtiIde: ivo, or can we get a tar.gz which must only untared
(15:15:34) jrahemipour: _Nesshof_: Good, thanks
(15:15:49) ***_Nesshof_ is also fine with a tgz
(15:16:06) ivo: MechtiIde, jrahemipour I will try to make those dev-builds
(15:16:21) jrahemipour: Yes, tgz would be even better
(15:16:33) _Nesshof_: all said regarding localization now ?
(15:16:37) sophi: ivo: thanks
(15:16:50) _Nesshof_: next topic : calc48
(15:17:32) _Nesshof_: I reassigned last week a few cws to target 3.2 to reduce traffic for 3.1 release, so
(15:17:35) MechtiIde: I want nobody forget a clone of this issue for 3.1
(15:17:42) _Nesshof_: I hit calc48
(15:18:22) jrahemipour: issue 98978 would be really important for 3.1
(15:18:43) IZBot: Spreadsheet DEFECT VERIFIED FIXED P3 Using functionwizard breaks column/row header functionality http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98978
(15:18:44) _Nesshof_: calc48 fixes a bunch of regressions introduced with frmdlg
(15:19:34) _Nesshof_: I was wondering why frmdlg was nominated although it was known that many conflicts needed to be resolved and time for QA was quite short
(15:20:04) _Nesshof_: kai_a: was there any specific reason why we integrated frmdlg in this status ?
(15:20:43) _Nesshof_: maybe we better should revert the changes of that cws which already introduced that much regressions ?
(15:20:57) _rene_: probably because the dba guys pressured someone because they based reportbuilder stuff on that...
(15:21:12) _rene_: e.g. rptfix04(!)
(15:21:46) _Nesshof_: why we do need rptfix04 for 3.1 release ?
(15:21:55) _rene_: reportdesign/reportbuilder
(15:21:55) kai_a: _rene_: follows my current conclusion, too (at least for what I know about)
(15:22:04) _rene_: extension-only module
(15:22:33) _rene_: which already is in 3.0, and a blocker for 3.0.1, but is STILL not in 3.1 (it's done in rptfix04...)
(15:22:34) _Nesshof_: _rene_: these changes could have been worked around the same way for 3.1 we did before for 3.0
(15:23:02) _rene_: _Nesshof_: yeah, don't tell *me* that this should be handled more sane.
(15:23:14) _rene_: _Nesshof_: then again, we all know oj-cws quality...
(15:23:16) _Nesshof_: I'm really get angry about cws which get integrated before they are ready
(15:23:41) kai_a: _Nesshof_, _rene_: not only extension wise, but also deep core changes, and AFAIK the risk for breaking the whole extension if not integrated
(15:23:43) _rene_: (and incidentially, both frmdlg and rptfix04 are of wich cws ownwer....? )
(15:24:17) _rene_: kai_a: and breaking (at least) --with-system-jfreereport if not integrated :)
(15:24:45) kai_a: _rene_: right!
(15:24:47) _rene_: _Nesshof_: what? in 3.0 we did the split.
(15:25:01) michael__ [n=michael@p549438AE.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:25:09) _Nesshof_: _rene_: yes
(15:25:23) _Nesshof_: and we need that split
(15:25:26) _rene_: _Nesshof_: there was no workaround, it was plit. just that so far no one took it over to DEV300 but just put in in mixed with other changes into an other cws
(15:25:56) _rene_: now it's too late, --with-system-jfreereport is essential for me and that one's fixed in rptfix04 :) AND iti contains that split...
(15:26:14) _rene_: don't complain at me, complain at oj....
(15:27:05) kai_a: _Nesshof_: fully agree with Rene, it's too late to mourne, we just need it
(15:27:17) _Nesshof_: maybe it's time to talk about a potential delay of the 3.1 schedule then
(15:27:34) _Nesshof_: kai_a: is that what you're suggesting ?
(15:27:41) Mechtilde [n=Mechtild@p549438AE.dip.t-dialin.net] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:28:20) kai_a: _Nesshof_: if there's no other chance to get it in, that would be my sugestion, yes
(15:28:27) ***Mechtilde had lost the connecction
(15:28:33) ivo hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "Verlassend").
(15:29:58) _Nesshof_: blauwal: do you know the status of integration for the m3 ?
(15:30:19) blauwal: _Nesshof_: two left
(15:30:34) blauwal: _Nesshof_: with conflicts of course
(15:30:38) _Nesshof_: blauwal: I assume the time for integration of cws are not longer that bad as for m1 ?
(15:30:48) blauwal: _Nesshof_: yep
(15:31:20) blauwal: _Nesshof_: but conflicts are worse ... said Kurt ...
(15:31:39) _Nesshof_: which cws have the conflicts ?
(15:33:03) _Nesshof_: does anybody know if we need https://tools.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.EditCWS?Id=7778&ERV_NextPage=cws.ShowCWS%3FId%3D7778%26logon%3Dtrue for 3.1 or should also better have target 3.2 ?
(15:34:46) _Nesshof_: ok for me it looks like we need to calculate with 2 weeks of delay for 3.1 release
(15:34:49) Mechtilde: which issue is touched?
(15:35:40) erAck [n=er@nat/sun/x-52efaa680699de7f] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:36:32) kai_a: _Nesshof_: 'in order
(15:36:34) kai_a: to properly handle external references in chart's data ranges.' sounds serious to me
(15:36:53) MechtiIde hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
(15:37:02) Mechtilde: there are two regressions in it
(15:37:17) Mechtilde heißt jetzt MechtiIde
(15:38:22) MechtiIde: maybe oliverc1 can comment it
(15:38:43) _Nesshof_: kai_a: then I should try to nominate it asap, integration will last a bit longer
(15:39:42) _Nesshof_: ok, I will then also nominate calc48 for 3.1 again
(15:39:47) oliverc1: The cws fixes a very important issue (external references in charts)
(15:41:19) _Nesshof_: UweL: do we have open issue to approve for 3.1 release ?
(15:41:53) ***_Nesshof_ guesses that all issues in calc48 have this approval
(15:42:09) UweL: issue 99511
(15:42:15) IZBot: porting DEFECT NEW P1 MacOSX : build failure at instsetoo_native http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=99511
(15:42:22) MechtiIde: in the Wiki list are some without a target
(15:42:51) MechtiIde: issue 96743 und issue 98990
(15:42:57) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P2 unopkg won't install script extensions (missung: unopkg-desc) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
(15:44:16) MechtiIde: issue 96743
(15:44:18) _Nesshof_: build failure is P1 and automatically approved when a fix is available, but 99511 seems to have a wrong owner
(15:44:22) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P3 Windows Search for content in ODF files don´t work in OOo 3.0.0 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
(15:45:25) of_away: IS told me to hand 99511 over to JL
(15:45:37) UweL: stopper: We need somebody to fix issue 96743 or move the target
(15:45:41) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P3 Windows Search for content in ODF files don´t work in OOo 3.0.0 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
(15:46:08) _Nesshof_: is 96743 a regression?
(15:46:16) MechtiIde: UweL, issue 96743 is accepted as blocker and has no target
(15:46:19) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P3 Windows Search for content in ODF files don´t work in OOo 3.0.0 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
(15:47:11) UweL: yes, but from 2.4.1
(15:47:44) MechtiIde: 95768 is IMO for 3.1
(15:48:38) MechtiIde: how far is kso with the work on it?
(15:48:56) _Nesshof_: MechtiIde: I would guess not even started
(15:49:21) _Nesshof_: better owner would be "unassigned"
(15:50:49) _Nesshof_: do we have an agreement that 96743 is a stopper or is somebody objecting ?
(15:51:28) UweL: it is an old regression
(15:51:30) ***_Nesshof_ hates questions with "or"
(15:51:43) ja_: +1 to mark it as a stopper
(15:51:55) _Nesshof_: UweL: shall I take this as an objection ?
(15:52:06) UweL: 50%
(15:52:23) UweL: who will fix it?
(15:52:55) _Nesshof_: if only two people are voting on this this can't be a blocker, we should set target 3.2 then
(15:52:57) MechtiIde: issue 96743
(15:53:02) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P3 Windows Search for content in ODF files don´t work in OOo 3.0.0 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96743
(15:53:48) UweL: _Nesshof_: +1
(15:54:17) mla: _Nesshof: +1
(15:54:40) _Nesshof_: ok, will do
(15:55:17) UweL: another one: stopper: MBA proposed a 3.2 target for issue 92356
(15:55:23) IZBot: ui DEFECT NEW P3 crash when hit 'F5' in the undocked Navigator http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92356
(15:57:27) _Nesshof_: i can't reproduce 92356, so i'm fine with 3.2 target
(15:57:38) UweL: ok
(15:58:19) mla: yes
(15:59:17) erAck heißt jetzt erAck_afk
(15:59:33) ja_: _Nesshof_: Ause asked me to get CWS jl118 nominated (cygwin build problem, just a few lines of code within makefile)
(16:00:17) _Nesshof_: issue 98990
(16:00:23) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P2 unopkg won't install script extensions (missung: unopkg-desc) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
(16:01:18) _Nesshof_: do we know if 98990 is a regression ?
(16:01:31) _Nesshof_: do we know a maintainer of pyono code
(16:02:01) _rene_: this one is a blocker for sure
(16:02:22) jrahemipour: Sorry to get a step back again: I can reproduce issue 92356 even with Linux
(16:02:28) _rene_: otherwise you get Debian packages without a working emailmerge (to get it working we do unopkg add in the packages' postinst...)
(16:02:29) IZBot: ui DEFECT NEW P3 crash when hit 'F5' in the undocked Navigator http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92356
(16:02:37) _Nesshof_: _rene_: do we have an idea who is able to fix this ?
(16:02:40) _rene_: _Nesshof_: well, jbu in theory...
(16:03:27) _Nesshof_: _rene_: assign to him and hope ?
(16:03:51) _Nesshof_: _rene_: how do we deal with this issue in praxis ?
(16:04:23) rafaella hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "Leaving").
(16:04:55) _rene_: which issue? jbu not responding or issue 98990?
(16:05:01) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P2 unopkg won't install script extensions (missung: unopkg-desc) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98990
(16:05:35) _Nesshof_: _rene_: jbu seems not te be available
(16:05:53) _rene_: then you need to find someone who maintains pyUNO, I am afraid...
(16:06:20) _rene_: it's inside OOo, it should have someone who keeps it working when other people break it....
(16:07:02) _Nesshof_: _rene_: do we know who breaks it ?
(16:09:36) _Nesshof_: jrahemipour: 92356
(16:09:57) _rene_: no
(16:10:41) _Nesshof_: jrahemipour: 92356 is quite old and has no duplicate or votes, so I would stay with 3.2 release target
(16:10:48) _Nesshof_: _rene_: too bad
(16:11:19) _Nesshof_: any other to talk about today ?
(16:11:25) jrahemipour: _Nesshof_: I'm ok with it
(16:11:28) _Nesshof_: blauwal: RE duties this week ?
(16:11:57) jrahemipour: _Nesshof_: What about Release 2.4.3?
(16:12:08) blauwal: _Nesshof_: Kurt (OOO310 m3), Oliver (DEV300 m42)
(16:12:57) _Nesshof_: jrahemipour: I'm a little bit hesitant to work on two release simultaneously
(16:13:27) _Nesshof_: but I think we have all fixes for 2.4.3 available
(16:13:45) _Nesshof_: blauwal: are we able to do a new milestone on OOH680 ?
(16:14:04) blauwal: _Nesshof_: This week? No.
(16:14:07) jrahemipour: I know some people who are waiting for 2.4.3
(16:14:16) _Nesshof_: blauwal: next week ?
(16:14:18) blauwal: _Nesshof_: Machines are all busy ... people as well
(16:14:35) blauwal: _Nesshof_: Depends ... but yes if we make it a priority
(16:14:35) jrahemipour: Is there a change to consider Issue 97849 for 2.4.3?
(16:14:54) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P3 Make Online Update Dialog Optional when Opening ODF 1.2 files http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=97849
(16:16:02) mdamboldt heißt jetzt mdamboldt_away
(16:17:07) ***_Nesshof_ will ask mdamboldt_away for reviewing this issue once more
(16:17:35) ***_Nesshof_ sees mdamboldt_away running to the S-Bahn
(16:18:08) _Nesshof_: ok, will continue to discuss 2.4.3 release offline on the list
(16:19:18) _Nesshof_: any other items for today ?
(16:19:18) mla: OOO310 m2 was uploaded, waiting for bouncer links availability, should be today late afternoon or evening
(16:19:18) jrahemipour: many companies cannot switch to 3.x in a few days, so there will be two OOo-Versions at the same time
(16:19:18) jrahemipour: _Nesshof_: Ok, thanks
(16:19:23) _Nesshof_: ok, by
(16:19:31) UweL hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008120122]").
(16:20:44) kai_a hat den Raum verlassen
(16:21:33) ja_: bye bye