UK version of 3.3

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

UK version of 3.3

Louis Suárez-Potts
Hi,
I keep receiving queries (sent to webmasters) wondering when the UK version (English-UK) of 3.3 will be ready. The RC10 is there, but there seems to be a hitch with the naming for "final" OpenOffice.org 3.3.

-louis



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

marcus.lange
Hi Louis,

the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
see many builds listed on QATrack
(http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
patient.

Best regards

Marcus



Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> I keep receiving queries (sent to webmasters) wondering when the UK version (English-UK) of 3.3 will be ready. The RC10 is there, but there seems to be a hitch with the naming for "final" OpenOffice.org 3.3.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Stefan Taxhet (sonews)-2
Hi,

On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:

> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
> see many builds listed on QATrack
> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
> patient.

But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either
provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the
appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?

Greetings
Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Louis Suárez-Potts
hi,

On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:
>
>> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
>> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
>> see many builds listed on QATrack
>> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
>> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
>> patient.
>
> But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?

Sending to the US page is not the best solution. Sending to the RC10 seems better, or sending to the NLC. I've been sending to the RC10 page.


>
> Greetings
> Stefan
>
> ——

-louis


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

marcus.lange
In reply to this post by Stefan Taxhet (sonews)-2
Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:

Hi,

>> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
>> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
>> see many builds listed on QATrack
>> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
>>
>> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
>> patient.
>
> But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either
> provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the
> appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?

the other.html is already entered in the JS script but not active. I've
changed this now.

Best regards

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Stefan Taxhet (sonews)-2
In reply to this post by Louis Suárez-Potts
Hi,

On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:
>>
>>> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
>>> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
>>> see many builds listed on QATrack
>>> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
>>> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
>>> patient.
>>
>> But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?
>
> Sending to the US page is not the best solution.
My proposal is to let the download button default to the en-US version
for users with an en-GB browser setting. I guess this would satisfy the
needs until en-GB is ready.

> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are
not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as
it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.

> or sending to the NLC.
Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page.
I'm not aware of one for en-GB.

Greetings
Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

marcus.lange
Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:

Hi Stefan,

>>>> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
>>>> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
>>>> see many builds listed on QATrack
>>>> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
>>>>
>>>> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
>>>> patient.
>>>
>>> But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either
>>> provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the
>>> appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?
>>
>> Sending to the US page is not the best solution.
> My proposal is to let the download button default to the en-US version
> for users with an en-GB browser setting. I guess this would satisfy the
> needs until en-GB is ready.

AFAIK there is no mechanism to give the users a different language build
than selected.

>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are
> not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as
> it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.
>
>> or sending to the NLC.
> Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page.
> I'm not aware of one for en-GB.

Compared with other languages it would be "http://en-GB.openoffice.org"
but this doesn't exist. So, the "other.html" should be best for the moment.

Best regards

Marcus



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Louis Suárez-Potts
In reply to this post by Stefan Taxhet (sonews)-2
Hi,

On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:
>>>
>>>> the release of a language is ready when the tester(s) has/have approved
>>>> their builds. Only then I can put them on the mirrors. Up to know I can
>>>> see many builds listed on QATrack
>>>> (http://qatrack.ooodev.org/view_status.php?version=3.3.0rc10&language[]=en-GB&available=&uri=&view=detailed)
>>>> and some are in "In QA" status. So, I think we need to be a bit more
>>>> patient.
>>>
>>> But can we avoid that en-GB users are sent to a 404 page and either provide the en-US installation sets (in this case) or redirect to the appropriate NLC page or redirect to other.html?
>>
>> Sending to the US page is not the best solution.
> My proposal is to let the download button default to the en-US version for users with an en-GB browser setting. I guess this would satisfy the needs until en-GB is ready.
For most, of course, yes. But for those who object to using en-US for whatever reason, it's not the solution.


>
>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.

Why not add just a caveat to the link, "Not fully tested, use at your own risk. For a proven version, use 3.x.x" (3.2.1, in this case).


>
>> or sending to the NLC.
> Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page. I'm not aware of one for en-GB.

I do suppose that is right.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested in getting the en-GB version finalized and would like to know what I can do to assist. Eg., a blog entry, a call for effort, that sort of thing.


>
> Greetings
> Stefan

best
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

marcus.lange
Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:

Hi Louis,

>>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
>> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.
>
> Why not add just a caveat to the link, "Not fully tested, use at your own risk. For a proven version, use 3.x.x" (3.2.1, in this case).

there are already hints on webpages (download.openoffice.org, see the
yellow box and download.openoffice.org/all_rc.html, see the disclaimer
text).

Clearer hints were denied by UX as it let the RCs appear in a too
negative light.

>>> or sending to the NLC.
>> Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page. I'm not aware of one for en-GB.
>
> I do suppose that is right.
>
> Meanwhile, I'd be interested in getting the en-GB version finalized and would like to know what I can do to assist. Eg., a blog entry, a call for effort, that sort of thing.

@Stuart:
Is there anything Louis can help or assist you with?

Thanks

Marcus



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Louis Suárez-Potts
Hi
On 2011-02-02, at 11:05 , Marcus Lange wrote:

> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:
>
> Hi Louis,
>
>>>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
>>> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.
>> Why not add just a caveat to the link, "Not fully tested, use at your own risk. For a proven version, use 3.x.x" (3.2.1, in this case).
>
> there are already hints on webpages (download.openoffice.org, see the yellow box and download.openoffice.org/all_rc.html, see the disclaimer text).

Evidently… it's not enough.

>
> Clearer hints were denied by UX as it let the RCs appear in a too negative light.

At this point, that's a little moot, don't you think?
>
>>>> or sending to the NLC.
>>> Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page. I'm not aware of one for en-GB.
>> I do suppose that is right. Meanwhile, I'd be interested in getting the en-GB version finalized and would like to know what I can do to assist. Eg., a blog entry, a call for effort, that sort of thing.
>
> @Stuart:
> Is there anything Louis can help or assist you with?

We can start by simply posting a call for action on dev@marketing or discuss@ooo

>
> Thanks
>
> Marcus

louis


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

Stuart Swales
On 02/02/2011 17:05, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

> Hi
> On 2011-02-02, at 11:05 , Marcus Lange wrote:
>
>> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:
>>
>> Hi Louis,
>>
>>>>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
>>>> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs are not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be better as it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to the RC.
>>> Why not add just a caveat to the link, "Not fully tested, use at your own risk. For a proven version, use 3.x.x" (3.2.1, in this case).
>>
>> there are already hints on webpages (download.openoffice.org, see the yellow box and download.openoffice.org/all_rc.html, see the disclaimer text).
>
> Evidently… it's not enough.

Clearly en-GB is not the only build in this state - about half the
release download matrix is still not up-to-date.  It may help to add a
note on the release download page stating when the first binary of 3.3
was distributed and the cut-off date for testing RCs so users can get an
idea of a) the newness of this release, and b) the fact we can't get all
possible variants QA'ed at the same time so patience may be needed.

>>
>> Clearer hints were denied by UX as it let the RCs appear in a too negative light.
>
> At this point, that's a little moot, don't you think?
>>
>>>>> or sending to the NLC.
>>>> Yes, for languages that have a NLC project with a proper download page. I'm not aware of one for en-GB.
>>> I do suppose that is right. Meanwhile, I'd be interested in getting the en-GB version finalized and would like to know what I can do to assist. Eg., a blog entry, a call for effort, that sort of thing.
>>
>> @Stuart:
>> Is there anything Louis can help or assist you with?
>
> We can start by simply posting a call for action on dev@marketing or discuss@ooo

Please do - more testers would certainly help speed the QA process!

Cheers

Stuart

>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Marcus
>
> louis
--
Stuart Swales

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UK version of 3.3

marcus.lange
Stuart Swales wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 17:05, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02, at 11:05 , Marcus Lange wrote:
>>> Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:35 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>>> On 02.02.2011 16:25, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>>>> On 2011-02-02, at 10:19 , Stefan Taxhet (sonews) wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02.02.2011 15:17, Marcus Lange wrote:

Hi Stuart,

>>>>>> Sending to the RC10 seems better,
>>>>> That would not be my favorite choice. As Marcus explained the RCs
>>>>> are not approved yet. That's why I thought the other.html might be
>>>>> better as it gives the choice to pick 3.2.1 or follow the link to
>>>>> the RC.
>>>> Why not add just a caveat to the link, "Not fully tested, use at
>>>> your own risk. For a proven version, use 3.x.x" (3.2.1, in this case).
>>>
>>> there are already hints on webpages (download.openoffice.org, see the
>>> yellow box and download.openoffice.org/all_rc.html, see the
>>> disclaimer text).
>>
>> Evidently… it's not enough.
>
> Clearly en-GB is not the only build in this state - about half the
> release download matrix is still not up-to-date.  It may help to add a
> note on the release download page stating when the first binary of 3.3
> was distributed and the cut-off date for testing RCs so users can get an
> idea of a) the newness of this release, and b) the fact we can't get all
> possible variants QA'ed at the same time so patience may be needed.

the problem with updating the entry webpage of the download portal is
that it is a dynamically generated webpage. So, I didn't want to update
it with static text here and then.

Furthermore, I don't think that it will help to prevent the problem when
see user can see since when the release has gone live and how long the
RC testing phase will last.

The real problem is that the user sees (or knows already) that the
release is done, then clicks on the green download button but doesn't
get a build because his language is not yet tested; or at least not all
platforms/builds.

This could be solved a) when all NLC teams can test their builds or b)
with implementation of a very detailed error management for the JS magic
that lies behind the download webpage.

a) cannot be solved because not every team has testers for all available
platforms
b) is very complex and time consuming to fullfill, currently we have not
the resources to do so as the successfully migration to Kenai is more
important.

I know it's not a good situation but IMHO we have to live with the
current situation.

Best regards

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]