You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> on 2012/06/28 16:48:55 UTC
[IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Hi,
sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
means by the end of this week.
The warning messages have to translated!!!
Any opinions
Juergen
On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>
> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
> updating Pootle etc.)
>
> Juergen
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lin Yuan
>>
>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>> user.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>> the same user account.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>
>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 02/07/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> In the worst
> case we have the English string only.
Since it's only one string, and displayed in uncommon circumstances, it
won't be a huge issue if it's only available in English. But if it is
available in Pootle we can surely translate it into Italian.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 7/2/12 9:58 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:30:05AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 6/29/12 7:55 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
>>>>> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>>>
>>> aren't we in "string freeze" mode? Translation deadline is by end of
>>> June (this Sunday); and deadline is for fixing current strings, not
>>> introducing new ones.
>>
>> your are correct but this new warning box is related to the ongoing
>> Windows 8 discussion and is part of a fix for one of the 5 critical
>> issues. So it can be seen as an exception.
>>
>> But if you have serious concerns please let us know and we can try to
>> solve it in time or we can drop it completely for 3.4.1.
>
> I don't do translations, so for me it's fine; but we should obviously
> query before adding a new string if we have translators available to
> translate the string for all the languages we are delivering; I doubt
> translators are following this thread (I wasn't reading it myself, just
> payed attention to this line with the new translation on a day with
> "few" mail ;) ).
good point but I think we have to do it special anyway. In the worst
case we have the English string only.
Juergen
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by
Windows App Certification Kit
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jürgen,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:30:05AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/29/12 7:55 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> >>> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
> >
> > aren't we in "string freeze" mode? Translation deadline is by end of
> > June (this Sunday); and deadline is for fixing current strings, not
> > introducing new ones.
>
> your are correct but this new warning box is related to the ongoing
> Windows 8 discussion and is part of a fix for one of the 5 critical
> issues. So it can be seen as an exception.
>
> But if you have serious concerns please let us know and we can try to
> solve it in time or we can drop it completely for 3.4.1.
I don't do translations, so for me it's fine; but we should obviously
query before adding a new string if we have translators available to
translate the string for all the languages we are delivering; I doubt
translators are following this thread (I wasn't reading it myself, just
payed attention to this line with the new translation on a day with
"few" mail ;) ).
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Lin Yuan <yu...@gmail.com>.
I have updated the patch and remove the ""Fatal Error" string on warning
dialog title. Can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78532
About the warning message, I suggest keep original string but not add
"Opening this instance could result in ?????". Now open the instance could
result in crash. I don't think we need to tell user about this. It's just a
feature that AOO do not support.
Thanks,
Lin Yuan
2012/7/2 ���� �� <il...@yahoo.com.cn>
> For the string, I have the following suggestions:
>
> The yellow symbol does not match the title "Fatal Error." If it is truly
> a only a warning, make the title "Warning."
>
> As for wording, you should start out by telling the user what could happen
> in the situation. Then start a new paragraph and tell them what to do to
> avoid that. Something like:
> "Another instance of this application is open in a different terminal
> session. Opening this instance could result in ?????.
> Close the first instance before you open the application on a different
> terminal."
>
> Thanks!
> Tracy Duan
>
> --- 12��6��30�գ�����, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> д����
>
> ������: zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>
> ����: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
> "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
> App Certification Kit
> �ռ���: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> ����: 2012��6��30��,����,����8:50
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
> > 4 hours is too short. This is an international project with
> contributors in different time zones around the globe. For example, when
> you posted this message, it was 01:26 where I am (utc-0700).
> >
> > I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be
> rolled back, however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that
> provides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond). If
> you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report that you are doing
> so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
>
> Thanks for the reminder. I am always willing to rollback the commit
> if there is any objective to the committed new string appears. I will
> monitor the discussion for a few more time.
>
> zhangjf
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8
> certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions"
> is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
> >
> > I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> > only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
> > And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> > title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> > translation.
> >
> > If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> > string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
> >
> > thanks,
> > zhangjf
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
> >> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
> >>
> >> zhangjf
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, J��rgen Schmidt
> >> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, J��rgen Schmidt
> >>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, J��rgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> >>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
> >>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
> >>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without
> committing
> >>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string
> first.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running
> localize
> >>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the
> translation on
> >>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it
> back
> >>>>>> in svn.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements.
> Can
> >>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
> >>>>> review?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
> >>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482
> .
> >>>
> >>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
> >>>
> >>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I
> don't
> >>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
> >>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
> >>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to
> move
> >>>>> forward immediately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> zhangjf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, J��rgen Schmidt
> >>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and
> important.
> >>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it
> immediately,
> >>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any opinions
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, J��rgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is
> locked and can
> >>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server
> 2008, AOO
> >>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really
> support one user
> >>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case.
> According to the
> >>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
> >>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or
> remote access,
> >>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of
> session.
> >>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in
> this case. So
> >>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user
> but the UX is
> >>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not.
> It will
> >>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time
> (e.g.
> >>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user
> profiles for each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice
> using
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to
> get OpenOffice
> >>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment
> (MS TS,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects
> a second time
> >>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data.
> If you want to
> >>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed
> because
> >>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same
> user profile
> >>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just my two � Cents, Joost
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
Posted by 晓利 段 <il...@yahoo.com.cn>.
For the string, I have the following suggestions:
The yellow symbol does not match the title "Fatal Error." If it is truly a only a warning, make the title "Warning."
As for wording, you should start out by telling the user what could happen in the situation. Then start a new paragraph and tell them what to do to avoid that. Something like:
"Another instance of this application is open in a different terminal session. Opening this instance could result in ?????.
Close the first instance before you open the application on a different terminal."
Thanks!
Tracy Duan
--- 12年6月30日，周六, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> 写道：
发件人: zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>
主题: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
收件人: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, dennis.hamilton@acm.org
日期: 2012年6月30日,周六,上午8:50
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> 4 hours is too short. This is an international project with contributors in different time zones around the globe. For example, when you posted this message, it was 01:26 where I am (utc-0700).
>
> I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be rolled back, however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that provides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond). If you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report that you are doing so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
>
> - Dennis
>
Thanks for the reminder. I am always willing to rollback the commit
if there is any objective to the committed new string appears. I will
monitor the discussion for a few more time.
zhangjf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
>
> I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
> And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> translation.
>
> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>
> thanks,
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
>> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>>
>> zhangjf
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>>> review?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>>
>>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>>
>>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>>
>>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> 4 hours is too short. This is an international project with contributors in different time zones around the globe. For example, when you posted this message, it was 01:26 where I am (utc-0700).
>
> I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be rolled back, however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that provides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond). If you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report that you are doing so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
>
> - Dennis
>
Thanks for the reminder. I am always willing to rollback the commit
if there is any objective to the committed new string appears. I will
monitor the discussion for a few more time.
zhangjf
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
>
> I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
> And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> translation.
>
> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>
> thanks,
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
>> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>>
>> zhangjf
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>>> review?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>>
>>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>>
>>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>>
>>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
RE: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
4 hours is too short. This is an international project with contributors in different time zones around the globe. For example, when you posted this message, it was 01:26 where I am (utc-0700).
I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be rolled back, however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that provides adequate time for interested parties to review and respond). If you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report that you are doing so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
translation.
If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
thanks,
zhangjf
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>> review?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>
>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>
>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>
>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 6/29/12 7:55 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
>>> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>
> aren't we in "string freeze" mode? Translation deadline is by end of
> June (this Sunday); and deadline is for fixing current strings, not
> introducing new ones.
your are correct but this new warning box is related to the ongoing
Windows 8 discussion and is part of a fix for one of the 5 critical
issues. So it can be seen as an exception.
But if you have serious concerns please let us know and we can try to
solve it in time or we can drop it completely for 3.4.1.
I am in favor to have all the critical issues fixed and be prepared for
everything.
Juergen
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
>> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
aren't we in "string freeze" mode? Translation deadline is by end of
June (this Sunday); and deadline is for fixing current strings, not
introducing new ones.
Regards
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
Since no further comments, I have committed the string patch to
AOO3.4.1 by revision r1355344 at first. The code part is still open
for review.
Regards,
Zhangjf
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
> And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> translation.
>
> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>
> thanks,
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
>> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>>
>> zhangjf
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>>> review?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>>
>>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>>
>>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>>
>>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
translation.
If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
thanks,
zhangjf
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>
>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>> review?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>
>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>
>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>
>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
string? it won't add one more string for translation.
zhangjf
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>>> in svn.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>> review?
>>>
>>
>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>
> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>
> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>
> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>>
>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>> forward immediately.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>>
>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>
>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>>> in svn.
>>>
>>
>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>> review?
>>
>
> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
Juergen
>
>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>> forward immediately.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> zhangjf
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>
>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>>
>>> Is it acceptable?
>>
>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
>> in svn.
>>
>
> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
> review?
>
Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
> forward immediately.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> zhangjf
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>
>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>
>>>> Any opinions
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>>
>> Is it acceptable?
>
> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
> in svn.
>
I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
review?
In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
forward immediately.
Juergen
> Juergen
>
>
>
>>
>> zhangjf
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>
>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>
>>> Any opinions
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>
>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test
for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
>
> Is it acceptable?
sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on
Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back
in svn.
Juergen
>
> zhangjf
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
>> means by the end of this week.
>>
>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>
>> Any opinions
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>
>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for
"Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows
App Certification Kit
Posted by zhangjf <zh...@apache.org>.
If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one
option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up
translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing
the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first.
Is it acceptable?
zhangjf
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important.
> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately,
> means by the end of this week.
>
> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>
> Any opinions
>
> Juergen
>
> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and can
>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one user
>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the
>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote access,
>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session.
>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. So
>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the UX is
>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>
>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will
>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g.
>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lin Yuan
>>>
>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>
>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for each
>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using
>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get OpenOffice
>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS,
>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a second time
>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you want to
>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because
>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user profile
>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>
>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>