Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello everyone,

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 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.

This is done in

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?

Regina (thanks a lot!) sent a list of bugs back in December on the dev mailing list:

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 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.

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:
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.