Difference between revisions of "ReleaseStatus Minutes 2010-01-25 IRC log"

Latest revision as of 19:08, 16 March 2010

(14:55:42) #oooreleases: The topic for #oooreleases is: Release-Stauts-Meeting, every monday at 15:00 Hamburg Time (13:00 UTC in summer)
(14:55:49) mla: hi all
(14:57:45) VolkerMe: Hi!
(14:58:01) MechtiIde: hello
(15:00:10) enoki: hi
(15:01:07) mdamboldt_away: Hi
(15:01:11) mdamboldt_away is now known as mdamboldt
(15:02:01) mdamboldt: So what do we have today......
(15:02:17) mdamboldt: There were a couple of stoppers raised and accepted after RC3.
(15:02:36) stefan_b: Hi
(15:02:46) mdamboldt: As result we created an OOO320m11 build which is now being upped to the mirror network.
(15:03:11) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-uyqtjceqcujeavvk] entered the room.
(15:03:24) VolkerMe: Where did I miss the information about the decision for RC4 on the lists?
(15:03:57) VolkerMe: The only thing i read was http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=releases&msgNo=15183
(15:04:20) _rene_: it was hidden in a thread
(15:04:23) kai_a left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(15:04:43) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-fdgysiqfcshgxbei] entered the room.
(15:04:50) _rene_: and it was no decision but "we do it". (but I agree with it in the meanwhile......)
(15:05:12) mdamboldt: VolkerMe: Indeed it was hidden in that thread I think.
(15:05:14) _rene_: s/decision/decision amonst the RSM/
(15:05:15) UweL [n=chatzill@nat/sun/x-bwjvevbcmbdxnlcn] entered the room.
(15:06:02) _rene_: VolkerMe: http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=releases&msgNo=15183
(15:06:27) VolkerMe: _rene_: As i said, but was bit vague
(15:07:06) VolkerMe: I would like to see a bit more information the next time (hopefully 3.2.1 RC2 ;-) )
(15:07:16) mdamboldt: Issue 108605 has also been raised and accepted. But that one will be fixed off from the RC4 release. (means separated fixed in the corresponding extension)
(15:07:24) IZBot: extensions DEFECT NEW P2 extensions: Presenter Console 1.1 crashes OOo http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=108605
(15:07:34) _rene_: oh, brilliant
(15:07:41) MechtiIde: I hope so ;-)
(15:07:42) mdamboldt: VolkerMe: I was off last week but will make a note, also for MH
(15:07:44) _rene_: leaving everyone who builds the extensions out of the code in the cold
(15:08:07) _rene_: there's no matching code status <-> extension version
(15:08:29) _rene_: and if you use the "proper" 3.2 code you get a broken extension called 1.1
(15:08:40) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, it must be ready upto the release date of 3.2
(15:08:58) _rene_: and we need the *code* of that fix separately
(15:09:01) MechtiIde: and version 1.1.0 must be deleted from the server
(15:09:17) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Yes, and MH is already looking after it.
(15:10:05) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Regarding removal of 1.1.0, yes thats correct. Seems we failed to un-publish the broken release.
(15:10:13) mdamboldt: Will investigate after that
(15:10:42) _rene_: yeah, let's ignore broken builds
(15:10:43) ka_ooo [n=ka@nat/sun/x-hqnrplktmtzpirlc] entered the room.
(15:10:57) _rene_: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/openoffice.org-presenter-console
(15:11:16) _rene_: note the 1.1.0 in there (that comes directly out of 3.2s sources)
(15:11:29) mdamboldt: _rene_: We will have a look also in point of view to your comments regarding source. MH is working on this with release engineering.
(15:11:39) MechtiIde: I myself have no idea to test it
(15:11:43) _rene_: he isn't. he claims to, though ;-)
(15:11:52) _rene_: at least I don't see any progress for what? 1 year? ;)
(15:12:08) Fridrich: _rene_: maybe internal repository :)
(15:12:08) _rene_: mdamboldt: and if 1.1.0 is not for 3.2, wtf is it then in 3.2s code?
(15:12:43) MechtiIde: _rene_, I already wrote it in the issue
(15:13:08) _rene_: and af answered
(15:13:09) _rene_: "Version 1.1.0 should not be in the repository. Only when OOo 3.3 is released
(15:13:12) _rene_: should version 1.1.0 of the extension be put into the repository.
(15:13:14) _rene_: question still holds
(15:13:16) _rene_: "
(15:13:26) _rene_: wtf is 1.1.0 in 3.2s code when it's supposed to be used with 3.3?
(15:13:39) _rene_: and why do you break almost any distro packages with this?
(15:14:03) ***Fridrich agrees with _rene_
(15:14:18) ***_rene_ writes "disabling -presenter-console in the next 3.2 upload" onto his TODO :-(
(15:14:19) kai_a: rene: correct version of presenter console to be put into repository will be 1.0.3, 1.1.0 was uploaded by a mistake
(15:14:20) Fridrich: although, I don't think anybody care
(15:14:32) _rene_: kai_a: that's bullshit, sorry
(15:14:36) _rene_: kai_a: 3.2 CONTAINS 1.1.0
(15:14:51) _rene_: kai_a: if 1.1.0 is not for 3.2, WTF is this in 3.2s code?
(15:14:57) kai_a: _rene_: what is wrong by mistake, as I said
(15:15:11) MechtiIde: kai_a, not the upload is a mistake
(15:15:12) _rene_: kai_a: what is on extenensions is irrelevant. I talk about the source code
(15:15:28) MechtiIde: the mistake is that it is integrated into the OOO320 line
(15:15:30) _rene_: kai_a: no, you said repository, which probably means extension repository
(15:15:40) _rene_: I mean the OOO320 *code*
(15:15:40) mdamboldt: _rene_: Lets keep the long story short here. People are still looking into the issue with the Presenter Extension. What we can note here, is that it will be solved independent from RC4 release. Everything else will be clarified when research on the issue is done and solutions are available.
(15:16:18) _rene_: you get a presenter console built which isn't even compatible with what versions' code it is in
(15:16:25) mdamboldt: Any other items somebody want to raise related to 3.2?
(15:16:41) Fridrich: yes, the presenter console :)
(15:16:43) _rene_: mdamboldt: sorry, no, that doesn't work.
(15:16:44) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, and we need a discussion to handle extension updates properly
(15:16:52) _rene_: MechtiIde: ignoring questions does not fix it
(15:16:57) _rene_: oops
(15:17:00) kai_a: _rene_: I talked with af about this issue. result was, that the 1.1.0 release was never meant to go into 3.2, but did so by accident and will be solved in a short timeframe
(15:17:02) _rene_: mdamboldt: ignoring questions does not fix it
(15:17:24) Fridrich: kai_a: short timeframe, please decode that one
(15:17:27) _rene_: kai_a: solved how? code fixed? depends on 3.3?
(15:17:47) _rene_: kai_a: and short timeframe is basically "this week"
(15:18:01) kai_a: _rene_: today? will be talking with MH when he's back from a meeting
(15:18:03) _rene_: kai_a: because people will upload 3.2 packages with a 1.1.0 extension
(15:18:14) ***VolkerMe likes to inform that the Presenter Console 1.1.0 just has disappeared from extensions.oo.o
(15:18:20) _rene_: (when they are not aware of this fuckup)
(15:18:31) _rene_: VolkerMe: that is not in any way relevant. I don't care about extensions.oo.io
(15:18:55) mdamboldt: VolkerMe: Yes, thats correct. MH just unpublished it successful.
(15:18:56) _rene_: extensions.oo.o even doesn't provide it for most platforms
(15:18:57) _rene_: when you build it from source you get a not-working one. that's the point
(15:19:27) _rene_: because you take 3.2s code...
(15:19:31) MechtiIde: VolkerMe, 1.1.0 is deleted from e.s.oo.o
(15:19:55) kai_a: _rene: af did a fix in a CWS that will result in a 1.0.3 release. This will be the right one for OOo 3.2 and will be integrated
(15:20:02) mdamboldt: _rene_: I don't ignore questions. I just try to explain that we have to wait for final results of the investigation. Instead of wild guessing about anything.
(15:20:16) Fridrich: ok, what is the tag that has a presenter console that works with 3.2?
(15:20:30) _rene_: kai_a: ah, so you revert loads of changes in OOO320 and move it back to 1.0.3?
(15:20:45) rtimm: _rene_: Please wait for MH and discuss this with him. May be the broken extension at the web site was not from OOO320 code byse, but from DEV300,but I am not sure.
(15:20:49) _rene_: IZBot: *in* the OOO320_m12 (assuming it's the first milestone after the final)?
(15:21:13) _rene_: Fridrich: there is none. there's no source tags for extensions except the normal milestones/releases
(15:21:18) kai_a: Fridrich: currently 1.0.2 is the latest available release for 3.2 and will be upgraded to 1.0.3 for a fix
(15:21:45) _rene_: that's obviously wrong
(15:21:54) _rene_: from looking at OOO320s sdext
(15:21:59) rtimm: And version numbers show by the extension web site don't have to be what is in the code
(15:22:11) _rene_: rtimm: they almost never match, yes, I know :(
(15:22:17) kai_a: _rene_: 1.1.0 was never meant to get into the 3.2, because it relies on 3.3 only features
(15:22:22) _rene_: rtimm: which is of course totally bogus anyway
(15:22:45) _rene_: kai_a: then please revert the cws introuducing it. end of story. NOW.
(15:22:56) _rene_: kai_a: or at least tell me the cws fo I can revert it in ooo-build
(15:22:58) Fridrich: which cws did integrate the 1.1.0, so that one can simply patch it out
(15:23:40) _rene_: obviously I will have a big fat problem with version numbers then, but *shrugs*
(15:23:50) _rene_: (1.1.0 > 1.0.2, I need a epoch :-( )
(15:24:39) _rene_: kai_a: please tell me. I want to upload a (non-broken!) rc4 asap (when I have the source tarballs)
(15:27:05) _rene_: otherwise this is a proof that you (= sun) you don't care about people outside sun (which I quite think anyway, but...)~
(15:27:16) MechtiIde: May we break this task here to look for another item today?
(15:27:39) _rene_: there's no other item, mdamboldt already wanted to close the meeting :-)
(15:27:58) MechtiIde: no I have another item
(15:28:26) MechtiIde: we have to discuss how we handle the updates of the extensions
(15:28:44) MechtiIde: there are also some problesm with the translations
(15:28:55) MechtiIde: also fpr SRB
(15:28:59) _rene_: we first have to find out how we do *proper* releases of extensions
(15:29:09) _rene_: that is a precondition for proper updates
(15:29:16) mdamboldt: I think the presenter ext item will be solved in parallel and continued after this meeting until it's solved. But we won't see the full solution path in this meeting today.
(15:29:33) _rene_: mdamboldt: wrong. kai_a can tell me the cws which broke it
(15:29:35) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Whats the questions regarding updates of extensions?
(15:29:48) _rene_: that he didn't proves that he doesn't really care about breaking everyone elses builds
(15:30:06) MechtiIde: we need also the new code for the extensions after UI freeze
(15:30:08) _rene_: (except sun, which probably build 1.11.0 out of OOO320 and throw it away)
(15:30:23) MechtiIde: so also the Extensions UI can be translated
(15:32:14) MechtiIde: and at that time the also can be tested minimum as the developer builds are tested
(15:32:52) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, it must be possible to detect such problems earlier
(15:35:40) kai_a: _rene: I cannot reach af at the moment (toilet?) to tell you the CWS names, but will do so in a few minutes via this chat, so please stay tuned...
(15:36:03) ***_rene_ already committed the disabling, though, just for safety...
(15:37:09) Fridrich: you people have soundproof doors on toilets :) ?
(15:37:24) Fridrich: just kidding
(15:37:47) _rene_: kai_a: in any case, it should be _in_ this meeting *and* in the minutes
(15:38:01) _rene_: kai_a: as *everyone* outside sun will run into it :-(
(15:38:19) _rene_: we already released a 1.1.0, too, so...
(15:38:29) _rene_: (as we see in http://packages.debian.org/experimental/openoffice.org-presenter-console)
(15:39:35) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: So your question is about the new L10N delivered within the 3.2 cycle which is used in the SRB. Since the new translations related to SRB were not noticed in advance, we have to get after them now and schedule a new release of the SRB. This will be handled by MH.
(15:39:52) _rene_: kai_a: oh, and if the cws is not easily patch -p0 -R'able I want a patch which is
(15:40:24) _rene_: I don't feel like bothering myself for such a blantant anbd obvious error from whoever broke it(af?)
(15:40:26) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, this time we have to handle it for 3.2.1 but we should also do it better for 3.3
(15:40:59) _rene_: kai_a: today.
(15:41:04) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, and I see the problem in general for the "Sun Extensions"
(15:41:45) ***_rene_ is fed up with this extensions carelessness everyone else needs to take the blame for
(15:42:15) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: I see. MH is working on that I think together with Jens-Heiner Rechtien from release engineering.
(15:42:29) ***mdamboldt not sure
(15:42:58) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, If it is possible I want to be involed into this prozess
(15:43:19) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Please send a note / reminder to MH directly, too.
(15:49:47) Fridrich: kai_a: is andre back from the toilet?
(15:50:28) kai_a: fridrich: I just found him in a meeting on a different floor
(15:50:44) Fridrich: and the name is ?
(15:50:54) mdamboldt: So in point of view to the 3.2 RC4 release and it's distribution thru the mirror network, I would assume a QA approval date of Monday 1st Feb 2010. Does that sound feasible?
(15:51:09) kai_a: _rene_: CWS that introduced the wrong 1.1.0 extension for 3.2 is 'slideshow1'
(15:51:25) _rene_: that was not the full answer, but thanks
(15:51:48) Fridrich: kai_a: thanks
(15:51:54) mdamboldt: And a marketing release of OOo 3.2 targeted for 3rd Feb 2010?
(15:51:55) kai_a: _rene_: af will be at his desk in 3 minutes and join this chat immediately to answer further questions
(15:52:23) _rene_: because slideshow1 is also adding stuff outside of sdext
(15:52:29) _rene_: so it cannot be patch -p0'ed
(15:52:52) _rene_: besiides that, would it revert all changes between 1.1.0 and 1.0.2? because 1.1.0 without slideshow1 would not be 1.1.0, no? :)
(15:53:22) _rene_: please answer (or let af answer) the answer in full.
(15:53:33) _rene_: *in* the timeframe of this meeting
(15:53:48) _rene_: this is too critical to have it not recorded and/or in the minutes
(15:53:58) kai_a: _rene_: as far as af told me, 'impressaccessibility5' contains the changes for an upcoming 1.0.3 release of the extension, but is currently not ready for integration
(15:54:17) _rene_: no, that just contains help stuff
(15:54:33) _rene_: that doesn't revert those changes
(15:54:57) _rene_: at least not from looking at the issues, and even if it was doing that, why is it in DEV300 already if it reverts the changes?
(15:55:08) _rene_: sorry, but I can't believe you right now :-)
(15:55:17) kai_a: _rene_: yes, all changes will be reverted, since slideshow1 was always meant to be for OOo 3.3, since it relies on features not available in OOo 3.2
(15:55:52) _rene_: aha
(15:55:58) _rene_: but then also slideshow is broken
(15:56:00) _rene_: and connectivity
(15:56:04) _rene_: and sd
(15:56:09) _rene_: and vcl
(15:56:14) _rene_: no? :)
(15:56:41) kai_a: _rene_: don't get your point here?
(15:56:44) _rene_: interestingly, all the connectivity changes is "internal task"
(15:56:54) _rene_: kai_a: if slideshow1 introduced the problem...
(15:57:12) _rene_: it can't simply be reverted, it touches other modules besides sdext
(15:57:17) Fridrich: kai_a: his point is: if the slideshow1 is not for 000320, it means that all those changes in other modules are broken
(15:57:28) _rene_: connectivity (with no issue at all, sd, vcl, slideshow)
(15:57:59) Fridrich: kai_a: or did you mean that the sdext module was the only one that went in "by mistake"?
(15:58:47) mla: mdamboldt: sounds good, I hope that the mirror distrubution will be with us ;-)
(15:58:51) dtardon left the room (quit: "this parrot is dead").
(15:59:10) kai_a: _rene_: the only mistake was that the extension was uploaded, slidewhow1 was not integrated for OOo 3.2 AFAIK
(15:59:18) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: Any opinion about the QA approval date?
(15:59:25) _rene_: kai_a: wrong
(15:59:29) mdamboldt: VolkerMe: Any opinion about the marketing release date?
(15:59:30) MechtiIde: for RC4?
(15:59:36) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: yes
(15:59:41) _rene_: kai_a: why does the sdext in 3.2 then say "1.1.0"?
(15:59:56) _rene_: kai_a: something *did* went wrong there
(16:00:13) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, 1.2 maybe approval, so 4.2. Release?
(16:00:42) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, only if we didn't find any further stopper
(16:00:54) _rene_: kai_a: or is that 1.1.0 some other 1.1.0? :-) (where we again are at the completely fucked up releasing/versioning of extensions...)
(16:00:58) mdamboldt: Mechtilde: you named it ;)
(16:01:35) MechtiIde: 1.2 in the RSM
(16:02:20) MechtiIde: mdamboldt, as I see it realistic we can start testing on Wednesday
(16:02:36) rtimm: _rene_: I already told you that the version in the code is not necessarily the same as in the repository. Why do you insist on discussing that here and now when you do not believe or simply ignore what we are saying?
(16:02:48) mla: +1 to decide in the RSM
(16:02:52) _rene_: rtimm: because the version in the code is only info what everyone has
(16:03:12) _rene_: rtimm: it's the only version someone building that extension can trust on
(16:03:24) _rene_: so if one says "1.1.0 is broken". what 1.1.0?
(16:03:58) MechtiIde: rtimm, is there different code with the same version number?
(16:03:58) rtimm: MechtiIde: +1
(16:04:04) _rene_: might it be that OOO320s sdext is not broken after all despite being 1.1.0?
(16:04:14) _rene_: is it broken? is it something else? ...
(16:04:30) _rene_: kai_a said it "went in"
(16:04:46) _rene_: (I was talking about the code the whole time, so he must have meant the code, too)
(16:04:54) kai_a: _rene_: please let's wait for AF, who should join in a few seconds
(16:05:21) awf [n=chatzill@sd-socks.staroffice.de] entered the room.
(16:05:39) awf: Hello
(16:06:08) _rene_: hi
(16:06:14) _rene_: so, your answer?
(16:06:28) _rene_: (no, I'll not repeat the discussion)
(16:06:32) VolkerMe: mdamboldt: Sorry, I was afk. Any release date will be fine for marketing guys, but Florian said it mustn't touch the Fosdem time.
(16:06:55) awf: There are questions regarding the presenter console extension?
(16:06:56) _rene_: VolkerMe: well, fosdem is the weekend after, so enough time
(16:07:04) _rene_: awf: go read the log
(16:07:09) _rene_: or talk to kai_a
(16:07:58) awf: slideshow1 has not been integrated into OOO320 just into DEV300
(16:08:06) _rene_: that we already know
(16:08:09) _rene_: read again
(16:08:24) Fridrich: awf: so why is the sdext/source/presenter requiring 3.3?
(16:08:42) awf: _rene_: I just logged on and do not have log
(16:08:46) _rene_: then get it
(16:09:02) _rene_: or as said, talk to kai_a who knows what we were discussing
(16:09:12) Fridrich: awf, will the reverting of changes to sdext from slideshow1 fix revert to 1.0.2 version of the console?
(16:09:22) _rene_: it's not at all my problem when you are not there when breakage in your extension is discussed
(16:09:35) ka_ooo left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(16:10:16) _rene_: awf: basically the question boils down to: will the sdext from OOo 3.2 (and thus the "1.1.0" from 3.2) work with 3.2 and not crash?
(16:10:27) ka_ooo [n=ka@188-193-215-71-dynip.superkabel.de] entered the room.
(16:10:57) awf: @Fridrich: I think the presenter only requires 3.2 at the moment, but that should be changed to 3.3
(16:11:03) _rene_: (compared to the "1.1.0" which got uploaded to extensions.oo.o)
(16:11:59) MechtiIde: awf, one problem is the numbering of the Version
(16:12:00) Fridrich: awf: the problem is following. the OOO320 line is now producing by defauilt a crashing console
(16:12:04) ka [n=Kai_Ahre@188-193-215-71-dynip.superkabel.de] entered the room.
(16:12:13) awf: @_rene_: The 1.1.0 does *not* belong to the OOo3.2. It was put into the repository by accident.
(16:12:36) Fridrich: awf: it is because as kai said "by error" a code not belonging to 3.2 was uploaded.
(16:12:37) MechtiIde: awf, but this version number is in OOO320 Code
(16:12:44) kai_a left the room (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
(16:12:47) Fridrich: awf: now, we are trying to revert it to get something working
(16:12:57) ka is now known as kai_a
(16:13:08) Fridrich: awf: what is the cws that can contain the changes that one should revert
(16:13:15) Fridrich: awf: kai_a said slideshow1
(16:13:25) _rene_: awf: wrong
(16:13:43) _rene_: awf: if 12.1.0 does not belong to OOo 3.2, why does OOo 3.2s sdext/ then contain 1.1.0?
(16:13:52) ka_ooo: Fridrich, as, said slideshow1 contains the changes, but was not integrated for OOo 3.2
(16:13:55) _rene_: awf: everyone shipping it from there *will* have it called 1.1.0
(16:14:17) _rene_: awf: see e.g. http://packages.debian.org/experimental/openoffice.org-presenter-console (version info directly out of sdexts description.xml)
(16:14:22) _rene_: s/12/1/
(16:14:35) awf: I have not idea why the OOo3.2 code of the presenter console should contain the 1.1 version number. I have to check that.
(16:14:49) _rene_: awf: again, the question is: does OOo 3.2s sdext (besides the fucked up versioning) work with OOo 3.2?
(16:15:12) _rene_: awf: because you did a cws doing that in DEV300 times before it was branched and that was integrated?
(16:15:24) wg_sun [n=wg111939@nat/sun/x-lltxazamtrenppst] entered the room.
(16:15:33) _rene_: awf: obviously then sdext/ in OOo 3.2 has that, too
(16:16:03) awf: I today checked the presenter console that was build for the OOO320 m11. It worked with the OOO320 office. It just had a graphics problem that is fixed in CWS impressaccessibility 5
(16:16:06) _rene_: you still didn't answer the core of the question, though
(16:16:30) _rene_: awf: oh, really? so a secret fix there and there is only an issue about help there. brilliant.
(16:16:48) MechtiIde: awf, what version number does that version show?
(16:16:49) _rene_: awf: (btw, you want to answer about my question to the help issue there, there's only a file xor _x86)
(16:17:39) _rene_: ok, but if m11s "1.1.0" works with 3.2, it's ok. I just need to think about adding conflicts...
(16:17:40) awf: There are a lot of questions right now.
(16:17:50) _rene_: there's a lot of breakage right now
(16:18:09) awf: I don't think that slideshow1 was integrated into OOO320 code line.
(16:18:42) _rene_: it is not. that we already know.
(16:19:19) Fridrich: ok, so the only problem here is that we have 1.1.0 version that is actually not a 1.1.0 version but a 1.0.2.x that is waiting for 1.0.3 that fixes some issues
(16:19:29) awf: But version 1.1 was only in slideshow1. Therefore it can not be in OOO320
(16:19:48) awf: @Fridrich: Yes
(16:20:33) kai_a: _rene_, Fridrich: dif you take a look at the uploaded (wrong) extension for the release info or at the OOO320 code line code?
(16:21:05) _rene_: kai_a: code. (not that I didn't say that)
(16:21:16) _rene_: kai_a: I don't use extensions.oo.o at all
(16:21:47) Fridrich: kai_a: I am puling the code from mercurial to read what is the change but if the extension works I don't have any serious issue anymore
(16:21:52) _rene_: it doesn't have support for most of the architectures OOo is available on anyway
(16:22:06) _rene_: but if awf says OOO320s "1.1.0" works, ok...
(16:22:34) awf: @_rene_: No, 1.1.0 does not work with OOO320, but 1.0.2 does.
(16:22:53) _rene_: awf: I extra said OOO320s 1.1.0
(16:23:02) _rene_: awf: sdext/ in OOO320 says 1.1.0
(16:23:03) awf: I just looked at the code that we have build the OOO320 m11 from, and the version number there is 1.0.2
(16:23:21) _rene_: so you now do a u-turn and tell the contrary to what you did before?
(16:23:29) ***mdamboldt have to leave now...
(16:23:37) Fridrich: awf: what is the tag of that code
(16:23:38) mdamboldt is now known as mdamboldt_away
(16:23:42) rtimm: _rene_: OOO320's sdext/source/presenter/description.xml has "<version value="1.0.2" />". Where do you see 1.1?
(16:23:49) ***mdamboldt_away will read the minutes log later
(16:23:51) kai_a: awf: the point is, that for whatever reason, rene sees a 1.1.0 release tag within the code
(16:24:32) rtimm: kai_a: perhaps he should point us to where he sees it
(16:24:51) MechtiIde: <_rene_> awf: sdext/ in OOO320 says 1.1.0
(16:24:55) _rene_: grep "<version" $(SOURCE_TREE)/sdext/source/presenter/description.xml | perl -pi -e 's,<version value=\"(.*)\" />,\1,; s/^\s+//
(16:24:58) _rene_: gives me 1.1.0
(16:25:32) _rene_: as we see in http://packages.debian.org/experimental/openoffice.org-presenter-console
(16:25:36) kai_a: _rene_: so could you please tell us, why do you see a 1.1.0 release tag, because this this the reason for all your ranting here. The Main problem was clarified by me in one of my first sentences...
(16:26:12) Fridrich: kai_a: awf: I read now the OOO320 code from svn and I see 1.0.2, so I am fine and apologize for any inconvenience
(16:26:14) MechtiIde: kai_a, <_rene_> grep "<version" $(SOURCE_TREE)/sdext/source/presenter/description.xml | perl -pi -e 's,<version value=\"(.*)\" />,\1,; s/^\s+//
(16:26:14) MechtiIde: <_rene_> gives me 1.1.0
(16:26:58) awf: @Fridrich: Thanks
(16:27:10) MechtiIde: kai_a, So for my understanding this has been changed between OOO320_m10 and m11
(16:27:11) rtimm: _rene_: so you may have a wrong $(SOURCE_TREE) ...
(16:27:20) wg_sun left the room.
(16:27:40) _rene_: yeah, right.... sure...
(16:27:59) _rene_: if I build based on m11 I have a wrong SOURCE_TREE. yeah....
(16:28:06) kai_a: _rene_: it would be good to clarify this code difference issues, since we (you) cannot be sure that any of your build efforts are broken at all or not
(16:28:44) rtimm: see http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/branches/OOO320/sdext/source/presenter/description.xml
(16:28:54) rtimm: <version value="1.0.2" />
(16:28:56) awf: @_rene_: Where did you get the code from?
(16:29:17) _rene_: svn (ok, via git clone...)
(16:29:31) MechtiIde: rtimm, awf the link you posted is from m11?
(16:29:50) Fridrich: I see the same on m10
(16:29:53) MechtiIde: and can you also post if from m10?
(16:30:34) ***_rene_ scratches his head
(16:30:54) Fridrich: MechtiIde: http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/tags/OOO320_m10/sdext/source/presenter/description.xml
(16:30:59) enoki left the room (quit: Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
(16:32:44) _rene_: sorry then.. /me wonders where he gets 1.1.0 from. maybe it gets overwritten during the build somehow?
(16:32:57) awf: This leaves us with the problem that impressaccessibility5 was not integrated and the version is 1.0.2 and not 1.0.3
(16:33:04) _rene_: that is no problem
(16:33:15) _rene_: impressaccessibility5 is broken anyway
(16:33:27) Fridrich: awf: is impressaccessibility5 broken?
(16:33:40) _rene_: (or at least noone adressed my objections, no idea whether it's a real bug, but Linux has only a _x86 file)
(16:33:44) awf: @_rene_: It is a problem, because 1.0.2 works, but has a little graphics problem, which is fixed in 1.0.3
(16:34:13) ***_rene_ would have backported it to his packages if the help answer would have given (and it eventually be corrected)
(16:34:29) kai_a: Summary: the only mistake that happened was the binary upload of a 3.3 related extension with correct release number 1.1.0; this has been removed from the repo in the meantime and there are no code related errors on the official code line for OOo 3.2
(16:34:41) _rene_: yes...
(16:35:06) Fridrich: kai_a: thanks
(16:35:35) MechtiIde: kai_a, and I will post to the German list that 1.1 is removed and they sould use 1.0.2
(16:35:48) Fridrich: kai_a: sorry for the heated discussion, but a good flamewar on Monday is something like a gym. One is not liking it but it is good for the health
(16:35:52) MechtiIde: up to 1.0.3 will be release for 3.2? fai
(16:35:52) kai_a: MechtiIde: thanks...
(16:36:10) MechtiIde: is it right 1.0.3 will be available for 3.2.?
(16:36:29) kai_a: Fridrich: no problem...
(16:36:43) MechtiIde: is it right 1.0.3 will be available for 3.2.? kai_a ?
(16:36:46) awf: We have to find a way to fix an issue with the help files.
(16:37:11) MechtiIde: I think help files can we fix in 3.2.1
(16:37:13) awf: If we can fix that, then 1.0.3 will be the version to use.
(16:37:17) MechtiIde: inclusive translation
(16:37:36) awf: That sounds good.
(16:37:49) mdamboldt_away left the room (quit: ).
(16:38:21) MechtiIde: we need a small translation round for 3.2.1
(16:40:49) awf: Are there any open questions for me?
(16:42:04) awf: Good, then I will leave this fine discussion and start working on how to get 1.0.3 working.
(16:42:14) rtimm left the room.
(16:42:18) awf: Bye.
(16:42:25) awf left the room (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.7/20091221164558]").