Many manual test cases now available

Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
from the QA web area --

https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html

We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:

* usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
* organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into categories
* clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.

More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.

There are other older cases available from this area as well.

Happy testing!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Mechtilde Stehmann-2
Hello,

Thats very great!

Thanks for your work

More details later

we should post it also to [hidden email]

Kind regards



Am 19.04.2018 um 00:22 schrieb Kay Schenk:

> Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
> from the QA web area --
>
> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
>
> We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:
>
> * usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
> * organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into categories
> * clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.
>
> More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.
>
> There are other older cases available from this area as well.
>
> Happy testing!
>
--
Mechtilde Stehmann
## Apache OpenOffice
## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
## Debian Developer
## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
## PGP encryption welcome
## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
Happy to help!

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Mechtilde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thats very great!
>
> Thanks for your work
>
> More details later
>
> we should post it also to [hidden email]
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Am 19.04.2018 um 00:22 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
> > from the QA web area --
> >
> > https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
> >
> > We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:
> >
> > * usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
> > * organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into
> categories
> > * clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.
> >
> > More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.
> >
> > There are other older cases available from this area as well.
> >
> > Happy testing!
> >
>
> --
> Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## Apache OpenOffice
> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
> ## Debian Developer
> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
> ## PGP encryption welcome
> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
In reply to this post by Kay Schenk-2
On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
> from the QA web area --
>
> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
>
> We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:
>
> * usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
> * organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into categories
I think the first level of organization should be by application
(Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained units
that people could volunteer to execute.

Regards
Keith
> * clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.
>
> More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.
>
> There are other older cases available from this area as well.
>
> Happy testing!
>



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Parul Sanghi
In reply to this post by Mechtilde Stehmann-2
How to unsubscribe from the mailing list?
thanks
Parul

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Mechtilde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thats very great!
>
> Thanks for your work
>
> More details later
>
> we should post it also to [hidden email]
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Am 19.04.2018 um 00:22 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
> > from the QA web area --
> >
> > https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
> >
> > We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:
> >
> > * usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
> > * organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into
> categories
> > * clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.
> >
> > More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.
> >
> > There are other older cases available from this area as well.
> >
> > Happy testing!
> >
>
> --
> Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## Apache OpenOffice
> ## Freie Office Suite für Linux, MacOSX, Windows
> ## Debian Developer
> ## Loook, calender-exchange-provider, libreoffice-canzeley-client
> ## PGP encryption welcome
> ## F0E3 7F3D C87A 4998 2899  39E7 F287 7BBA 141A AD7F
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
In reply to this post by Keith N. McKenna

On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> Many of the old TestLink test cases are now available (along with others)
>> from the QA web area --
>>
>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
>>
>> We could certainly use some feedback on them with respect to:
>>
>> * usefulness -- what to keep, what to discard
>> * organization -- can you help with organizing these cases into categories
> I think the first level of organization should be by application
> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained units
> that people could volunteer to execute.
>
> Regards
> Keith
Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc. --
sounds ideal.

Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?


>> * clarity -- are the instruction understandable, etc.
>>
>> More former TestLink cases will be ported soon.
>>
>> There are other older cases available from this area as well.
>>
>> Happy testing!
>>
>

--
------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."



signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> <snip>
I think the first level of organization should be by application

>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained units
>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc. --
> sounds ideal.
>
> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
the TestLink site and match the test numbers.

I believe that a deeper level of granularity is needed that just the
application.

Regards
Keith
<snip>



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2

On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> <snip>
> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained units
>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc. --
>> sounds ideal.
>>
>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
this as well. :(
I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
personal schedule.

Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/

and just use your structure so we can take a look?

>
> I believe that a deeper level of granularity is needed that just the
> application.
>
> Regards
> Keith
> <snip>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."



signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained units
>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith
>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc. --
>>> sounds ideal.
>>>
>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
> this as well. :(
> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
> personal schedule.
>
> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>
> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
Kay;
I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at all.

I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.

Regards
Keith
>
>> I believe that a deeper level of granularity is needed that just the
>> application.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>> <snip>
>>
>>



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >> I think the first level of organization should be by application
> >>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
> >>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
> units
> >>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Keith
> >>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc.
> --
> >>> sounds ideal.
> >>>
> >>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
> >> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
> >> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
> >> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
> >> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
> >> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
> >> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
> > That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
> > this as well. :(
> > I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
> > personal schedule.
> >
> > Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
> > https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
> >
> > and just use your structure so we can take a look?
> Kay;
> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at all.
>


​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed mostly to
be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the time
which is why ​

​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
TestLInk.



>
> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>

​Sounds good!




>
> Regards
> Keith
> >
> >> I believe that a deeper level of granularity is needed that just the
> >> application.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Keith
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
>> units
>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Keith
>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc.
>> --
>>>>> sounds ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
>>> this as well. :(
>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
>>> personal schedule.
>>>
>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>>>
>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
>> Kay;
>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at all.
>>
>
> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed mostly to
> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the time
> which is why ​
>
> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
> TestLInk.
>
> ​
>
>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>>
> ​Sounds good!
Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to the
ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
production website. Is there something else I should have changed?

Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend and
some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.

Regards
Keith



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2

On 06/07/2018 12:41 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

> On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
>>> units
>>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc.
>>> --
>>>>>> sounds ideal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
>>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
>>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
>>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
>>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
>>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
>>>> this as well. :(
>>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
>>>> personal schedule.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>>>>
>>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
>>> Kay;
>>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
>>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
>>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
>>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at all.
>>>
>> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed mostly to
>> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the time
>> which is why ​
>>
>> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
>> TestLInk.
>>
>> ​
>>
>>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
>>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>>>
>> ​Sounds good!
> Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to the
> ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
> production website. Is there something else I should have changed?
>
> Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend and
> some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.
>
> Regards
> Keith
Hi Keith --
No worries. I'll take a look. Did you "publish" your changes after
committing?
If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
Thanks so much for your work on this,

>
>

--
------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."



signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
On 6/8/2018 12:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On 06/07/2018 12:41 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to use
>>>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
>>>> units
>>>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc, etc.
>>>> --
>>>>>>> sounds ideal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>>>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>>>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
>>>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would either
>>>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you are
>>>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory structure on
>>>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
>>>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have done
>>>>> this as well. :(
>>>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
>>>>> personal schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
>>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>>>>>
>>>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
>>>> Kay;
>>>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
>>>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
>>>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
>>>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at all.
>>>>
>>> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed mostly to
>>> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the time
>>> which is why ​
>>>
>>> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
>>> TestLInk.
>>>
>>> ​
>>>
>>>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
>>>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>>>>
>>> ​Sounds good!
>> Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to the
>> ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
>> production website. Is there something else I should have changed?
>>
>> Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend and
>> some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
> Hi Keith --
> No worries. I'll take a look. Did you "publish" your changes after
> committing?
No was not aware of that step or how to do it. I rarely use my committer
privileges as I am not a coder in any way shape or form. I used to use
the cms to make minor changes to the aoo site but that no longer appears
to work. If you do not mind giving me a quick rundown on how I will be
glad to do that in the future.

BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
it to my keyring.

Regards
Keith
> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
> Thanks so much for your work on this,
>
>>



signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Keith N. McKenna <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> On 6/8/2018 12:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On 06/07/2018 12:41 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
> >>>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want to
> use
> >>>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
> >>>> units
> >>>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>> Keith
> >>>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc,
> etc.
> >>>> --
> >>>>>>> sounds ideal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
> >>>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
> >>>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit them
> >>>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would
> either
> >>>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you
> are
> >>>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory
> structure on
> >>>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
> >>>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have
> done
> >>>>> this as well. :(
> >>>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my current
> >>>>> personal schedule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
> >>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
> >>>> Kay;
> >>>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure was
> >>>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
> >>>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
> >>>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at
> all.
> >>>>
> >>> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed
> mostly to
> >>> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the
> time
> >>> which is why ​
> >>>
> >>> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
> >>> TestLInk.
> >>>
> >>> ​
> >>>
> >>>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
> >>>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
> >>>>
> >>> ​Sounds good!
> >> Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to the
> >> ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
> >> production website. Is there something else I should have changed?
> >>
> >> Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend and
> >> some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Keith
> > Hi Keith --
> > No worries. I'll take a look. Did you "publish" your changes after
> > committing?
> No was not aware of that step or how to do it. I rarely use my committer
> privileges as I am not a coder in any way shape or form. I used to use
> the cms to make minor changes to the aoo site but that no longer appears
> to work. If you do not mind giving me a quick rundown on how I will be
> glad to do that in the future.
>


Typically, the sequence of events for changes to the web server is to:
 * commit your changes,
 * review on the staging server (ooo-site staging
<http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/>),
 *  then publish to the production server if all is well.

I use the "Easy Publish" facility from ​ https://cms.apache.org/​.
Once you supply your ASF credentials, navigate to ooo-site, and just click
"Publish ooo-site".

For now, I deleted the old index.html. I will need to modify the script to
accommodate directory structures rather just a list of files. So, hopefully
by mid-week, we will have the Impress items "show up". Thank you again for
all your work.


>
> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
> it to my keyring.
>

​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
I respond to a "signed" message like yours.



>
> Regards
> Keith
> > If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
> > script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
> > Thanks so much for your work on this,
> >
> >>
>
>
>


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
Keith, short update -- see below

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Keith N. McKenna <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2018 12:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> > On 06/07/2018 12:41 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> >> On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> >>>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>> >>>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want
>> to use
>> >>>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
>> >>>> units
>> >>>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>> Keith
>> >>>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc,
>> etc.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>>>> sounds ideal.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>> >>>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>> >>>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit
>> them
>> >>>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would
>> either
>> >>>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you
>> are
>> >>>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory
>> structure on
>> >>>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
>> >>>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have
>> done
>> >>>>> this as well. :(
>> >>>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my
>> current
>> >>>>> personal schedule.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
>> >>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
>> >>>> Kay;
>> >>>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure
>> was
>> >>>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
>> >>>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
>> >>>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at
>> all.
>> >>>>
>> >>> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed
>> mostly to
>> >>> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the
>> time
>> >>> which is why ​
>> >>>
>> >>> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
>> >>> TestLInk.
>> >>>
>> >>> ​
>> >>>
>> >>>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
>> >>>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>> >>>>
>> >>> ​Sounds good!
>> >> Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to
>> the
>> >> ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
>> >> production website. Is there something else I should have changed?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend
>> and
>> >> some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Keith
>> > Hi Keith --
>> > No worries. I'll take a look. Did you "publish" your changes after
>> > committing?
>> No was not aware of that step or how to do it. I rarely use my committer
>> privileges as I am not a coder in any way shape or form. I used to use
>> the cms to make minor changes to the aoo site but that no longer appears
>> to work. If you do not mind giving me a quick rundown on how I will be
>> glad to do that in the future.
>>
>
> ​
> Typically, the sequence of events for changes to the web server is to:
>  * commit your changes,
>  * review on the staging server (ooo-site staging
> <http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/>),
>  *  then publish to the production server if all is well.
>
> I use the "Easy Publish" facility from ​ https://cms.apache.org/​.
> Once you supply your ASF credentials, navigate to ooo-site, and just click
> "Publish ooo-site".
>
> For now, I deleted the old index.html. I will need to modify the script to
> accommodate directory structures rather just a list of files. So, hopefully
> by mid-week, we will have the Impress items "show up". Thank you again for
> all your work.
>

​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now, things
look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html file
needs to be regenerated.



> ​
>
>>
>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
>> it to my keyring.
>>
>
> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
> ​
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
>> > If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
>> > script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
>> > Thanks so much for your work on this,
>> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Less is MORE."
>



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Matthias Seidel
Hi Kay,

The deletion of the index.html is not published:
https://cms.apache.org/ooo-site/publish?diff=1

Regards,

   Matthias


Am 09.06.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Kay Schenk:

> Keith, short update -- see below
>
> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Kay Schenk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Keith N. McKenna <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/8/2018 12:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 12:41 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2018 12:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Keith N. McKenna <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/3/2018 12:19 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05/02/2018 11:05 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 3:59 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/24/2018 03:25 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2018 6:22 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> I think the first level of organization should be by application
>>>>>>>>>>> (Writer, Calc, etc).  After that It will depend on how we want
>>> to use
>>>>>>>>>>> them.My preference would be to break them down into finer grained
>>>>>>> units
>>>>>>>>>>> that people could volunteer to execute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>>>>> Organizing the cases with respect to AOO module -- Writer, Calc,
>>> etc.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> sounds ideal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do we have any ideas for how to perform this classification?
>>>>>>>>> What I have done with the Impress ones was to use the same folder
>>>>>>>>> structure as that used on the TestLink site. that way I can fit
>>> them
>>>>>>>>> into whatever structure we decide upon. At this point you would
>>> either
>>>>>>>>> have to open every file and hope the description either tells you
>>> are
>>>>>>>>> can be easily derived, or manually go through the directory
>>> structure on
>>>>>>>>> the TestLink site and match the test numbers.
>>>>>>>> That's great Keith. I realize now in hindsight that I should have
>>> done
>>>>>>>> this as well. :(
>>>>>>>> I can go back and do this but it will take some time given my
>>> current
>>>>>>>> personal schedule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would it be possible for you to set up an area under --
>>>>>>>> https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and just use your structure so we can take a look?
>>>>>>> Kay;
>>>>>>> I can do that later in the week, but understand that the structure
>>> was
>>>>>>> somewhat different for each application depending on the internals of
>>>>>>> the application. For example Impress has a lot of tests for different
>>>>>>> type of animations where I do not believe Writer uses them much at
>>> all.
>>>>>> ​The organizational structure used for the test case setup seemed
>>> mostly to
>>>>>> be dependent on what the QA folks thought needed to be tested at the
>>> time
>>>>>> which is why ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​I didn't put all that much effort into keeping it the way it was on
>>>>>> TestLInk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will try to comit my Impress structure later in the week. I am busy
>>>>>>> with Dr. appointments the bigining of the week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​Sounds good!
>>>>> Kay; I committed the Directory Structure I used for impress files to
>>> the
>>>>> ManualTest directory. It appeared to build but they do not show on the
>>>>> production website. Is there something else I should have changed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for taking so long, but with medical issues with my girlfriend
>>> and
>>>>> some personal issues of my own the last month has been hectic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Keith
>>>> Hi Keith --
>>>> No worries. I'll take a look. Did you "publish" your changes after
>>>> committing?
>>> No was not aware of that step or how to do it. I rarely use my committer
>>> privileges as I am not a coder in any way shape or form. I used to use
>>> the cms to make minor changes to the aoo site but that no longer appears
>>> to work. If you do not mind giving me a quick rundown on how I will be
>>> glad to do that in the future.
>>>
>> ​
>> Typically, the sequence of events for changes to the web server is to:
>>  * commit your changes,
>>  * review on the staging server (ooo-site staging
>> <http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/>),
>>  *  then publish to the production server if all is well.
>>
>> I use the "Easy Publish" facility from ​ https://cms.apache.org/​.
>> Once you supply your ASF credentials, navigate to ooo-site, and just click
>> "Publish ooo-site".
>>
>> For now, I deleted the old index.html. I will need to modify the script to
>> accommodate directory structures rather just a list of files. So, hopefully
>> by mid-week, we will have the Impress items "show up". Thank you again for
>> all your work.
>>
> ​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now, things
> look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html file
> needs to be regenerated.
> ​
>
>
>> ​
>>
>>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
>>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
>>> it to my keyring.
>>>
>> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
>> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
>> ​
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
>>>> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Less is MORE."
>>
>
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Keith N. McKenna
In reply to this post by Kay Schenk-2

On 6/9/2018 1:20 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Keith, short update -- see below
>
> <snip>
>
> ​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now, things
> look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html file
> needs to be regenerated.
On further study there may be a couple of mistakes on my part due to my
unfamiliarity with SVN that may have contributed to this problem.

 1. I did not do a specific add of the directories before committing them.
 2. I use Tortoise SVN and I vaguely remember something about the repos
    having difficulty with Windows line endings

 If either of these could be contributing I can do the add for the
directories and try the commit again. Also Tortoise SVN  now has an EOL
property that also to specifically set the EOL type to be used. I can
also try setting those directories to specifically use Linux EOL's if
y'all think that might help.

Regards
Keith

> ​
>
>
>> ​
>>
>>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
>>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
>>> it to my keyring.
>>>
>> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
>> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
>> ​
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
>>>> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Less is MORE."
>>
>
>


signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2


On 06/11/2018 09:24 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:

>
> On 6/9/2018 1:20 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> Keith, short update -- see below
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> ​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now, things
>> look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html file
>> needs to be regenerated.
> On further study there may be a couple of mistakes on my part due to my
> unfamiliarity with SVN that may have contributed to this problem.
>
>  1. I did not do a specific add of the directories before committing them.
>  2. I use Tortoise SVN and I vaguely remember something about the repos
>     having difficulty with Windows line endings
>
>  If either of these could be contributing I can do the add for the
> directories and try the commit again. Also Tortoise SVN  now has an EOL
> property that also to specifically set the EOL type to be used. I can
> also try setting those directories to specifically use Linux EOL's if
> y'all think that might help.
>
> Regards
> Keith
From what I can see right now, #1 is not a problem. When I did an svn
update, everything cam through OK.

On the other (my) issue about index.html NOT being removed. I did verify
on staging that the index.html had been removed reverting to the
"default" setup on that server of just displaying a file listing, before
I did the publish. In any case, maybe just as well the index.html is
STILL there in production otherwise we may have gotten teh "forbidden"
message for the whole directory.

I should have time to make changes to accommodate directory structures
in the index generation script, in:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/scripts/auto-index.sh

in the next day or so. Since we have no dynamic mechanisms available for
dynamic server-side page generation, the index will need to be
regenerated whenever changes are made to this area.


>> ​
>>
>>
>>> ​
>>>
>>>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
>>>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
>>>> it to my keyring.
>>>>
>>> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
>>> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
>>> ​
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Keith
>>>>> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
>>>>> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
>>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "Less is MORE."
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------
MzK

"Less is MORE."


signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Matthias Seidel
I have now submitted the deletion of the index.html.

I don't know why it didn't work for you...

Regards,
   Matthias

Am 11.06.2018 um 23:09 schrieb Kay Schenk:

>
> On 06/11/2018 09:24 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 6/9/2018 1:20 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> Keith, short update -- see below
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> ​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now, things
>>> look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html file
>>> needs to be regenerated.
>> On further study there may be a couple of mistakes on my part due to my
>> unfamiliarity with SVN that may have contributed to this problem.
>>
>>  1. I did not do a specific add of the directories before committing them.
>>  2. I use Tortoise SVN and I vaguely remember something about the repos
>>     having difficulty with Windows line endings
>>
>>  If either of these could be contributing I can do the add for the
>> directories and try the commit again. Also Tortoise SVN  now has an EOL
>> property that also to specifically set the EOL type to be used. I can
>> also try setting those directories to specifically use Linux EOL's if
>> y'all think that might help.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith
> From what I can see right now, #1 is not a problem. When I did an svn
> update, everything cam through OK.
>
> On the other (my) issue about index.html NOT being removed. I did verify
> on staging that the index.html had been removed reverting to the
> "default" setup on that server of just displaying a file listing, before
> I did the publish. In any case, maybe just as well the index.html is
> STILL there in production otherwise we may have gotten teh "forbidden"
> message for the whole directory.
>
> I should have time to make changes to accommodate directory structures
> in the index generation script, in:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/scripts/auto-index.sh
>
> in the next day or so. Since we have no dynamic mechanisms available for
> dynamic server-side page generation, the index will need to be
> regenerated whenever changes are made to this area.
>
>
>>> ​
>>>
>>>
>>>> ​
>>>>
>>>>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
>>>>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will add
>>>>> it to my keyring.
>>>>>
>>>> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird when
>>>> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
>>>> ​
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation creation
>>>>>> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
>>>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "Less is MORE."
>>>>
>>>
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many manual test cases now available

Kay Schenk-2
Thanks Matthias. I see we are now back to "Forbidden" . Oh well. Fix coming
soon.

_______________________
Sent from MzK's phone.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 14:23 Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have now submitted the deletion of the index.html.
>
> I don't know why it didn't work for you...
>
> Regards,
>    Matthias
>
> Am 11.06.2018 um 23:09 schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >
> > On 06/11/2018 09:24 AM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> >> On 6/9/2018 1:20 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>> Keith, short update -- see below
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> ​This deletion did not seem to "take" in publishing. So, for now,
> things
> >>> look as they did. Your new Impress area is there, but the index.html
> file
> >>> needs to be regenerated.
> >> On further study there may be a couple of mistakes on my part due to my
> >> unfamiliarity with SVN that may have contributed to this problem.
> >>
> >>  1. I did not do a specific add of the directories before committing
> them.
> >>  2. I use Tortoise SVN and I vaguely remember something about the repos
> >>     having difficulty with Windows line endings
> >>
> >>  If either of these could be contributing I can do the add for the
> >> directories and try the commit again. Also Tortoise SVN  now has an EOL
> >> property that also to specifically set the EOL type to be used. I can
> >> also try setting those directories to specifically use Linux EOL's if
> >> y'all think that might help.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Keith
> > From what I can see right now, #1 is not a problem. When I did an svn
> > update, everything cam through OK.
> >
> > On the other (my) issue about index.html NOT being removed. I did verify
> > on staging that the index.html had been removed reverting to the
> > "default" setup on that server of just displaying a file listing, before
> > I did the publish. In any case, maybe just as well the index.html is
> > STILL there in production otherwise we may have gotten teh "forbidden"
> > message for the whole directory.
> >
> > I should have time to make changes to accommodate directory structures
> > in the index generation script, in:
> >
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/scripts/auto-index.sh
> >
> > in the next day or so. Since we have no dynamic mechanisms available for
> > dynamic server-side page generation, the index will need to be
> > regenerated whenever changes are made to this area.
> >
> >
> >>> ​
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ​
> >>>>
> >>>>> BTW I see that you use a PGP key to sign the e-mails but it has never
> >>>>> been uploaded to a key server. If you send me the public key I will
> add
> >>>>> it to my keyring.
> >>>>>
> >>>> ​Normally, my PGP key is not in use. It gets requested in Thunderbird
> when
> >>>> I respond to a "signed" message like yours.
> >>>> ​
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Keith
> >>>>>> If you did, then I'll need to modify my little index creation
> creation
> >>>>>> script to pull in your additions likely this weekend sometime.
> >>>>>> Thanks so much for your work on this,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> MzK
> >>>>
> >>>> "Less is MORE."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
12