Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2021 Archives by date, by thread · List index


thanks a lot for the feedback, and sorry also here for the belated reply!

Regina Henschel wrote on 29.10.21 at 14:57:

The link from item "Required 1." does not work.
Do you have another reference for ODFAutoTests?

unfortunately not - I can confirm the website is not loading, so I'll replace the reference with the Git repo pointed out by Michael Stahl in the meantime.

The search result from item "Required 2." contains Meta-issues. Expanding them results in 80 issues.

Using Whiteboard as search criteria has no advantage compared to the Meta-issues. And I think both, Whitheboard search or Meta-issues, are not suitable for a tender, but a tender needs to list the issues explicitly.

The list from Whiteboard search and Meta-issues needs to be examined and prioritized manually.

This is taken from the specification at

I fear answering that question is beyond my skills. ;-) Does it make sense to bounce this question back to the ESC for further specification?

Is it possible to get
ODF: Implementation for svg:linearGradient and svg:radialGradient is missing
as explicit issue for "Required"?
We had this already as suggestion "Multi-color gradient" in
and now again in

I've added it. Not sure, however, how much that would change the work/cost estimate of the tender.

Michael Stahl wrote on 03.11.21 at 10:49:

the scope of this is quite large and unclear... *required* items are:

1. ODFAutoTests: addressing issues will be difficult because as Regina points out the web service 
appears to be offline.
   IIRC it's possible to run the tests offline, but currently i guess nobody knows how much work it is to set 
that up and what problems would actually be found, so i guess this item mostly amounts to "get 
ODFAutoTests to run at all".

I've tried to rephrase #1 a bit, let me know if this is better.

2. odf_validation:

* 37128 this is, errm, "interesting" problem and might take weeks to fix
* 96066 likely needs specification work
* 94768 cannot be solved with ODF 1.3, it needs specification work
* 106934 needs specification work, possibly it was already added for ODF 1.4
* 131127 might be fixable?
* 131148 needs specification work
* 131159 this was added for ODF 1.4
* 108198 export meta-bug depending on 26 unfixed bugs, wow...
* 94587 *import* meta-bug depending on 37 unfixed bugs
  - how does this have "odf_validation" keyword in the first place,
    i thought that applied only to the export filter?
    i would propose to remove "odf_validation" keyword and keep "odf".

... so i'm not sure what would make sense here, certainly *requiring* fixes of > 60 different bugs 
that are all over the map doesn't make sense to me, unless the board wants to spend the entire yearly 

maybe everything should be "optional" and then applicants can list which bugs they think are actually possible to fix given the current ODF 1.3 specification?

Given the amount of changes from the original tender, I wonder if it makes sense to bounce this back to the ESC and discuss it in one of the next calls? We have the autoupdater tender discussion tomorrow already, so maybe it's a bit on too short notice and would fill the agenda too much, but it could be a topic in one of the next calls? Or is it better to suggest the above list via e-mail and use it if people are fine with it?


Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail:
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.