ReleaseStatus Minutes 2008-08-25 IRC log
(14:58:09) MechtiIde: hello
(14:58:17) ja_: Moin
(14:58:25) bettina-h: hi
(14:58:40) paveljanik: Hi
(14:59:20) mla [n=ml93712@nat/sun/x-4b54c51309234181] hat den Raum betreten.
(14:59:28) mla: hi
(14:59:38) _Nesshof1 hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
(15:00:00) kai_a [n=Kai_Ahre@nat/sun/x-a2973e05e4d9c7b5] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:00:26) SimonAW: hello
(15:00:45) _mh1: moin
(15:01:18) _mh1: are we ready to start with 3.0 status
(15:01:28) _Nesshof1 [n=_Nesshof@nat/sun/x-0e337d311da5a91b] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:01:55) ***_mh1 is a little bit unprepared since his laptop is used for debugging issue 93051
(15:02:01) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P2 deadlock at office start http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93051
(15:02:21) _mh1: seems to be a blocker for 3.0
(15:03:12) _mh1: i think other topic today is removal of filetype registration page at 1st startup
(15:03:24) MechtiIde: _mh1, can you give us a short explenation about this issue
(15:03:44) _mh1: MechtiIde: which one ?
(15:03:52) MechtiIde: I mean issue 93051
(15:03:57) IZBot: framework DEFECT NEW P2 deadlock at office start http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93051
(15:04:51) _mh1: I install a OOO300 m2 or m3, the Office 1st start page is coming if I start the e.g. writer
(15:04:58) MechtiIde: I can't judge it
(15:05:16) _mh1: and after finishing the 1st start wizard no document view come up
(15:05:38) _mh1: it seems to be dependent of the User configuration being migrated
(15:06:19) _mh1: so it does not occur without data migration from 2 to 3
(15:07:33) _mh1: filetype registration: iTeam is sorry about their process violation
(15:08:10) _mh1: has Dirk already did also a posting on releases ?
(15:08:27) _mh1: mla: ja, btw, will we have minutes today ?
(15:08:42) ja_: I am prepared...
(15:08:56) FrankS: if we're still talking about stoppers ... I'd have some more nominations ...
(15:09:20) FrankS: (perhaps before we come to the first start wizard issue)
(15:09:23) FrankS: ?
(15:09:28) ***_mh1 wondered for a second who FrankS might be :-)
(15:09:40) MechtiIde: hello FrankS
(15:09:50) FrankS: Oh
(15:09:52) FrankS: sorry
(15:09:55) FrankS: introduction:
(15:09:57) FrankS: Frank Schnheit
(15:09:59) FrankS: Argh
(15:10:11) FrankS: Frank Schoenheit with an IRC client which does not know umlauts
(15:10:20) rtimm: _mh1: 'S' ist for stopper, I'd guess ;-)
(15:10:26) UweL: Dirk did not post on releases
(15:10:26) FrankS: hehe :)
(15:10:35) FrankS: Frank "Show Stopper" Schoenheit - I like it :)
(15:11:13) FrankS: no.1 : issue 93053
(15:11:18) IZBot: Database access DEFECT RESOLVED FIXED P2 If I save a query in Base under a query-name that already exists, the entire application will crash http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93053
(15:11:38) _mh1: accepted
(15:11:40) FrankS: That's a Mac-only issue, but it can happen in quite a wide range of scenarios
(15:11:42) FrankS: oh
(15:11:48) FrankS: (that was easy)
(15:11:58) FrankS: issue 0317
(15:12:03) FrankS: issue 93017
(15:12:03) IZBot: www DEFECT CLOSED FIXED P3 We need an archive for the support mailing list http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=0317
(15:12:13) IZBot: Database access DEFECT RESOLVED FIXED P3 Inserted Time field shows wrong results http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93017
(15:12:13) _mh1: ?
(15:12:14) FrankS: fix applies to the SRB extension code only
(15:12:33) FrankS: effectively, in some circumstances the Sun Report Builder writes invalid time values into the generated reports
(15:12:45) FrankS: and reports without a valid date/time stamp are quite ... useless, IMO
(15:14:47) MechtiIde: FrankS, +1
(15:15:01) _mh1: what out DB expert are saying about this issue ?
(15:15:04) bettina-h: +1
(15:15:15) _mh1: what is the risk of the fix ?
(15:15:48) FrankS: uhm - to my best knowledge, nearly 0 - it's just about adding a few keywords to a list which formerly missed it
(15:16:00) FrankS: (more detailed explanations would need to be given by Ocke, who's not here anymore)
(15:16:25) FrankS: In real, it's a blocker for 1.0.5, not for OOo 3.0
(15:16:47) FrankS: but since we plan to release SRB 1.0.5 from the OOo 3.0 code line, I would like to integrate it before 3.0 closure
(15:17:00) MechtiIde: but we need 1.0.5 to be able to use SRB with 3.0
(15:17:14) _mh1: ok, fine with me
(15:17:39) FrankS: mechthile: yes, we plan to include this fix in 1.0.5 in any way - it's just the question whether we release 1.0.5 from the OOO300 MWS or from a CWS branch
(15:17:43) FrankS: _mh1: thanks
(15:18:04) FrankS: one more
(15:18:06) FrankS: issue 93014
(15:18:12) IZBot: Database access DEFECT VERIFIED FIXED P2 report design loses its modification state when report is executed http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93014
(15:18:31) FrankS: after executing a report from within the report designer, the "modified" state of the report design is reset to "unmodified"
(15:18:50) FrankS: which means that when closing the design, all the changes you made in the previous minutes/hours/days are lost
(15:18:57) FrankS: which qualifies as data loss, IMO
(15:19:06) MechtiIde: +1
(15:19:11) FrankS: fix is risk-less, to my best knowledge
(15:19:30) bettina-h: +1
(15:19:43) ja_: +1
(15:19:50) paveljanik: +1
(15:19:54) mla: data loss is really bad, +1
(15:20:05) _mh1: since it is in extension code, I'm fine with it
(15:20:12) FrankS: *: thanks
(15:20:23) FrankS: that's all from my side, trying to be somewhat less gossipy now :)
(15:20:29) mod__: any comment on issue 93092
(15:20:34) IZBot: Word processor DEFECT NEW P3 comments not imported from docx files http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93092
(15:20:43) mod__: some say it is stopper, some don't
(15:20:53) blauwal: +1
(15:20:55) stefan_b: mod__, I say: no stopper :-)
(15:21:24) mod__: we worked for a year on notes, all reviews mention it....not importing them now seems totally wrong IMHO....
(15:21:37) stefan_b: docx filter is newly introduced, thus no regression. Works fine with .doc format. Little ressources in DEV -> Target 3.1
(15:21:48) stefan_b: Imports fine in .DOC...
(15:21:58) _mh1: mod__: do we have en effort estimation for a implementation ?
(15:21:58) mod__: I know I am probably biased, but still I think it is a no go, as it is one of the new features of writer
(15:22:18) stefan_b: _mh1, ask Henning B.
(15:22:23) FrankS: isn't .docx import one of the major new features of 3.0?
(15:22:42) mod__: I would estimated copy&paste of about 5 lines, as commentreference works
(15:22:44) FrankS: wouldn't it be bad to release with such a bug which completely breaks the document layout?
(15:23:00) mod__: but it is not supported by office 2007, so this does not help
(15:23:00) _mh1: yes, but we also know, that we will not complete with 3.0
(15:23:21) mod__: there are also page breaks inserted, so yet, layout is complety broken
(15:23:39) mod__: s/yet/yes
(15:25:17) mod__: I guess we have to wait for other blockers anyway?
(15:25:37) _mh1: mod__: I would guess this would need some days for implementation and qa, so I would not stop 3.0 release for this but would consider 3.0.1 as a valid target
(15:26:16) mod__: _mh1: I think this is totally wrong, but better then 3.1 of course
(15:26:18) MechtiIde: 3.0.1 is a possibility for me
(15:26:31) MechtiIde: but not 3.1
(15:28:02) _mh1: mod__: is this the only major feature we miss in docx import or are there also other ones ?
(15:28:49) _mh1: stefan_b: ?
(15:28:55) mod__: did not spend a lot of time on it, but the sample document from oooninja I just attached to the issue seems fine
(15:29:14) mod__: just the page break due to the note messes it up complatly
(15:29:36) stefan_b: _mh1, I spoke to MRU. I make a quick query for docx issues, wait...
(15:30:12) mod__: there is probably other stuff missing as well, but nothing which was announced to work in every single review (I read)
(15:32:33) ja_: From my perspective it's a bit late to work on this for the 3.0 target. We should get more information from Henning Brinkmann regarding the effort estimation of this implementation. From my POV we should target this for 3.0.1 or for 3.1 if the estimation doesn't allow an implementation before.
(15:32:39) stefan_b: I see 11 (eleven) open issues with docx in title, most assigned to henning.
(15:34:25) ***_mh1 can't make a decision now without effort estimation and risk assessment
(15:34:42) _mh1: but I would not consider this as a blocker for release
(15:35:09) _mh1: we need to talk to henning about his prios and see then on how to proceed
(15:35:24) _mh1: any other issues to be raised ?
(15:35:38) MechtiIde: issue 86615
(15:35:43) IZBot: Database access DEFECT NEW P3 Missing error message by using mysql db http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=86615
(15:35:53) MechtiIde: does not only affect Mandriva
(15:36:09) MechtiIde: on Weekend we found that it only affects Fedora
(15:36:24) MechtiIde: sorry wrong number
(15:36:46) stefan_b: Highlights of "other docx issues": #90263 #90699
(15:36:52) IZBot: Word processor DEFECT NEW P3 Docx : Text in Columns don't work http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=90699
(15:37:11) stefan_b: Issue 90263
(15:37:17) IZBot: Word processor DEFECT NEW P3 docx: implement import of Equations http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=90263
(15:37:58) _mh1: stefan_b: enough, we need to declare docx import as experimental anyhow
(15:38:20) MechtiIde: I mean issue 86389
(15:38:25) stefan_b: OK :-)
(15:38:30) IZBot: tools DEFECT NEW P3 Mandriva: no KDE support (OOo' libstdc++.so.6 incompatible with the system's) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=86389
(15:42:56) _mh1: hmmm
(15:43:13) blauwal: Well, updating the compiler won't happen until 3.0, I guess
(15:44:13) blauwal: And I'm not sure if just bundling a new libstdc++.so.6 will not break something else. It shouldn't though, theoretically
(15:44:18) _mh1: blauwal: why do we need to ship libstdc++ at all ?
(15:44:28) _mh1: (just for reference)
(15:44:48) blauwal: _mh1: Because of a wrong decision by a round like this back in 2003 or so
(15:45:25) blauwal: It would be sufficient to link against libsupc++.so
(15:45:54) FrankS: aside from the reasons for this bug: Given that it exists since 2.3.1, can it really be a blocker for 3.0, in the current phase
(15:45:55) FrankS: ?
(15:47:14) ja_: blauwal: will there be anything we will miss if we link against libsupc++.so instead ?
(15:47:21) _mh1: is only Mandriva affected ?
(15:47:56) MechtiIde: _mh1, no also Fedora
(15:48:11) MechtiIde: that why I post it here now
(15:48:34) MechtiIde: http://www.oooninja.com/
(15:49:23) blauwal: We could try to bundle a newer libstdc++.6.0 and see if it works. But this is a principal problem, can happen every time someone upgrades his system
(15:51:37) blauwal: The question is, do we risk something like this, which easily can have unintended consequences all over the office right now
(15:51:37) MechtiIde: em is IMo that there are conflicts between the OOo lib and the distri lib
(15:52:30) MechtiIde: The problem is...
(15:55:01) _mh1: ?
(15:55:18) volkerme [email@example.com] hat den Raum betreten.
(15:56:04) _mh1: blauwal: how much effort it is to introduce external/libstdc++ ?
(15:56:08) MechtiIde: Ok I repeat my comment:
(15:56:30) MechtiIde: The problem is IMO that there are conflicts between the OOo lib and the distri lib
(15:56:39) blauwal: _mh1: not overly much in RE, I guess more in QA
(15:57:24) blauwal: we would need to research witch patchlevel is ok, build that version of gcc on the base line and then package the stuff
(15:57:25) _mh1: is vanilla libstc++ already the problem or are that modifactions done by the distros ?
(15:57:49) _mh1: blauwal: I think this would address pavels concerns
(15:57:54) blauwal: _mh1: that i do not know
(15:59:15) _mh1: so then we should update to a recent version, build that version from source and all should be fine ?
(15:59:29) _mh1: paveljanik: any comments ?
(15:59:43) blauwal: _mh1: we would just need to bundle that one. No need to build against it
(15:59:59) MechtiIde: so is it possible to tra a target to 3.0.1 and I try to get the information if the distris do some modifications
(16:00:03) MechtiIde: and so on
(16:00:49) blauwal: yeah, could be a solution
(16:01:03) blauwal: I'm a bit anxious regarding 3.0
(16:01:11) _mh1: yes, just to be legally on the safe side and hace also the source avail.
(16:01:29) _mh1: MechtiIde: blauwal: so we agree on target 3.0.1 ?
(16:01:30) blauwal: well, for 3.0.1 we could change the compiler as well
(16:01:43) blauwal: _mh1: ok for me
(16:01:55) MechtiIde: ok
(16:02:40) _mh1: ok, next issue to raise ?
(16:03:29) _mh1: then we can get back to filetype registration ?
(16:03:35) MechtiIde: yes
(16:04:09) _mh1: ok, i think we all agree that we need to register for "so called" ooxml files ?
(16:04:32) paveljanik: sorry I was away.
(16:04:44) FrankS: mh: yes
(16:04:48) paveljanik: bundle binary lib without the sources in the CVS? ;-)
(16:05:14) blauwal: we do that now as well
(16:05:22) _mh1: paveljanik: with sources in external/libstdc++
(16:05:43) blauwal: _mh1: Oh yeah, please only a a link to the gcc sources
(16:05:57) blauwal: _mh1: the situation does not change a bit from waht we have now
(16:06:18) _mh1: blauwal: but the current situation is not ok
(16:06:31) blauwal: _mh1: It is, because it#s part of the compiler
(16:06:53) blauwal: _mh1: and there is a exception for the run time libraries of gcc
(16:07:10) blauwal: _mh1: only if we would change something we would need to ship them
(16:08:00) blauwal: _mh1: I certainly don't want a full gcc in my repository
(16:08:33) blauwal: _mh1: why not binutils as well=
(16:08:44) _mh1: the rule is for every binary we ship/include in the install set, there must be sources
(16:08:56) _mh1: do we bundle ld,as ?
(16:09:17) paveljanik: then this is not the correct way at all
(16:09:34) blauwal: _mh1: the the rule is broken
(16:10:14) _mh1: blauwal: then you say, LGPL is broken ?
(16:10:48) blauwal: _mh1: It's not LGPL, the runtime libraries have an exception to LGPL
(16:10:56) rtimm: _mh1: we also bundle msvcp71.dll, AFAIK
(16:11:17) blauwal: _mh1: and nowhere it says that you have to keep the stuff in *your* repository
(16:11:57) blauwal: _mh1: a pointer where to find the sources should be good enough
(16:12:23) blauwal: _mh1: we don't keep the full mozilla stuff in the rep as well, only a pinter
(16:12:39) blauwal: s/pinter/pointer/
(16:13:34) blauwal: do you really want that people have to download a version of gcc everytime they do checkout the sources even if they do not plan to use it?
(16:14:09) _mh1: blauwal: its not the question I want, but the question I"m required to do
(16:15:37) blauwal: _mh1: What is it which founds this requirement?
(16:16:52) blauwal: _mh1: LGPL says nothing about placing stuff in your repository and LGPL doesn't apply to the run time library due to a special exception
(16:19:17) _mh1: GPLv3 : 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
(16:19:38) blauwal: doesn't appy
(16:19:45) _mh1: Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
(16:19:58) _mh1: blauwal: why ?
(16:20:32) blauwal: because there is an exception for the gcc runtime libs
(16:21:05) _mh1: yes, and what does this exception say ?
(16:21:10) paveljanik: ok, lets move on please
(16:22:03) _mh1: paveljanik: ok, I claryfy offline
(16:22:03) rtimm: paveljanik: +1 This cannot be a stopper for 3.0, I think. Let's discuss it elsewhere.
(16:22:15) ja_: As minute taker I'd like to ask for the outcome of this discussion. My current version is: "The outcome was to build a recent version of libstdc++ from source and bundle it.". Is it still valid ?
(16:22:31) paveljanik: no
(16:22:37) paveljanik: I hope it never was valid ;-)
(16:23:05) rtimm: The outcome was to fix that issue for 3.0.1
(16:23:29) ***FrankS has to leave - bye
(16:23:31) FrankS hat den Raum verlassen
(16:24:08) ja_: rtimm: thanks. I'll write this.
(16:25:12) _mh1: anybody who is still interested in filetype registration ?
(16:25:14) rtimm: _mh1: you tried to start a discussion about filetype registration, IIRC ...
(16:25:41) ***rtimm is too slow again - sorry
(16:25:44) _mh1: rtimm: I seem to be the only one ?!
(16:26:05) MechtiIde: no I'm very interested
(16:26:48) ja_: _mh1: is there any reason not to include the oooxml filetype registrations ?
(16:26:57) ***volkerme is at the office where he has to care also about the phone and people who are trying to look at his screen ...
(16:28:28) volkerme: ja_: It would be fine if making the "X" for the Word documents adds the docx-documents too
(16:28:35) _mh1: ok, i think we all agree that we need to register for "so called" ooxml files ?
(16:28:57) MechtiIde: yes, in general
(16:29:04) rtimm: _mh1: yes, we do
(16:29:27) UweL: yes, without general
(16:29:47) _mh1: just using the old dialog with the new file type is poblematic
(16:29:54) mla: what about to do this with a second checkbox? or is it not possible anymore because of needed ges?
(16:30:08) _mh1: because we need to deal with different versions of MSO
(16:30:34) _mh1: mla: this also would be a UI change with strings
(16:30:44) volkerme: _mh1: I did not really got that in the whole discussion
(16:30:45) _mh1: no way to do this at this time
(16:31:08) volkerme: _mh1: The old checkbox registered different file-extensions too
(16:31:39) _mh1: volkerme: what if you have a Word 2003 ?
(16:31:54) _mh1: leave all word file type to MSO
(16:32:09) _mh1: in this case we would like to register e.g. for .docx
(16:32:23) _mh1: but the checkbox just says word
(16:32:40) _mh1: so this is ambigouis
(16:33:52) volkerme: Ok, but wtih the solution which is now present in m3 we are cutting off some possibility of choice for the user.
(16:33:55) _mh1: so from user experience point of view, the now implemented behaviour seems to be a better solution that we had before
(16:34:17) _mh1: but of course this is also for some people a gression
(16:34:25) _mh1: s/regression/gression
(16:34:54) _mh1: but this regression can be workarounded with setup switches as I have learned
(16:35:12) _mh1: so my proposal is:
(16:35:18) MechtiIde: _mh1, are they documented?
(16:35:38) _mh1: MechtiIde: I hope so, if not, they need to
(16:35:50) MechtiIde: till the release ;-)
(16:36:12) volkerme: The proposal please
(16:36:33) _mh1: accept the apology from the iTeam
(16:37:00) _mh1: take my promise that I will have a much more closer look to "tasks" at nomination time
(16:37:28) _mh1: * write an announcement no to use issue type tasks for office code changes
(16:37:57) _mh1: and go with the current implemented version (plus bug fixes) into 3.0 release
(16:38:33) ***_mh1 waits for comments
(16:39:16) MechtiIde: Is it possible to have a wiki page for the possible switches, which we can link e.g from the feature pge?
(16:39:24) mod___ [firstname.lastname@example.org] hat den Raum betreten.
(16:39:41) MechtiIde: I will intensively test this new feature
(16:39:55) ***_mh1 answers to "is it possible" question always with yes :-)
(16:40:10) MechtiIde: bugs there should be discussed as showstopper
(16:40:15) _mh1: kai_a: we should check if there is already documentation
(16:40:19) _mh1: MechtiIde: yes
(16:40:29) volkerme: _mh1: I think we do not really have a choice.
(16:40:48) UweL: me too
(16:40:52) _mh1: volkerme: yes, this is no lucky situation
(16:41:05) MechtiIde: kai_a, can I have a first draft?
(16:41:33) _rene_: kai_a: didn't you say you wanted to the extension modules also mke buildble against the SDK?
(16:41:50) volkerme: For the later versions we should work on a dialouge as it is present in many other programs which can handle different filetypes.
(16:41:54) _rene_: (sorry for joining right now, missed it...)
(16:42:31) _rene_: kai_a: I don't see how they are :)
(16:43:06) kai_a: _rene_: it should do so, at least the CWS is approved by QA; do you still see any problems?
(16:43:09) _mh1: MechtiIde: I will ask dirk to add that documentation at least to the spec ?
(16:43:14) volkerme: One should be able to associate filetypes at setup and reconfigure this from within the program
(16:43:26) _rene_: kai_a: well, at peast reportdesign does not build with the SDK
(16:43:27) _mh1: s/?/!
(16:43:32) _rene_: kai_a: with the SDK only I mean
(16:43:58) _rene_: setsdkenv. bbuild of course doesn't work and dmake complained about missing settings.mk
(16:44:19) _mh1: MechtiIde: would that be ok for you ?
(16:44:39) MechtiIde: _mh1, I wish, I can test some parameters when I test the installation of m4
(16:44:46) MechtiIde: then it is ok
(16:44:46) ***_mh1 thinks that there is a need for a threaded irc client
(16:45:20) kai_a: _rene_: reportdesign can't be separated (at least in a medium timeframe), as it is deeply interwoven with C++ office code and interfaces, only the new reportbuilder uses pure API calls
(16:45:22) _mh1: ok, any other issues to discuss for 3.0 today ?
(16:45:23) paveljanik: _mh1: token ring needed for IRC ;-)
(16:45:37) _rene_: err, I of course meant reportbuilder
(16:45:51) UweL: not from my side
(16:46:04) ja_: not from my side
(16:46:16) MechtiIde: Release engeneer?
(16:46:29) MechtiIde: RE?
(16:46:30) _mh1: thanks to all for reporting all the stopper before the first rc
(16:46:36) MechtiIde: so it is easier ;-)
(16:46:47) _mh1: the release candidate mght be slip for a week
(16:46:51) kai_a: _rene_: then I need to take a look again. Will mail you...
(16:47:24) _rene_: for example:
(16:47:25) _rene_: rene@frodo:~/OpenOffice.org/DEV300/reportbuilder/java/com/sun/star/report/pentaho$ dmake
(16:47:28) _rene_: dmake: makefile.mk: line 39: Error: -- Include file settings.mk, not found
(16:47:46) mla: FYI: DEV300_m30 was uploaded
(16:47:51) ja_: Next uploads will be done by myself. Marcus will be on vacation for the next weeks.
(16:47:59) paveljanik: _rene_: please...
(16:48:07) _rene_: I missed it, what was the timeline for m4 again?
(16:48:15) _rene_: and will rc1 keep schedule or be delayed?
(16:48:30) _rene_: sorry, was packing stuff into moving boxes and missed the time...
(16:48:37) _mh1: _rene_: asap, i think m4 will not sart before wedenesday
(16:48:51) MechtiIde: As I understand m4=RC1 on 2008-09-01
(16:49:01) MechtiIde: or the friday before
(16:49:19) _rene_: hrmpf, when I have no net connection. brilliant. (no fault for you of course)
(16:50:13) _mh1: ok, anything else for today ?
(16:50:35) _rene_: paveljanik: please what?
(16:50:40) UweL: again, not from my side
(16:50:45) _mh1: by
(16:50:46) rtimm: MechtiIde: Sorry, missed your question. RE for OOO300 m4 will be me (rt)
(16:50:47) ja_: Who's going to do the builds ?
(16:50:50) _rene_: paveljanik: the separation of the extensions was a blocker :-)
(16:50:51) bettina-h: Bye.
(16:50:58) UweL: bye
(16:51:04) paveljanik: bye
(16:51:06) UweL hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0/2008052906]").
(16:51:09) kai_a: bye
(16:51:12) kai_a hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070206]").
(16:51:13) bettina-h hat den Raum verlassen (quit: "ChatZilla 0.9.82.1 [Firefox 3.0.1/2008070208]").
(16:51:19) of_sun: bye
(16:51:21) MechtiIde: rtimm, ja_ are the dates right?
(16:51:26) MechtiIde: as I posted?
(16:51:30) mla: bye
(16:52:15) rtimm: MechtiIde: m4=RC1 is what I think, too
(16:52:41) ja_: rtimm: who's going to build DEV300_m31 =
(16:53:02) rtimm: MechtiIde: and Martin wrote "i think m4 will not sart before wedenesday"
(16:53:44) rtimm: MechtiIde: I don't know more either, as I can only take what I get nominated by him
(16:54:02) MechtiIde: and I want to know when the binary can be avaiilable
(16:54:29) _Nesshof1 hat den Raum verlassen (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).