the below mail is a bit older - Christmas break and some other tenders
came in between, so I get to this only now.
Florian Effenberger wrote on 01.12.21 at 15:30:
The link http://autotests.opendocumentformat.org 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
This is done in https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/ggqpciBK54rztJi
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
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?
Regina (thanks a lot!) sent a list of bugs back in December on the dev
Was there any further discussion or feedback on this? If the list
mentioned there is fine, I replace item 2 from the tender with it. If
we're unsure whether that meets the budget or not, as the person days
are listed in the tender, we can add a note along the lines of "Please
propose a subset and prioritization of these bugs, that do not exceed
the person days factored in for this tender, see below."
Is it possible to get
ODF: Implementation for svg:linearGradient and svg:radialGradient is
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.
This is in the draft. We can add a similar note as mentioned above if
we're unsure about the work required.
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.
Is the current wording fine?
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?
Let me know if discussing this in an ESC call works, or if you prefer to
continue discussion on the development list, before we finalize the text
here on board-discuss.
Florian Effenberger, Executive Director (Geschäftsführer)
Tel: +49 30 5557992-50 | Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
- Re: [board-discuss] Drafting Tender "Cleanup & further improve ODF conformance" · Florian Effenberger
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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