incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From zhangjf <zhan...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section 11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
Date Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:50:06 GMT
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> 4 hours is too short.  This is an international project with contributors in different
time zones around the globe.  For example, when you posted this message, it was 01:26 where
I am (utc-0700).
>
> I suggest that you either do CTR (commit it and be prepared for it to be rolled back,
however unlikely) or do an RTC (review, then commit) that provides adequate time for interested
parties to review and respond).  If you want to ensure that CTR does receive review, report
that you are doing so; also use a commit message that suggests review is desired.
>
>  - Dennis
>

Thanks for the reminder.  I am always willing to rollback the commit
if there is any objective to the committed new string appears. I will
monitor the discussion for a few more time.

zhangjf

> -----Original Message-----
> From: zhangjf [mailto:zhangjf@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 01:26
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT][Call for UX review] [Windows 8 certification]Test for "Section
11 Apps must support multi-user sessions" is not tested by Windows App Certification Kit
>
> I am reviewing yuanlin's updated patch for the new dialog message
> only, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78521&action=diff.
>  And I suppose it will remove "- Fatal Error" from the error dialog
> title string late, so this will not introduce more strings for
> translation.
>
> If there is no more concerns in 4 hours from now, I will commit this
> string patch to 3.4.1 at first.
>
> thanks,
> zhangjf
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zhangjf <zhangjf@apache.org> wrote:
>> How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title
>> string? it won't add one more string for translation.
>>
>> zhangjf
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote:
>>>>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion,  I think it is also
one
>>>>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch
up
>>>>>>> translation.  It should have no impacts on function without
committing
>>>>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string
first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize
>>>>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation
on
>>>>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it
back
>>>>>> in svn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can
>>>>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for
>>>>> review?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog
>>>> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482.
>>>
>>> ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions:
>>>
>>> 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't
>>> think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or
>>> better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it?
>>>
>>> 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a
>>> warning the used icon is ok from my pov.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move
>>>>> forward immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zhangjf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
>>>>>>> <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent
and important.
>>>>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it
immediately,
>>>>>>>> means by the end of this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any opinions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile
is locked and can
>>>>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on
Windows Server 2008, AOO
>>>>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to
really support one user
>>>>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions
case. According to the
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below:
>>>>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user
sessions or remote access,
>>>>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this
kind of session.
>>>>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and
exit in this case. So
>>>>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for
one user but the UX is
>>>>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1
or not. It will
>>>>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize
in time (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lin Yuan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <Joost.Andrae@gmx.de>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session
you have user profiles for each
>>>>>>>>>>>>> user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal
Services twice using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same user account.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real
problem to get OpenOffice
>>>>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user
environment (MS TS,
>>>>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same
user connects a second time
>>>>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his
profile data. If you want to
>>>>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's
not really needed because
>>>>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user
accesses the same user profile
>>>>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message