incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: BAD link
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:25:35 GMT
Am 08/23/2012 02:26 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Am 08/23/2012 01:26 AM, schrieb drew:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 01:16 +0200, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 08/23/2012 12:54 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM, drew<drew@baseanswers.com>
   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more incorrect link
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SDK release notes points to:
>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one appears to be dead in the live page as well:
>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/sdk/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is supposed to be a link to release notes for the SDK.  Do we
even
>>>>>> have release notes there?  Did we with 3.4.0?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've corrected the link and adjusted the text on the underlying webpage
>>>>> a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the ".../download/sdk/" dir there are no release notes for a AOO
>>>>> release. Hm, maybe Juergen can tell us more (tomorrow).
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> I've finished checking the links for Mac, and Linux 64bit (deb and rpm)
>>>> they all seem fine.
>>>>
>>>> Rob checked windows, has anyone else already checked the 32 bit linux
>>>> stuff?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've tried to use a link checker. But it seems to fail with the special
>>> download URL that SourceForge is using. So, there is always a good link
>>> indicated, even when no download was started but a alternative webpage
>>> loaded. :-(
>>>
>>> http://linkchecker.submitexpress.com/
>>>
>>> Hm, there must be a tool to check for broken links. Does someone know of
>> a
>>> better way or tool? IMHO too many link to check all manually.
>>>
>>
>> I think link checker would only get the first link into SF, but not
>> the asynch download that comes 5 seconds later.  So it doesn't really
>> check for much.
>>
>
> OK
>
>
>>
>> I think of it like this:  # of errors in download process == # of
>> errors we put in - # of errors we find and fix
>>
>> There is a lot we could do to lower the # of bugs we put it.
>> Automation is what we need. Right now the directory structure produced

I've prepared something. So, let's see if can show you a draft version 
on the weekend.

>> by the build differs from the directory structure we have in the
>> download tree.  I think that is the source of the complexity that is
>> hurting us.  That, plus the fact that our download tree has an
>> irrational structure, more complicated than necessary.  If we can
>> reduce this disconnect between build and distribution, I think it
>> would help.

For sure. Thanks to Kay for starting the new thread.

> possibly...and yet many of them are OK. But I do know Juergen, our tireless
> release manager, has been arguing for a different structure for a while,
> and that's fine. It was just given what was already setup in SF with 3.3
> that was my original concern. And, the fact that this request was in "new"
> territory if you will for the 3.4 release that I personally was very
> nervous about. How would this effect what they needed to do, etc.
> Basically, once the packs get loaded, we're into a what , maybe a 48 hour
> test period? If something went really wrong, well...
>
> But...this said about 3.4 and now 3.4.1, Marcus and I have have cleaned up
> a LOT of this script.  Dealing with a directory structure change won't be
> the issue it would have been in May.

We should plan the dir change for the next bigger release. Should be 
doable when it's no longer this year.

> So, I think we're good with suggestions for the future.

Marcus



>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 18:41 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK one bad link on the other downloads page, so far
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Mac en_US language pack points to:
>>>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> back to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> //drew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 00:15 +0200, Jürgen Lange wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me it's working also. After checking the links, I
have
>> downloaded
>>>>>>>>> the german version for windows, have installed it (Windows
XP SP3)
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> made first tests. All is working fine so far.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jürgen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, drew<drew@baseanswers.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 17:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So some possible confusion coming.  I'm seeing
a few websites
>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> already announced 3.4.1 and are pushing users
to
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.openoffice.org.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, they are not finding AOO 3.4.1
there yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example this article is being spread
via Twitter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://majorgeeks.com/Apache_OpenOffice.org_For_Windows_d3461.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I can see, via Google Analytics, that
we're getting a good
>>>>>>>>>>>> amount
>>>>>>>>>>>> of traffic referred to from that site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm going to spent the next hour or so
verifying the download
>>>>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>      If others can help with this, please
do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/other.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start going down the left-most column.
 If someone else can
>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the right-most column (Mac) we should
have this done quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>> and be
>>>>>>>>>>>> able to publish that page.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> doing it now...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is all working for me so far.  I'm not seeing
any links failing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've also updated the Japanese and French NL pages.
 The Italian
>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Spanish pages seem to be hooked into the same Javascript
we use on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> main download page, so I'm hoping they will point
to the 3.4.1
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> automatically when we push the updates to that script.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Rob

Mime
View raw message