You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> on 2012/03/19 05:51:17 UTC
IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Hello;
Despite its evident value, I think I find this
QA testing report somewhat misguiding ...
100% IP clearance testing didnt find:
ooo_custom_images/industrial/README
and despite the website suggesting otherwise,
the tango binaries have embedded GPL notices.
We need some real testing on this!
Pedro.
BTW. The rat-excludes file is still very populated.
--- Dom 18/3/12, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Hi all,
>
> *AOO 3.4 Overall QA Status:
> *Based on the test plan:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan,
> I can
> say that the planned work are 100% done.
> 100% IP clearance testing have been done. These are the
> tests of areas most
> impacted by removed/replaced modules due to IP clearance.
> 100% general testing have been done. These are general
> functional tests.
>
> *AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report as of 2012/2/29 (2012/3/1 -
> 2012/3/12):
> *Test build: dev snapshot builds: Rev.
> r1299571<http://people.apache.org/%7Eorw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe>
> Test Platforms: Windows XP SP3, Mac Lionn, Ubuntu 10.04,
> Redhat 6.1,
> Windows 7 SP1
> Test Cases Executed:
> IP Clearance: libneon replacement issue tracking
> General testing:
> Math formula
> Some Base functions
> *Interoperability automaiton testing:*
> Tested total 1188 files with following file types:
> (odt)|(ott)|(sxw)|(stw)|(doc)|(dot)|(ods)|(ots)|(sxc)|(stc)|(xls)|(xlt)|(odp)|(otp)|(sxi)|(sti)|(ppt)|(pot)
>
> The test scenarios cover:
>
> - Load
> - Save
> - Reopen
>
> Only one issue was found, it takes too long time (at least 4
> minutes) to
> open one sample excel file and UI is blocked when loading.
> OpenOffice.org
> 3.3 has the same problem. It's very quick using MS
> Office. Bug i119091 was
> raised for it. I checked the bugzilla, seems it is one known
> issue.
>
> *Defects Summary*:
> So far 360 defects raised against 3.4beta, AOO dev and
> 3.4m0. If we count
> the defects from 1th Aug. of last year, it means the about
> date we call
> "AOO 3.4", the total defects number is 271.
> Among the 360 defects, 51 critical defects raised and 17
> ones remain
> opening now.
> One great news is currently we only have 3 reamining release
> blockers and
> two of them need be discussed:
> D<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_id&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Sev▲<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_severity%20DESC%2Cpriority%2C&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Pri▲<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=priority%20DESC%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> OS<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=op_sys%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Assignee<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=assigned_to%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Status<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Resolution<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=resolution%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> Summary<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=short_desc%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
> 118895 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> cri P3 All
> jsc@apache.org
> CONF --- aoo3.4 r1240836: some contextmenu
> entries are
> not localized <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> 119082 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> cri P3 All
> ooo-issues@incubator.apache...
> CONF --- hidden section - crash when
> pressing F9 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> 119090<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> nor
> P3 All issues@security.openoffice.org
> CONF --- Default Encryption
> Fails for Down-Level Implementations
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> 3 bugs found.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 24 defects raised in this week,and 14 defects closed.
>
> Based on previous testing and my daily usage on AOO 3.4, so
> far we can say
> that:
> The stability is ok.
> The interoperability with MS Office seems fine.
> The basic functions work fine.
>
> But the accessibility, globalizaiton may have some problems.
> The general
> testing in community focus on installability, basic
> fucntions,
> interoperability, extension etc.
>
> *Risk:
> *The high risk for AOO 3.4 is during the migration from OO
> to AOO, many
> test cases lost and no one large automation suite can be
> used for
> regression testing now. So again I appreciate and thakns for
> everyone's
> contribution to QA works.
> If you have interesting in QA work and decide to contribute
> to it, please
> go to AOO 3.4 main page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA.
> Get dev build from:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
> Write your case by edit this page:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/
> And place your result:
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestResults
> Or you may just do general testing based on your usage
> without test cases
> or testing result and just raise defects in Bugzilla
> directly:
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
> Any contribution is welcome and can contribute to this
> project's success!
>
> Besides, I created entry for project reporting on below
> wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Reporting
>
> Uner it, you can get detail AOO 3.4 QA weekly status reports
> from this page:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+QA+Status+Report
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lily
>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As
of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Yong Lin Ma <ma...@gmail.com>.
I think the 100% means 100% test coverage for the IP clean work have
been done by developers.
Cleaning up (need finding out first) of all the license info in code
should be done by some tools.
Not sure whether that will be part of IPMC review.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
> Despite its evident value, I think I find this
> QA testing report somewhat misguiding ...
> 100% IP clearance testing didnt find:
>
> ooo_custom_images/industrial/README
>
> and despite the website suggesting otherwise,
> the tango binaries have embedded GPL notices.
>
> We need some real testing on this!
>
> Pedro.
>
> BTW. The rat-excludes file is still very populated.
>
> --- Dom 18/3/12, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> *AOO 3.4 Overall QA Status:
>> *Based on the test plan:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan,
>> I can
>> say that the planned work are 100% done.
>> 100% IP clearance testing have been done. These are the
>> tests of areas most
>> impacted by removed/replaced modules due to IP clearance.
>> 100% general testing have been done. These are general
>> functional tests.
>>
>> *AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report as of 2012/2/29 (2012/3/1 -
>> 2012/3/12):
>> *Test build: dev snapshot builds: Rev.
>> r1299571<http://people.apache.org/%7Eorw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe>
>> Test Platforms: Windows XP SP3, Mac Lionn, Ubuntu 10.04,
>> Redhat 6.1,
>> Windows 7 SP1
>> Test Cases Executed:
>> IP Clearance: libneon replacement issue tracking
>> General testing:
>> Math formula
>> Some Base functions
>> *Interoperability automaiton testing:*
>> Tested total 1188 files with following file types:
>> (odt)|(ott)|(sxw)|(stw)|(doc)|(dot)|(ods)|(ots)|(sxc)|(stc)|(xls)|(xlt)|(odp)|(otp)|(sxi)|(sti)|(ppt)|(pot)
>>
>> The test scenarios cover:
>>
>> - Load
>> - Save
>> - Reopen
>>
>> Only one issue was found, it takes too long time (at least 4
>> minutes) to
>> open one sample excel file and UI is blocked when loading.
>> OpenOffice.org
>> 3.3 has the same problem. It's very quick using MS
>> Office. Bug i119091 was
>> raised for it. I checked the bugzilla, seems it is one known
>> issue.
>>
>> *Defects Summary*:
>> So far 360 defects raised against 3.4beta, AOO dev and
>> 3.4m0. If we count
>> the defects from 1th Aug. of last year, it means the about
>> date we call
>> "AOO 3.4", the total defects number is 271.
>> Among the 360 defects, 51 critical defects raised and 17
>> ones remain
>> opening now.
>> One great news is currently we only have 3 reamining release
>> blockers and
>> two of them need be discussed:
>> D<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_id&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Sev▲<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_severity%20DESC%2Cpriority%2C&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Pri▲<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=priority%20DESC%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> OS<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=op_sys%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Assignee<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=assigned_to%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Status<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Resolution<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=resolution%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> Summary<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=short_desc%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker>
>> 118895 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
>> cri P3 All
>> jsc@apache.org
>> CONF --- aoo3.4 r1240836: some contextmenu
>> entries are
>> not localized <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
>> 119082 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
>> cri P3 All
>> ooo-issues@incubator.apache...
>> CONF --- hidden section - crash when
>> pressing F9 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
>> 119090<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
>> nor
>> P3 All issues@security.openoffice.org
>> CONF --- Default Encryption
>> Fails for Down-Level Implementations
>> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
>> 3 bugs found.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 24 defects raised in this week,and 14 defects closed.
>>
>> Based on previous testing and my daily usage on AOO 3.4, so
>> far we can say
>> that:
>> The stability is ok.
>> The interoperability with MS Office seems fine.
>> The basic functions work fine.
>>
>> But the accessibility, globalizaiton may have some problems.
>> The general
>> testing in community focus on installability, basic
>> fucntions,
>> interoperability, extension etc.
>>
>> *Risk:
>> *The high risk for AOO 3.4 is during the migration from OO
>> to AOO, many
>> test cases lost and no one large automation suite can be
>> used for
>> regression testing now. So again I appreciate and thakns for
>> everyone's
>> contribution to QA works.
>> If you have interesting in QA work and decide to contribute
>> to it, please
>> go to AOO 3.4 main page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA.
>> Get dev build from:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
>> Write your case by edit this page:
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/
>> And place your result:
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestResults
>> Or you may just do general testing based on your usage
>> without test cases
>> or testing result and just raise defects in Bugzilla
>> directly:
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
>> Any contribution is welcome and can contribute to this
>> project's success!
>>
>> Besides, I created entry for project reporting on below
>> wiki:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Reporting
>>
>> Uner it, you can get detail AOO 3.4 QA weekly status reports
>> from this page:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+QA+Status+Report
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Lily
>>
RE: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
There is a tool, RAT, that is used to check SVN for license headers.
I believe that is being worked through.
Meanwhile, I want to correct what might be a misunderstanding.
It is the PPMC responsibility to *demonstrate* to the IPMC that IP clearance has been accomplished and in a way that can be inspected/verified/audited. It is not the IPMC's job to find IP clearance issues for us.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Shenfeng Liu [mailto:liushenf@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 23:30
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Pedro,
You can see from the test plan
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan , that
the IP clearance testing that Lily performed is functional verification
test for those areas impacted by the IP clearance work. I think the code
scan work should be done by developer, but not Lily as a tester.
While I'm also curious to know if any tool can be used to help us to do
the IP scan...
- Simon
2012/3/19 Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> Hello;
>
> Despite its evident value, I think I find this
> QA testing report somewhat misguiding ...
> 100% IP clearance testing didnt find:
>
> ooo_custom_images/industrial/README
>
> and despite the website suggesting otherwise,
> the tango binaries have embedded GPL notices.
>
> We need some real testing on this!
>
> Pedro.
>
> BTW. The rat-excludes file is still very populated.
>
> --- Dom 18/3/12, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > *AOO 3.4 Overall QA Status:
> > *Based on the test plan:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan,
> > I can
> > say that the planned work are 100% done.
> > 100% IP clearance testing have been done. These are the
> > tests of areas most
> > impacted by removed/replaced modules due to IP clearance.
> > 100% general testing have been done. These are general
> > functional tests.
> >
> > *AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report as of 2012/2/29 (2012/3/1 -
> > 2012/3/12):
> > *Test build: dev snapshot builds: Rev.
> > r1299571<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Eorw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe<http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe>
> >
> > Test Platforms: Windows XP SP3, Mac Lionn, Ubuntu 10.04,
> > Redhat 6.1,
> > Windows 7 SP1
> > Test Cases Executed:
> > IP Clearance: libneon replacement issue tracking
> > General testing:
> > Math formula
> > Some Base functions
> > *Interoperability automaiton testing:*
> > Tested total 1188 files with following file types:
> >
> (odt)|(ott)|(sxw)|(stw)|(doc)|(dot)|(ods)|(ots)|(sxc)|(stc)|(xls)|(xlt)|(odp)|(otp)|(sxi)|(sti)|(ppt)|(pot)
> >
> > The test scenarios cover:
> >
> > - Load
> > - Save
> > - Reopen
> >
> > Only one issue was found, it takes too long time (at least 4
> > minutes) to
> > open one sample excel file and UI is blocked when loading.
> > OpenOffice.org
> > 3.3 has the same problem. It's very quick using MS
> > Office. Bug i119091 was
> > raised for it. I checked the bugzilla, seems it is one known
> > issue.
> >
> > *Defects Summary*:
> > So far 360 defects raised against 3.4beta, AOO dev and
> > 3.4m0. If we count
> > the defects from 1th Aug. of last year, it means the about
> > date we call
> > "AOO 3.4", the total defects number is 271.
> > Among the 360 defects, 51 critical defects raised and 17
> > ones remain
> > opening now.
> > One great news is currently we only have 3 reamining release
> > blockers and
> > two of them need be discussed:
> > D<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_id&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Sev▲<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_severity%20DESC%2Cpriority%2C&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Pri▲<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=priority%20DESC%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > OS<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=op_sys%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Assignee<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=assigned_to%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Status<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Resolution<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=resolution%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Summary<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=short_desc%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > 118895 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> > cri P3 All
> > jsc@apache.org
> > CONF --- aoo3.4 r1240836: some contextmenu
> > entries are
> > not localized <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> > 119082 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> > cri P3 All
> > ooo-issues@incubator.apache...
> > CONF --- hidden section - crash when
> > pressing F9 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> > 119090<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> > nor
> > P3 All issues@security.openoffice.org
> > CONF --- Default Encryption
> > Fails for Down-Level Implementations
> > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> > 3 bugs found.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 24 defects raised in this week,and 14 defects closed.
> >
> > Based on previous testing and my daily usage on AOO 3.4, so
> > far we can say
> > that:
> > The stability is ok.
> > The interoperability with MS Office seems fine.
> > The basic functions work fine.
> >
> > But the accessibility, globalizaiton may have some problems.
> > The general
> > testing in community focus on installability, basic
> > fucntions,
> > interoperability, extension etc.
> >
> > *Risk:
> > *The high risk for AOO 3.4 is during the migration from OO
> > to AOO, many
> > test cases lost and no one large automation suite can be
> > used for
> > regression testing now. So again I appreciate and thakns for
> > everyone's
> > contribution to QA works.
> > If you have interesting in QA work and decide to contribute
> > to it, please
> > go to AOO 3.4 main page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA.
> > Get dev build from:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
> > Write your case by edit this page:
> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/
> > And place your result:
> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestResults
> > Or you may just do general testing based on your usage
> > without test cases
> > or testing result and just raise defects in Bugzilla
> > directly:
> > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
> > Any contribution is welcome and can contribute to this
> > project's success!
> >
> > Besides, I created entry for project reporting on below
> > wiki:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Reporting
> >
> > Uner it, you can get detail AOO 3.4 QA weekly status reports
> > from this page:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+QA+Status+Report
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Lily
> >
>
Re: IP clearance issues
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Pedro,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:31:29PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/19/12 11:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >...
> >That said ...
> >>if we had an updated OpenGrok or a real equivalent it would be
> >>a lot easier.
> >of course a working OpenGrok would be nice. We have a local
> >instance running that gets updated every night but that doesn't
> >help you at the moment :-(
> >
>
> I found a replacement: ;)
>
> ____
> grep -R GPL main/*
git has its internal grep command:
http://people.apache.org/~arielch/git-grep-GPL.txt
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: IP clearance issues
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/19/12 11:55, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> ...
> That said ...
>> if we had an updated OpenGrok or a real equivalent it would be
>> a lot easier.
> of course a working OpenGrok would be nice. We have a local instance
> running that gets updated every night but that doesn't help you at the
> moment :-(
>
I found a replacement: ;)
____
grep -R GPL main/*
(lots of noise from my HD and some false positives)
,
Binary file main/extras/source/autotext/lang/da/acor_da-DK.dat matches
Binary file
main/extras/source/templates/layout/lang/en-US/lyt-glacier.otp matches
Binary file main/extras/source/templates/layout/lang/de/lyt-glacier.otp
matches
main/helpauthoring/filter/xmlhelp2soffice.xsl: Licensed under LGPL
main/helpauthoring/HelpAuthoring/_Main.xba: msgbox
"OpenOffice.org Help Authoring
Framework"+chr(13)+"Version
"+Version+chr(13)+chr(13)+"(c) 2010 Oracle, Licensed under
LGPL",256
^C
...
____
It looks like we are not ready just yet for a release.
> Well my first approach to ask for OpenGrok on the infrastructure
> mailing list was not promising and I gave up after some emails at this
> time and concentrated on other more important things.
>
> But I will try it again because the alternatively proposed tools
> haven't convinced me. So many things where people can start working on
> ...
>
I am aware of that. TBH we shouldn't press the infra guys but it is clear
while that FishEye thing may be nice to read the history, it lacks the
OpenGrok search capabilities (or I need to be shown how to do
the grep test I did above).
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: IP clearance issues
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 3/19/12 5:32 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/19/12 05:03, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
>>>
>>> I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
>>> thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
>>> also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>
>> you were not the only one but I had nothing to add so far ;-)
>>
>> But I don't know if you have the feedback on general@incubator to my
>> request for early feedback.
>>
>
> Yes, and that's precisely why I am worried ;-).
>> Marvin was surprise that our LICENSE file contains ALv2 license only
>> and list not all licenses of used externals.
>>
> No finger pointing but this was a surprise for me too: we were wrongly
> advised that LICENSE should only carry the AL2.
>
> I added a DISCLAIMER file (I used Apache OpenOffice but please note that
> officially we still are the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator), And I did
> some
> more cleanups on the thirdpartylicenses.html which is a good basis to
> complete the information.
>
> I plan to merge the remaining licenses but I want to keep the same
> order as in the NOTICE file: we have the non-Apache stuff in two
> sections according to the license category.
>
>> Any opinions on this how we can address this best?
>>
>
> The great weakness I've seen is that we have left most work to
> Andrew and this shouldn't be a one man effort. Normal audits
> are done by N volunteers dividing the tree in N parts, and binaries
> (particularly zip files) have to be reviewed too.
I agree it shouldn't be a one man show and it depends on Andrew a little
bit. When he says he has finished the header cleanup from an Oracle
perspective we can start to take a closer look on the other remaining
files based on the RAT output.
That said ...
> if we had an updated OpenGrok or a real equivalent it would be
> a lot easier.
of course a working OpenGrok would be nice. We have a local instance
running that gets updated every night but that doesn't help you at the
moment :-(
Well my first approach to ask for OpenGrok on the infrastructure mailing
list was not promising and I gave up after some emails at this time and
concentrated on other more important things.
But I will try it again because the alternatively proposed tools haven't
convinced me. So many things where people can start working on ...
>
> As I said we don't need coders for this but this is a good way to
> get to know the components and code structure under OO.
volunteers are welcome indeed ;-)
Juergen
>
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>> This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
>>> some skills with grep can help a lot!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>
>
Re: IP clearance issues
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 03/19/12 05:03, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> ...
>>
>> I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
>>
>> I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
>> thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
>> also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>
> you were not the only one but I had nothing to add so far ;-)
>
> But I don't know if you have the feedback on general@incubator to my
> request for early feedback.
>
Yes, and that's precisely why I am worried ;-).
> Marvin was surprise that our LICENSE file contains ALv2 license only
> and list not all licenses of used externals.
>
No finger pointing but this was a surprise for me too: we were wrongly
advised that LICENSE should only carry the AL2.
I added a DISCLAIMER file (I used Apache OpenOffice but please note that
officially we still are the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator), And I did some
more cleanups on the thirdpartylicenses.html which is a good basis to
complete the information.
I plan to merge the remaining licenses but I want to keep the same
order as in the NOTICE file: we have the non-Apache stuff in two
sections according to the license category.
> Any opinions on this how we can address this best?
>
The great weakness I've seen is that we have left most work to
Andrew and this shouldn't be a one man effort. Normal audits
are done by N volunteers dividing the tree in N parts, and binaries
(particularly zip files) have to be reviewed too. That said ...
if we had an updated OpenGrok or a real equivalent it would be
a lot easier.
As I said we don't need coders for this but this is a good way to
get to know the components and code structure under OO.
cheers,
Pedro.
> Juergen
>
>
>> This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
>> some skills with grep can help a lot!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As
of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM
>> Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Dennis;
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by
>>>> combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
>>> the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
>>> reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
>>> systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files
>> on
>>>> a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because
>> of
>>>> additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary
>> release.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
>>> At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I
>> would
>>> prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
>>> mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
>>> exists.
>>>
>>
>> My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE
>> file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other
>> licenses included in the release. NOTICES includes the Apache
>> copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other
>> licenses might state.
>>
>> And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache
>> website,in the podling guide, etc. We did catch this until we put a
>> RC up for a vote.
>
>
> Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE
> file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm
> sure I both read and wrote some of it. Patches to make it clearer are welcome.
>
Well, escaped me initially on the ODF Toolkit project was that this
information is buried under "best practices" and is a "should". But
in practice this seems to be treated as a requirement and a "must".
So an explicit suggestion? Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice
>> should
>>>> disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary
>>>> information instead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
>>> excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Dennis;
>>
>>
>> On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by
>>> combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>
>>
>> We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
>> the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
>> reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
>> systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files
> on
>>> a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because
> of
>>> additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary
> release.
>>
>>
>> It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
>> At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I
> would
>> prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
>> mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
>> exists.
>>
>
> My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE
> file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other
> licenses included in the release. NOTICES includes the Apache
> copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other
> licenses might state.
>
> And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache
> website,in the podling guide, etc. We did catch this until we put a
> RC up for a vote.
Well I'm fairly certain explicit instructions for what belongs in the LICENSE
file are written down both on the www site and in the incubator docs, as I'm
sure I both read and wrote some of it. Patches to make it clearer are welcome.
>
>>
>>> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice
> should
>>> disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary
>>> information instead.
>>>
>>>
>> Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
>> excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
>>
>> Pedro.
>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As
of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dennis;
>
>
> On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by
>> combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>
>
> We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
> the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
> reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
> systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
>
>
>
>> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files on
>> a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because of
>> additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary release.
>
>
> It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
> At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I would
> prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
> mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
> exists.
>
My experience from working on an ODF Toolkit release is that LICENSE
file contains the text of ALv2,as well as the text of all other
licenses included in the release. NOTICES includes the Apache
copyright as well as any other *required* notices that the other
licenses might state.
And no, this is not at all obvious from reading anything on the Apache
website,in the podling guide, etc. We did catch this until we put a
RC up for a vote.
>
>> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice should
>> disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary
>> information instead.
>>
>>
> Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
> excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
>
> Pedro.
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report
As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Dennis;
On 03/19/12 11:55, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
We are aware of that. The THIRDPARTYLICENSES thing is a left over from
the LGPL days and is not relevant for our purposes. I only use it as
reference but if someone else doing this stuff in another, more
systematic way, please raise your hand and I won't interfere.
> Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files on a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because of additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary release.
It was also determined that the LICENSE file would only carry the AL2.
At this time whatever was "determined" is not really relevant. I would
prefer to have some reference for this: the branding guide doesn't
mention anything about the LICENSE file, other than the fact that it
exists.
> When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice should disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary information instead.
>
>
Replying to your other email, yes RAT is interesting but we are currently
excluding a lot of files from that analysis.
Pedro.
RE: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Apache releases handle the equivalent of the THIRDPARTYLICENSES by combined use of the NOTICE and LICENSE files. Also, as has been determined elsewhere, the NOTICE and LICENSE files on a binary distribution may be different than on the source code because of additional third-party material that may be embedded in a binary release.
When the IP clearance is completed, the THIRDPARTYLICENSES notice should disappear and the NOTICE and LICENSE files should carry the necessary information instead.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 03:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
On 3/19/12 8:40 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>
> --- Lun 19/3/12, Shenfeng Liu<li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> ...
>> Data: Lunedì 19 marzo 2012, 01:29
>> Pedro,
>> You can see from the test plan
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan
>> , that
>> the IP clearance testing that Lily performed is functional
>> verification
>> test for those areas impacted by the IP clearance work. I
>> think the code
>> scan work should be done by developer, but not Lily as a
>> tester.
>> While I'm also curious to know if any tool can be
>> used to help us to do
>> the IP scan...
>>
>> - Simon
>>
>>
>
> I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
>
> I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
> thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
> also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
you were not the only one but I had nothing to add so far ;-)
But I don't know if you have the feedback on general@incubator to my
request for early feedback.
Marvin was surprise that our LICENSE file contains ALv2 license only and
list not all licenses of used externals.
Any opinions on this how we can address this best?
Juergen
> This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
> some skills with grep can help a lot!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report
As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 3/19/12 8:40 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello;
>
> --- Lun 19/3/12, Shenfeng Liu<li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> ...
>> Data: Lunedì 19 marzo 2012, 01:29
>> Pedro,
>> You can see from the test plan
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan
>> , that
>> the IP clearance testing that Lily performed is functional
>> verification
>> test for those areas impacted by the IP clearance work. I
>> think the code
>> scan work should be done by developer, but not Lily as a
>> tester.
>> While I'm also curious to know if any tool can be
>> used to help us to do
>> the IP scan...
>>
>> - Simon
>>
>>
>
> I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
>
> I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
> thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
> also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
you were not the only one but I had nothing to add so far ;-)
But I don't know if you have the feedback on general@incubator to my
request for early feedback.
Marvin was surprise that our LICENSE file contains ALv2 license only and
list not all licenses of used externals.
Any opinions on this how we can address this best?
Juergen
> This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
> some skills with grep can help a lot!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
--- Lun 19/3/12, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
...
> Data: Lunedì 19 marzo 2012, 01:29
> Pedro,
> You can see from the test plan
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan
> , that
> the IP clearance testing that Lily performed is functional
> verification
> test for those areas impacted by the IP clearance work. I
> think the code
> scan work should be done by developer, but not Lily as a
> tester.
> While I'm also curious to know if any tool can be
> used to help us to do
> the IP scan...
>
> - Simon
>
>
I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
some skills with grep can help a lot!
Cheers,
Pedro.
Re: IP clearance issues ( was Re: AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report As
of 2012.03.19(2012.03.13 - 2012.03.19))
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
Pedro,
You can see from the test plan
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan , that
the IP clearance testing that Lily performed is functional verification
test for those areas impacted by the IP clearance work. I think the code
scan work should be done by developer, but not Lily as a tester.
While I'm also curious to know if any tool can be used to help us to do
the IP scan...
- Simon
2012/3/19 Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> Hello;
>
> Despite its evident value, I think I find this
> QA testing report somewhat misguiding ...
> 100% IP clearance testing didnt find:
>
> ooo_custom_images/industrial/README
>
> and despite the website suggesting otherwise,
> the tango binaries have embedded GPL notices.
>
> We need some real testing on this!
>
> Pedro.
>
> BTW. The rat-excludes file is still very populated.
>
> --- Dom 18/3/12, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > *AOO 3.4 Overall QA Status:
> > *Based on the test plan:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-QA-Plan,
> > I can
> > say that the planned work are 100% done.
> > 100% IP clearance testing have been done. These are the
> > tests of areas most
> > impacted by removed/replaced modules due to IP clearance.
> > 100% general testing have been done. These are general
> > functional tests.
> >
> > *AOO 3.4 QA Weekly Status Report as of 2012/2/29 (2012/3/1 -
> > 2012/3/12):
> > *Test build: dev snapshot builds: Rev.
> > r1299571<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Eorw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe<http://people.apache.org/~orw/DevSnapshots-Rev.1296433/win32OOo_3.4.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_de_fr_it_es_ja_pt-BR_zh-CN_zh-TW_nl_hu_fi_ru.exe>
> >
> > Test Platforms: Windows XP SP3, Mac Lionn, Ubuntu 10.04,
> > Redhat 6.1,
> > Windows 7 SP1
> > Test Cases Executed:
> > IP Clearance: libneon replacement issue tracking
> > General testing:
> > Math formula
> > Some Base functions
> > *Interoperability automaiton testing:*
> > Tested total 1188 files with following file types:
> >
> (odt)|(ott)|(sxw)|(stw)|(doc)|(dot)|(ods)|(ots)|(sxc)|(stc)|(xls)|(xlt)|(odp)|(otp)|(sxi)|(sti)|(ppt)|(pot)
> >
> > The test scenarios cover:
> >
> > - Load
> > - Save
> > - Reopen
> >
> > Only one issue was found, it takes too long time (at least 4
> > minutes) to
> > open one sample excel file and UI is blocked when loading.
> > OpenOffice.org
> > 3.3 has the same problem. It's very quick using MS
> > Office. Bug i119091 was
> > raised for it. I checked the bugzilla, seems it is one known
> > issue.
> >
> > *Defects Summary*:
> > So far 360 defects raised against 3.4beta, AOO dev and
> > 3.4m0. If we count
> > the defects from 1th Aug. of last year, it means the about
> > date we call
> > "AOO 3.4", the total defects number is 271.
> > Among the 360 defects, 51 critical defects raised and 17
> > ones remain
> > opening now.
> > One great news is currently we only have 3 reamining release
> > blockers and
> > two of them need be discussed:
> > D<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_id&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Sev▲<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_severity%20DESC%2Cpriority%2C&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Pri▲<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=priority%20DESC%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > OS<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=op_sys%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Assignee<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=assigned_to%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Status<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=bug_status%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Resolution<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=resolution%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > Summary<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&field0-0-1=flagtypes.name&field0-0-2=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&type0-0-0=equals&type0-0-1=equals&type0-0-2=equals&value0-0-0=3.4_release_blocker%2B&value0-0-1=3.4_release_blocker%3F&value0-0-2=blocker&order=short_desc%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severity&query_based_on=All340ReleaseBlocker
> >
> > 118895 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> > cri P3 All
> > jsc@apache.org
> > CONF --- aoo3.4 r1240836: some contextmenu
> > entries are
> > not localized <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118895>
> > 119082 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> > cri P3 All
> > ooo-issues@incubator.apache...
> > CONF --- hidden section - crash when
> > pressing F9 <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119082>
> > 119090<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> > nor
> > P3 All issues@security.openoffice.org
> > CONF --- Default Encryption
> > Fails for Down-Level Implementations
> > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119090>
> > 3 bugs found.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 24 defects raised in this week,and 14 defects closed.
> >
> > Based on previous testing and my daily usage on AOO 3.4, so
> > far we can say
> > that:
> > The stability is ok.
> > The interoperability with MS Office seems fine.
> > The basic functions work fine.
> >
> > But the accessibility, globalizaiton may have some problems.
> > The general
> > testing in community focus on installability, basic
> > fucntions,
> > interoperability, extension etc.
> >
> > *Risk:
> > *The high risk for AOO 3.4 is during the migration from OO
> > to AOO, many
> > test cases lost and no one large automation suite can be
> > used for
> > regression testing now. So again I appreciate and thakns for
> > everyone's
> > contribution to QA works.
> > If you have interesting in QA work and decide to contribute
> > to it, please
> > go to AOO 3.4 main page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA.
> > Get dev build from:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
> > Write your case by edit this page:
> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestCases/
> > And place your result:
> > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/TestResults
> > Or you may just do general testing based on your usage
> > without test cases
> > or testing result and just raise defects in Bugzilla
> > directly:
> > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
> > Any contribution is welcome and can contribute to this
> > project's success!
> >
> > Besides, I created entry for project reporting on below
> > wiki:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Reporting
> >
> > Uner it, you can get detail AOO 3.4 QA weekly status reports
> > from this page:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+QA+Status+Report
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Lily
> >
>