Canonical Voices

What You can't take the sky from me talks about

Posts tagged with 'ubuntu'


I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more
The proclaimers, 500 miles

So I recently noted that github reported I have 1337 commits on LibreOffice since I joined Canonical in February 2011. Looking at those stats, it seems I also deleted some net 155,634 lines over that time in the codebase.

LibreOffice commits

Even though I cant find that mail, I seem to remember that Michael Stahl, when joining the LibreOffice project proclaimed his goal to be to contribute ‘a net negative lines of code.’1) Now I have not looked into the details of the above stats — they might very likely reveal to be caused by some bulk change. Which would be lame, unless its the killing of the old build system, for which I think I can claim some credit. But in general I really love the idea of ‘contributing a net negative number of lines of code’.

So, at the last LibreOffice Hackfest in Cambridge 2), I pushed a set of commits refactoring the UNO bindings of writer tables. It all started so innocent. I was actually aiming to do something completely different: namely give the UNO cursors in Writer (SwUnoCrsr) somewhat saner resource management and drag them screaming and kicking out of the 1980ies. However, once in unotbl.cxx, I found more of “determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language” and copypasta there than I could bear. I thought: “This UNO stuff has decent test coverage, you could refactor it a bit quickly.”.

Of course I was wrong with both sides of that statement: On the one hand, when I started the coverage was 70.1% LOC on that file which is not really as high as I expected. On the other hand, I did not end with “a bit quickly”, rather I went on to refactor away:
dc -e "`git log --author Michaelsen -p dc8697e554417d31501a0d90d731403ede223370^..HEAD sw/source/core/unocore/unotbl.cxx|grep ^+|wc -l` `git log --author Michaelsen -p dc8697e554417d31501a0d90d731403ede223370^..HEAD sw/source/core/unocore/unotbl.cxx|grep ^-|wc -l` - p"

… a thousand lines. On discovering the lacking test-coverage, I quickly added some more tests — bringing coverage to 77.52% LOC at least now.3) And yes, I also silently fixed the one regression I thereby discovered I had introduced, which nobody seemed to have noticed so far. One thing I noticed in this little refactoring spree is that while C++11s features might look tame compared to more modern programming languages in metrics like avoiding boilerplate, it still outclasses what we had before. Beyond the simplifying refactoring, features like lambdas are really nice for non-interactive (test-driven) debugging, including quickly asserting on the state of variables some over some 10 stackframes up or down without going into major contortions in testcode.

1) By the way, a quick:
dc -e "`git log --author Stahl -p |grep ^+|wc -l` `git log --author Stahl -p |grep ^-|wc -l` - p"

confirms Michael is more than living up to his personal goals.

2) Speaking of the Hackfest: The other thing I did there was helping/observing Sam Tuke getting setup for his first code contribution. While we made great progress in making this easier than it used to be, we could be a lot better there still. Sadly though, I didnt see a shortcut or simplification we could implement right away.

3) And along with that did bring coverage of unochart.cxx from abismal 4.4% LOC to at least 35.31% LOC  as a collateral damage.

addendum: Note that the writer tables core also increased coverage quite a bit from 54.6% LOC to 65% LOC.

Read more

But I believe in this and it’s been tested by research
— The Clash, Death and Glory

Thanks to Norbert’s efforts, the LibreOffice project now has a Jenkins setup that not only gives us visibility on how healthy our master branch is, with the results being reported to the ESC regularly: In addition it allows everyone easily testing commits and branches on all major LibreOffice platforms (Linux, OS X, Windows) just by uploading a change to gerrit. Doing so is really easy once you are set up:

./logerrit submit                      # a little helper script in our repo
git push logerrit HEAD:refs/for/master # alternative: plain old git
git review                             # alternative: needs to install the git-review addon

Each of the above commands alone send your work for review and testbuilding to gerrit. The last one needs an additional setup, that is however really helpful and worth it for people working with gerrit from the command-line regulary.

So, what if you have a branch that you want to testbuild? Well, just pushing the branch to gerrit as suggested above still works: gerrit then will create a change for every commit, mark them as depending on each other and testbuild every commit. This is great for a small branch of a handful of commits, but will be annoying and somewhat wasteful for a branch with more than 10-15 commits. In the latter case you might not want a manual review for each commit and also not occupy our builders for each of them. So what’s the alternative, if you have a branch ${mybranch} and want to at least test the final commit to build fine everywhere?

git checkout -b ${mybranch}-ci ${mybranch} # switch to branch ${mybranch}-ci
git rebase -i remotes/logerrit/master      # rebase the branch on master interactively

Now your favourite editor comes up showing the commits of the branch. As your favourite editor will be vim, you can then type:

:2,$s/^pick/s/ | x

To squash all the commits of the branch into one commit. Then do:

git checkout -                                   # go back to whatever branch we where on before
git push logerrit ${mybranch}-ci:refs/for/master # push squashed branch to gerrit for testbuilding
git branch -D ${mybranch}-ci                     # optional: delete squashed branch locally

Now only wait for the builder on Jenkins to report back. This allowed me to find out that our compiler on OS X didnt think of this new struct as a POD-type, while our compilers on Linux and Windows where fine with it (see: “Why does C++ require a user-provided default constructor to default-construct a const object?” for the gory details). Testbuilding on gerrit allowed me to fix this before pushing something broken on a platform to master, which would have spoiled the nifty ability to test your commit before pushing for everyone else: Duly testing your commit on gerrit only to find that the master you build upon was broken by someone else on some platform is not fun.

The above allows you to ensure the end of your branch builds fine on all platforms. But what about the intermediate commits and our test-suites? Well, you can test that each and every commit passes tests quite easily locally:

git rebase -i remotes/logerrit/master --exec 'make check'

This rebases your branch on master (even if its already up to date) and builds and runs all the tests on each commit along the way. In case there is a test breakage, git stops and lets you fix things (just like with traditional troubles on rebases like changes not applying cleanly).

Note: gerrit will close the squashed branch change if you push the branch to master: The squashed commit message ends with the Change-Id of the final commit of the branch. So once that commit is pushed, the gerrit closes the review for the squashed change.

Another note: If the above git commands are too verbose for you (they are for me), consider using gitsh and aliases. Combined they help quite a lot in reducing redundant typing when working with git.

Read more

Das ist alles nur geklaut und gestohlen,
nur gezogen und geraubt.
Entschuldigung, das hab ich mir erlaubt.
— die Prinzen, Alles nur geklaut

So, you might have noticed that there was no April Fools post from me this, year unlike previous years. One idea, I had was giving LibreOffice vi-key bindings — except that apparently already exists: vibreoffice. So I went looking for something else and found odpdown by Thorsten, who just started to work on LibreOffice fulltime again, and reading about it I always had the thought that it would be great to be able to run this right from your favourite editor: Vim.

And indeed: That is not hard to do. Here is a very raw video showing how to run presentations right out of vim:

Now, this is a quick hack, Linux only, requires you to have Python3 UNO-bindings installed etc. If you want to play with it: Clone the repo from github and get started. Kudos go out to Thorsten for the original odpdown on which this is piggybagging (“das ist alles nur geklaut”). So: Have fun with this — I will have to install vibreoffice now.

Read more

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen’s off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head, feed your head

— Jefferson Airplane, White Rabbit

So, this was intended as a quick and smooth addendum to the “50 ways to fill your vector” post, bringing callgrind into the game and ensuring everyone that its instructions counts are a good proxy for walltime performance of your code. This started out as mostly as expected, when measuring the instructions counts in two scenarios:

implementation/cflags -O2 not inlined -O3 inlined
A1 2610061438 2510061428
A2 2610000025 2510000015
A3 2610000025 2510000015
B1 3150000009 2440000009
B2 3150000009 2440000009
B3 3150000009 2440000009
C1 3150000009 2440000009
C3 3300000009 2440000009

The good news here is, that this mostly faithfully reproduces some general observations on the timings from the last post on this topic, although the differences in callgrind are more pronounced in callgrind than in reality:

  • The A implementations are faster than the B and C implementations on -O2 without inlining
  • The A implementations are slower (by a smaller amount) than the B and C implementations on -O3 with inlining

The last post also suggested the expectation that all implementations could — and with a good compiler: should — have the same code and same speed when everything is inline. Apart from the A implementations still differing from the B and C ones, callgrinds instruction count suggest to actually be the case. Letting gcc compile to assembler and comparing the output, one finds:

  • Inline A1-3 compile to the same output on -Os, -O2, -O3 each. There is no difference between -O2 and -O3 for these.
  • Inline B1-3 compile to the same output on -Os, -O2, -O3 each, but they differ between optimization levels.
  • Inline C3 output differs from the others and between optimization levels.
  • Without inlinable constructors, the picture is the same, except that A3 and B3 now differ slightly from their kin as expected.

So indeed most of the implementations generate the same assembler code. However, this is quite a bit at odd with the significant differences in performance measured in the last post, e.g. B1/B2/B3 on -O2 created widely different walltimes. So time to test the assumption that running one implementation for a minute is producing reasonable statistically stable result, by doing 10 1-minute runs for each implementation and see what the standard deviation is. The following is found for walltimes (no inline constructors):

implementation/cflags -Os -O2 -O3 -O3 -march=
A1 80.6 s 78.9 s 78.9 s 79.0 s
A2 78.7 s 78.1 s 78.0 s 79.2 s
A3 80.7 s 78.9 s 78.9 s 78.9 s
B1 84.8 s 80.8 s 78.0 s 78.0 s
B2 84.8 s 86.0 s 78.0 s 78.1 s
B3 84.8 s 82.3 s 79.7 s 79.7 s
C1 84.4 s 85.4 s 78.0 s 78.0 s
C3 86.6 s 85.7 s 78.0 s 78.9 s
no inline measurementsno inline measurements

And with inlining:

implementation/cflags -Os -O2 -O3 -O3 -march=
A1 76.4 s 74.5 s 74.7 s 73.8 s
A2 75.4 s 73.7 s 73.8 s 74.5 s
A3 76.3 s 74.6 s 75.5 s 73.7 s
B1 80.6 s 77.1 s 72.7 s 73.7 s
B2 81.4 s 78.9 s 72.0 s 72.0 s
B3 80.6 s 78.9 s 72.8 s 73.7 s
C1 81.4 s 78.9 s 72.0 s 72.0 s
C3 79.7 s 80.5 s 72.9 s 77.8 s
inline measurementsinline measurements

The standard deviation for all the above values is less than 0.2 seconds. That is … interesting: For example, on -O2 without inlining, B1 and B2 generate the same assembler output, but execute with a very significant difference in hardware (5.2 s difference, or more than 25 standard deviations). So how have logic and proportion fallen sloppy dead here? If the same code is executed — admittedly from two different locations in the binary — how can that create such a significant difference in walltime performance, while not being visible at all on callgrind? A wild guess, which I have not confirmed yet, is cache locality: When not inlining constructors, those might be in CPU cache from one copy of the code in the binary, but not for the other. And by the way, it might also hint at the reasons for the -march= flag (which creates bigger code) seeming so uneffective. And it might explain, why performance is rather consistent when using inline constructors. If so, the impact of this is certainly interesting. It also suggest that allowing inlining of hotspots, like recently done with the low-level sw::Ring class, produces much more performance improvement on real hardware than the meager results measured with callgrind. And it reinforces the warning made in that post about not falling in the trap of mistaking the map for the territory: callgrind is not a “map in the scale of a mile to the mile”.

Addendum: As said in the previous post, I am still interested in such measurements on other hardware or compilers. All measurements above done with gcc 4.8.3 on Intel i5-4200U@1.6GHz.

Read more

Around the world, Around the world
— Daft Punk, Around the world

So, you still heard that unfounded myth that it is hard to get involved with and to start contributing to LibreOffice? Still? Even though that there are our Easy Hacks and the LibreOffice developer are a friendly bunch that will help you get started on mailing lists and on IRC? If those alone do not convince you, it might be because it is admittedly much easier to get started if you meet people face to face — like on one of our upcoming Events! Especially our Hackfests are a good way to get started. The next one will be at the University de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria were we had been guests last year already. We presented some introduction talks to the students of the university and then went on to hack on LibreOffice from fixing bugs to implementing new stuff. Here is how that looked like last year:

LibreOffice Hackfest Gran Canaria 2014LibreOffice Hackfest Gran Canaria 2014

One thing we learned from previous Hackfests was that it is great if newcomers have a way to start working on code right away. While it is rather easy to do that as the 5 minute video on our wiki shows, it might still take some time on some notebooks. So what if you spontaneously show up at the event without a pre-build LibreOffice? Well for that, we now have — thanks to Christian Lohmaier of the Document Foundation staffremote virtual machines prepared for Hackfests, that allow you to get started right away with everything prepared — on rather beefy hardware even, that is.

If you are a student at ULPGC or live in Las Palmas or on the Canary Islands, we invite you to join us to learn how to get started. For students, this is also a very good opportunity get involved and prepare for a Google Summer of Code on LibreOffice. Furthermore, if you are a even casual contributor to LibreOffice code already and want to help out sharing and deepen knowledge on how to work on LibreOffice code, you should get in contact with the Document Foundation — while the event is already very soon now, there still might be travel reimbursal available. You will find all the details on the wiki page for the Hackfest in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 2015.

LibreOffice Evening HackingLibreOffice Evening Hacking in Las Palmas 2014

On the other hand, if two weeks is too short a notice for you, but the rest of this sounds really tempting, there is already the next Hackfest planned, which will take place in Cambridge in the United Kingdom in May. We will be there with a Hackfest for the first time and invite you to join us from anywhere in Europe if you either are a LibreOffice code contributor or if you are interested in learning more on how to become one. Again, there is a wiki page with the details on the LibreOffice Hackfest in Cambridge 2015, and travel reimbursals are available. Contact us!

LibreOffice Evening HackingHow I imagine Cambridge in May — Photo by Andrew Dunn CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia

Read more

“The problem is all inside your head” she said to me
“The answer is easy if you take it logically”
— Paul Simon, 50 ways to leave your lover

So recently I tweaked around with these newfangled C++11 initializer lists and created an EasyHack to use them to initialize property sequences in a readable way. This caused a short exchange on the LibreOffice mailing list, which I assumed had its part in motivating Stephans interesting post “On filling a vector”. For all the points being made (also in the quick follow up on IRC), I wondered how much the theoretical “can use a move constructor” discussed etc. really meant when the C++ is translated to e.g. GENERIC, then GIMPLE, then amd64 assembler, then to the internal RISC instructions of the CPU — with multiple levels of caching in addition.

So I quickly wrote the following (thanks so much for C++11 having the nice std::chrono now).


#include <vector>
struct Data {
    Data(int a);
    int m_a;
void DoSomething(std::vector<Data>&);


#include "data.hxx"
// noop in different compilation unit to prevent optimizing out what we want to measure
void DoSomething(std::vector<Data>&) {};
Data::Data() : m_a(4711) {};
Data::Data(int a) : m_a(a+4711) {};


#include "data.hxx"
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono>
#include <functional>

void A1(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec { Data(), Data(), Data() };

void A2(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec { {}, {}, {} };

void A3(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec { 0, 0, 0 };

void B1(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec;

void B2(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec;

void B3(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec;

void C1(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec;

void C3(long count) {
    while(--count) {
        std::vector<Data> vec;

double benchmark(const char* name, std::function<void (long)> testfunc, const long count) {
    const auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
    const auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
    const std::chrono::duration<double> delta = end-start;
    std::cout << count << " " << name << " iterations took " << delta.count() << " seconds." << std::endl;
    return delta.count();

int main(int, char**) {
    long count = 10000000;
    while(benchmark("A1", &A1, count) < 60l)
        count <<= 1;
    std::cout << "Going with " << count << " iterations." << std::endl;
    benchmark("A1", &A1, count);
    benchmark("A2", &A2, count);
    benchmark("A3", &A3, count);
    benchmark("B1", &B1, count);
    benchmark("B2", &B2, count);
    benchmark("B3", &B3, count);
    benchmark("C1", &C1, count);
    benchmark("C3", &C3, count);
    return 0;


main: main.o data.o
    g++ -o $@ $^

%.o: %.cxx data.hxx
    g++ $(CFLAGS) -std=c++11 -o $@ -c $<

Note the object here is small and trivial to copy as one would expect from objects passed around as values (as expensive to copy objects mostly can be passed around with a std::shared_ptr). So what did this measure? Here are the results:

Time for 1280000000 iterations on a Intel i5-4200U@1.6GHz (-march=core-avx2) compiled with gcc 4.8.3 without inline constructors:

implementation / CFLAGS -Os -O2 -O3 -O3 -march=…
A1 89.1 s 79.0 s 78.9 s 78.9 s
A2 89.1 s 78.1 s 78.0 s 80.5 s
A3 90.0 s 78.9 s 78.8 s 79.3 s
B1 103.6 s 97.8 s 79.0 s 78.0 s
B2 99.4 s 95.6 s 78.5 s 78.0 s
B3 107.4 s 90.9 s 79.7 s 79.9 s
C1 99.4 s 94.4 s 78.0 s 77.9 s
C3 98.9 s 100.7 s 78.1 s 81.7 s

creating a three element vector without inlined constructors
And, for comparison, following are the results, if one allows the constructors to be inlined.
Time for 1280000000 iterations on a Intel i5-4200U@1.6GHz (-march=core-avx2) compiled with gcc 4.8.3 with inline constructors:

implementation / CFLAGS -Os -O2 -O3 -O3 -march=…
A1 85.6 s 74.7 s 74.6 s 74.6 s
A2 85.3 s 74.6 s 73.7 s 74.5 s
A3 91.6 s 73.8 s 74.4 s 74.5 s
B1 93.4 s 90.2 s 72.8 s 72.0 s
B2 93.7 s 88.3 s 72.0 s 73.7 s
B3 97.6 s 88.3 s 72.8 s 72.0 s
C1 93.4 s 88.3 s 72.0 s 73.7 s
C3 96.2 s 88.3 s 71.9 s 73.7 s

creating a three element vector without inlined constructors
Some observations on these measurements:

  • -march=... is at best neutral: The measured times do not change much in general, they only even slightly improve performance in five out of 16 cases, and the two cases with the most significant change in performance (over 3%) are actually hurting the performance. So for the rest of this post, -march=... will be ignored. Sorry gentooers. ;)
  • There is no silver bullet with regard to the different implementations: A1, A2 and A3 are the faster implementations when not inlining constructors and using -Os or -O2 (the quickest A* is ~10% faster than the quickest B*/C*). However when inlining constructors and using -O3, the same implementations are the slowest (by 2.4%).
  • Most common release builds are still done with -O2 these days. For those, using initializer lists (A1/A2/A3) seem too have a significant edge over the alternatives, whether constructors are inlined or not. This is in contrast to the conclusions made from “constructor counting”, which assumed these to be slow because of additional calls needed.
  • The numbers printed in bold are either the quickest implementation in a build scenario or one that is within 1.5% of the quickest implementation. A1 and A2 are sharing the title here by being in that group five times each.
  • With constructors inlined, everything in the loop except DoSomething() could be inline. It seems to me that the compiler could — at least in theory — figure out that it is asked the same thing in all cases. Namely, reserve space for three ints on the heap, fill them each with 4711 and make the ::std::vector<int> data structure on the stack reflect that, then hand that to the DoSomething() function that you know nothing about. If the compiler would figure that out, it would take the same time for all implementations. This doesnt happen either on -O2 (differ by ~18% from quickest to slowest) nor on -O3 (differ by ~3.6%).

One common mantra in applications development is “trust the compiler to optimize”. The above observations show a few cracks in the foundations of that, esp. if you take into account that this is all on the same version of the same compiler running on the same platform and hardware with the same STL implementation. For huge objects with expensive constructors, the constructor counting approach might still be valid. Then again, those are rarely statically initialized as a bigger bunch into a vector. For the more common scenario of smaller objects with cheap constructors, my tentative conclusion so far would be to go with A1/A2/A3 — not so much because they are quickest in the most common build scenarios on my platform, but rather because the readability of them is a value on its own while the performance picture is muddy at best.

And hey, if you want to run the tests above on other platforms or compilers, I would be interested in results!

Note: I did these runs for each scenario only once, thus no standard deviation is given. In general, they seemed to be rather stable, but this being wallclock measurements, one or the other might be outliers. caveat emptor.

Read more

No-no-no, light speed is too slow!
Yes, we’ll have to go right to… ludicrous speed!

— Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

So, I recently brought up the topic of writers notes in the LibreOffice ESC call. More specifically: the SwNodeIndex class, which is, if one broadly simplifies an iterator over the container holding all the paragraphs of a text document. Before my modifications, the SwNodes container class had all these SwNodeIndices in a homegrown intrustive double linked list, to be able to ensure these stay valid e.g. if a SwNode gets deleted/removed. Still — as usual with performance topics — wild guesses arent helpful, and measurements should trump over intuition. I used valgrind for that, and measured the number of instructions needed for loading the ODF spec. Since I did the same years and years ago on the old performance project, I just checked if we regressed against that. Its comforting that we did not at all — we were much faster, but that measurement has to be taken with a few pounds of salt, as a lot of other things differ between these two measurements (e.g. we now have a completely new build system, compiler versions etc.). But its good we are moving in the right direction.

implementation SwNodes SwNodeIndex total instructions performance linedelta
DEV300_m45 71,727,655 73,784,052 9,823,158,471 ? ?
master@fc93c17a 84,553,232 60,987,760 6,170,762,825 0% 0
std::list 18,461,317 103,461,317 14,502,230,571 -5,725%
(-235% of total)
std::vector 18,986,848 3,707,286,032 9,811,541,380 -2,502% +22/-70
std::unordered_map 18,984,984 82,843,000 7,083,620,244 -627%
(-15% of total)
std::vector rbegin 18,986,848 143,851,229 6,214,602,532 -30%
(-7% of total)
sw::Ring<> 23,447,256 inlined 6,154,660,709 11%
(2.6% of total)

With that comforting knowledge, I started to play around with the code. The first thing I did was to replace the handcrafted intrusive list with a std::list pointing to the SwNodeIndex instances as a member in the SwNodes class. This is expected to slow down things, as now two allocs are needed: one for the SwNodeIndex class and one for the node entry in the std::list. To be honest though, I didnt expect this to slow down the code handling the nodes by a factor of ~57 for the loading of the example document. This whole document loading time (not just the node handling) slows by a factor of ~2.4. So ok, this establishes for certain that this part of the code is highly performance sensitive.

The next thing I tried to get a feel for how the performance reacts was using a std::vector in the SwNodes class. When reserving some memory early, this should severely reduce the amount of allocs needed. And indeed this was quicker than the std::list even with a naive approach just doing a push_back() for insertion and a std::find()/std::erase() for removal. However, the node indices are often temporarily created and quickly destroyed again. Thus adding new indices at the end and searching from the start certainly is not ideal: Thus this is also slower than the intrusive list that was on master by a factor of ~25 for the code doing the node handling.

Searching for a SwNodeIndex from the end of the vector, where we likely just inserted it and then swapping it with the last entry makes the std::vector almost compatitive with the original implementation: but still 30% slower than the original implementation. (The total loading time would only have increased by 0.7% using the vector like this.)

For completeness, I also had a look at a std::unordered_map. It did a bit better than I expected, but still would have slowed down loading by 15% for the example experiment.

Having ruled out that standard containers would do much good here without lots of tweaking, I tried the sw::Ring<> class that I recently rewrote based on Boost.Intrusive as a inline header class. This was 11% quicker than the old implementation, resulting in 2.6% quicker loading for the whole document. Not exactly a heroic archivement, but also not too bad for just some 200 lines touched. So this is now on master.

Why do this linked list outperform the old linked list? Inlining. Especially, the non-inlined constructors and the destructor calling a trivial non-inlined member function. And on top of that, the contructors and the function called by the destructor called two non-inlined friend functions from a different compilation unit, making it extra hard for a compiler to optimize that. Now, link time optimization (LTO) could maybe do something about that someday. However, with LTO being in different states on different platforms and with developers possibly building without LTO for build time performance for some time, requiring the compiler/linker to be extra clever might be a mixed blessing: The developers might run into “the map is not the territory” problems.

my personal take-aways:

  • The SwNodeIndex has quite a relevant impact on performance. If you touch it, handle with care (and with valgrind).
  • The current code has decent performance, further improvement likely need deeper structual work (see e.g. Kendys bplustree stuff).
  • Intrusive linked lists might be cumbersome, but for some scenarios, they are really fast.
  • Inlining can really help (doh).
  • LTO might help someday (or not).
  • friend declarations for non-inline functions across compilation units can be a code smell for possible performance optimization.

Please excuse the extensive writing for a meager 2.6% performance improvement — the intention is to avoid somebody (including me) to redo some or all of the work above just to come to the same conclusion.

Note: Here is how this was measured:

  • gcc 4.8.3
  • boost 1.55.0
  • test document: ODF spec
  • valgrind --tool=callgrind "--toggle-collect=*LoadOwnFormat*" ./instdir/program/soffice.bin
  • ./ --disable-gnome-vfs --disable-odk --disable-postgresql-sdbc --disable-report-builder --disable-scripting-beanshell --enable-gio --enable-symbols --with-external-tar=... --with-junit=... --with-hamcrest=... --with-system-libs --without-doxygen --without-help --without-myspell-dicts --without-system-libmwaw --without-system-mdds --without-system-orcus --without-system-sane --without-system-vigra --without-system-libodfgen --without-system-libcmis --disable-firebird-sdbc --without-system-libebook --without-system-libetonyek --without-system-libfreehand --without-system-libabw --disable-gnome-vfs --without-system-glm --without-system-glew --without-system-librevenge --without-system-libcdr --without-system-libmspub --without-system-libvisio --without-system-libwpd --without-system-libwps --without-system-libwpg --without-system-libgltf --without-system-libpagemaker --without-system-coinmp --with-jdk-home=...

Read more

Auld Lang Syne

we’ll tak’ a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

— Die Roten Rosen, Auld Lang Syne

Eike already greeted the Year of Our Lady of Discord 3181 four days ago, but I’d like to take this opportunity to have a look at the state of the LibreOffice project — the bug tracker status that is.

By the end of 2014:


And a special “Thank You!” goes out to everyone who created one of the over 100 Easy Hacks written for LibreOffice in 2014, and everyone who helped, mentored or reviewed patches by new contributors to the LibreOffice project. Easy Hacks are a good way someone curious about the code of LibreOffice to get started in the project with the help of more experienced developers. If you are interested in that, you find more information on Easy Hacks on the TDF wiki. Note that there are also Easy Hacks about Design related topics and on topics related to QA.

If “I should contribute to LibreOffice once in 2015″ wasnt part of your new years resolutions yet, you are invited to add this as Easy Hacks might convince you that its worthwhile and … easy.

Read more

To Win in Toulouse

Now the only thing a gambler needs
Is a suitcase and a trunk.
— Animals, The House of the Rising Sun

So, as many others, I have been to the LibreOffice Hackfest in Toulouse which — unlike many of our other Hackfests — was part of a bigger event: Capitole du Libre. As we had our own area and were not 30+ hackers, this also had the advantage that we got quicker to work. And while I had still some boring administrative work to do, this is a Hackfest were I actually got to do some coding. I looked for some bookmark related bugs in Writer, but the first bugs I looked at were just too well suited to be Easy Hacks: fdo#51741 (“Deleting bookmark is not seen as modification of document”) and fdo#56116 (“Names of bookmarks should allow all characters which are valid in HTML anchor names (missing: ‘:’ and ‘.’)”). Both were made Easy Hacks and both are fixed on master now. I then fixed fdo#85542 (“DOCX import of overlapping bookmarks”), which proved slightly more work then expected and provided a unittest for it to never come back. I later learned that the second part was entirely nonoptional, as Markus promised he would not have let me leave Toulouse without writing a unittest for commited code. I have to admit that that is a supportable position.

Toulouse Hackfest RoomToulouse Hackfest Room

Scenes like the above were actually rather rare as we were mostly working over our notebooks. One thing I came up with at the Hackfest, but didnt finish there was some clang plugins for finding cascading conditional ops and and conditional ops that have assignments as a sideeffect in their midst. While I found nothing as mindboggling as the tweet that gave inspiration to these plugins in sw (Writer), I found some impressive expressions that certainly wouldnt be a joy to step through in gdb (or even better: set a breakpoint in) when debugging and fixed those. We probably could make a few EasyHacks out of what these (or similar) plugins find outside of sw/ (I only looked there for now) — those are reasonably easy to refactor, but you dont want to do that in the middle of a debugging session. While at it, I also looked at clangs “value assigned, but never read” hints. Most were harmless, but also trivial to get rid of. On the other hand, some of those pointed to real logic errors that are otherwise hard to see. Like this one, which has been hiding — if git is to be believed — in plain sight ever since was originally open sourced in 2000. All in all, this experience is encouraging. Now that there are our coverity defect density is a just a rounding error above zero getting more fancy clang plugins might be promising.

Just one week after the Hackfest in Toulouse, there was another event LibreOffice took part in: The Bug Squashing Party in Munich — its encouraging to see Jonathan Riddell being a commiter to LibreOffice too now, but that is not all, we have more events coming up: The Document Foundation and LibreOffice will have an assembly at 31c3 in Hamburg, you are most welcome to drop by there! And next then, there will be FOSDEM 2015 in Bruessels, where LibreOffice will be present as usual.

Read more

Free Four

The memories of a man in his old age

are the deeds of a man in his prime

— Free Four, Obscured by Clouds, Pink Floyd

I just donated to:

  • the Wikimedia Foundation
  • the OpenBSD project

and became:

Being involved in a project that is heavily driven by donations, I keep remembering myself of the importance of putting my money were my mouth is.

Some of these donations were triggered by recent events and initiatives in these projects. GNOME’s outreach for women program for example. Or OpenBSDs bold initiative in starting LibreSSL, which is doing what needed to be done and vitalizing an overlooked area of open source development. Watching them explain the status quo and how they are attacking it remembers me of LibreOffice — beyond the name. Plus, I dont want to be compared with a My little Pony character again.

goals of LibreSSL -- they remind me of somethinggoals of LibreSSL — they remind me of something

Others are already working examples of the long tail, crowd funding and the meshed society (Wikipedia) or tailblazing to be one (Krautreporter) beyond the world of software. The latter might also have been influenced by one of the last wishes of a man that unexpectedly died way to early. May he rest in peace.

Read more

Train Stops

And the sons of pullman porters and the sons of engineers
Ride their father’s magic carpets made of steel
Mothers with their babes asleep are rockin’ to the gentle beat
And the rhythm of the rails is all they feel

— The City of New Orleans, Willie Nelson interpreting Steve Goodman

So, LibreOffice does its releases on a train release schedule and since we recently modified the schedule a bit (by putting out the alpha1 release earlier), I took the opportunity to take a closer look and explain a bit on what we are doing. With this every 6 months of LibreOffice development currently roughly look like this:
week after x.y.0 development release candidates finalized releases
fresh stable fresh stable
0 x.y.0
1 x.y.1~rc1 x.(y-1).4~rc1
3 x.y.1~rc2 x.(y-1).4~rc2
4 x.y.1 x.(y-1).4
6 x.y.2~rc1
8 x.y.2~rc2 x.(y-1).5~rc1
9 x.y.2
10 x.(y-1).5~rc2
11 x.y.3~rc1 x.(y-1).5
13 x.(y+1)~alpha1 x.y.3~rc2
14 x.y.3
18 x.(y+1)~beta1
20 x.(y+1)~beta2 x.(y-1).6~rc1
22 x.(y+1)~rc1 x.(y-1).6~rc2
23 x.(y-1).6
24 x.(y+1)~rc2
25 x.(y+1)~rc3

The last two columns are most visible to most visitors of the LibreOffice website. Those are the versions found on the LibreOffice Fresh and LibreOffice Stable download pages. We are in roughly at week 18 after 4.2.0 release now, and the versions available are 4.2.4 fresh and 4.1.6 stable. A careful reader will note that according to that schedule we should be at 4.2.3 and 4.1.5 — that is true, but the 4.2 series still had an extra 4.2.1 intermediate release to adjust the schedule of 4.2 in direction of the current plan. This is not expected for future releases (also note that there is always some flexibility in the plan to allow for holidays etc.)

If you count all the prereleases, release candidates and releases, you will find that we do 25 of those in 26 weeks. Beside the fact that this is a lot of work for release engineers, one might wonder if anyone can keep up with that, and if so — how? The answer to that depends on how you are using LibreOffice.

self deployment on LibreOffice fresh

If you are an user or a small business installing LibreOffice yourself, you will probably run LibreOffice fresh and the table above simplifies for you as follows:

week after x.y.0 development release candidates finalized releases
0 x.y.0
1 x.y.1~rc1
4 x.y.1
6 x.y.2~rc1
9 x.y.2
11 x.y.3~rc1
14 x.y.3
18 x.(y+1)~beta1
20 x.(y+1)~beta2
22 x.(y+1)~rc1
24 x.(y+1)~rc2
25 x.(y+1)~rc3

The last column shows the releases you are running. If you are a member of the LibreOffice community it would be very helpful if you also spend some time of this 6 months period for three actions:

  • running at least one of the release candidates in the table (available for download here) before the final is released.
  • running at least one beta releases in the table. Note that there will be a bug hunting session on the 4.3.0 beta release this week, that will help you get started.
  • running a nightly build once anywhere in the weeks 1-18. Note that if you are getting excited about seeing the latest and greatest builds while they are still steaming, there are tools that can help you with this on Linux and Windows.

If you do these each of these three things once in the timeframe of six months and report any issues you find, you are helping LibreOffice already a lot — and you are making sure that the finalized releases of the fresh series are not only containing all the latest features, but also free of severe regressions.

bigger deployments on LibreOffice stable

If you are not installing LibreOffice yourself, but instead have a major deployment administrated centrally, things are a bit different. You might be more conservative and interested in the releases from LibreOffice stable. And you probably have professional support from a certified developer or a company employing certified developers.

week after x.y.0 development release candidates finalized releases
1 x.(y-1).4~rc1
4 x.(y-1).4
8 x.(y-1).5~rc1
11 x.(y-1).5
13 x.(y+1)~alpha1
18 x.(y+1)~beta1
20 x.(y-1).6~rc1
23 x.(y-1).6

If you intend to deploy one series of LibreOffice (e.g. 4.3), there are two things that are highly recommended to be done:

  • make the alpha or beta releases available quickly to interested volunteers in your deployment early. They might find bugs or regressions that are specific to your use of the software.
  • make the release candidates of versions that you intent to deploy available early to your users.

Of these two actions, the first is by far the most important: It identifies issues early on in the life cycle and gives both your support provider and the LibreOffice developer community at large time to resolve the issue. In fact, I would argue that if you have a major deployment, the only excuse for not making available prereleases, is that you made available nightly builds.


So, Ubuntu qualifies as a “bigger deployment” and I have to take care of LibreOffice on it. Also people want to be able to run the latest and greatest LibreOffice releases from the LibreOffice fresh series. Do I follow my recommendations here? Yes, mostly I do:

  • both LibreOffice fresh and LibreOffice stable series are available from PPAs for Ubuntu and are updated regularly and quickly when an rc2 is available.
  • prereleases are made available as bibisect repositories rather quick (build on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS). In addition, fully packaged versions of LibreOffice are build in the prereleases PPA as early as starting with beta1.

So, you are invited to run or test builds from these PPAs — or download the bibisect repositories — to keep LibreOffice releases coming in the steady and stable fashion they do. Finally, there is a bug hunting session for LibreOffice this week and as said above, no matter if you are running a huge deployment or installing on your own, you are helping LibreOffice — and yourself, as a user of LibreOffice — a lot by testing the prereleases:

Read more

I hope that someone gets my message in a bottle

— Message in a Bottle, the Police

So, there was some minor confusion about the wording in the LibreOffice 4.2.4 release notes.

This needs some background first: LibreOffice 4.2 modified the UNO API to pop up a message box in a slight way against LibreOffice 4.1. This was properly announced in our LibreOffice 4.2 release notes many moons ago:

The following UNO interfaces and services were changed […],

Luckily, LibreOffice extensions can specify a minimal version, so extensions using the new MessageBox-API can explicitly request a version of LibreOffice 4.2 or newer. This change in our sdk-examples shows how an extension can be updated to use the new API and explicitly require a version of LibreOffice 4.2 and higher. All this happened already with LibreOffice 4.2.0 being released and has nothing yet to do with the change in LibreOffice 4.2.4.

So what was changed in LibreOffice 4.2.4? Well, in addition to the LibreOffice version, old extensions sometimes just ask for an “ version”. Most LibreOffice versions answered its version was “3.4”, so this old backwards compatible check was not very helpful anyway. So in LibreOffice 4.2.4 this value was changed to  “4.1”, which might make some old extensions aware of the incompatible API change. That’s all.

Note that:

So, the short answer to the question to “what changed in LibreOffice 4.2.4?” is: Nothing, if your extension uses LibreOffice-minimal-version as recommended.

Read more

Sie singt Tag und Nacht neue Lieder,
von den Palmen am blauen Meer

— Kein Bier auf Hawaii, originally by Paul Kuhn

So, the LibreOffice Las Palmas Hackfest 2014 is over and it was awesome. I have to thank Alberto Ruiz and University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria for their excellent hosting and support. We had the opportunity to present the LibreOffice project to the students of the university, and we did so with a set of short talks to cover a lot of ground without too much boring details. Here is the hand of my slides:

You can find a video of all the talks in the session on youtube. My talk starts around minute 35 and is followed by Kendys nice intro on improving the LibreOffice UI. In addition to the video, I also made a few pictures on the event, you can find them in this album.



The achievements section of this Hackfest is still being populated, but despite being a smaller Hackfest, there seems to have been quite some productive work done in total. It was also very encouraging to see curious students from the university drop by, we tried to give them a gentle introduction on ways to contribute and learn more.

Our next LibreOffice Hackfest will be on June, 27-28 in Paris as has just been announced.

Read more

“I fought the law and the law won”

– Sonny Curtis and the Crickets — prominently covered by the Clash

So in a few minutes, I will be leaving for the meeting at Open Knowledge Lab in Hamburg for Code for Germany in Hamburg — but I dont want to show up empty-handed. Earlier I learned about BundesGit which is a project to put all federal german laws in a git repository in easily parsable markdown language. This project was featured prominently e.g. on Wired, Heise and got me wondering that having all those laws available at the tip of your hand would be quite useful for lawyers. So here I went and quickly wrote an extension to do just that. When you install the extension:

  • it downloads all the german federal laws from github and indexes them on the next restart of LibreOffice (completely in the background without annoying the user)
  • that takes about ~5 minutes (and it only checks for updates on the next start, so no redownload)
  • once indexed you can insert a part of a law easily in any text in Writer using the common abbreviations that lawyers use for these:
  • Type the abbreviation of the paragraph on an otherwise empty line, e.g. “gg 1″ for the first Artikel of the Grundgesetz
  • press Ctrl-Shift-G (G for Git, Gesetz or whatever you intend it to mean)
  • LibreOffice will replace the abbreviation with the part of that law
BundesGit for LibreOffice

BundesGit for LibreOffice

Now this is still a proof-of-concept:

  • It requires a recent version (1.9 or higher) of git in the path. While that is for example true in the upcoming version of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, other distributions might still have older versions of git, or — on Windows — none at all: Packing a git binary into the extension is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • I have not checked it to parse all the different laws and find all the paragraphs. It also ignores some non-text content in the repository for now. Patches welcome!
  • While it stays in the background most of the time intentionally to not get into the way of the user, it could use some error reporting or logging, so users are not left in the dark if it fails to work.

On the other hand, the extension is a good example what you can do with less than 300 lines of Python3 (including tests) in LibreOffice extensions. Thus the code was hopefully verbosely enough commented and was uploaded to sdk-examples repository, where it lives alongside this LibreOffice does print on Tuesdays extension that also serves as an example. Of course, if there other useful repositories of texts online, it can be quickly adapted to provide those too.

So download BundesGit for LibreOffice and test it on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (trusty).


addendum: This has been featured on and (both german).


Read more

Document Liberation has been announced today, but a picture says more than a thousand words, so I created one based on the beautiful work of Paulo José. Enjoy!

Document Liberation

Document Liberation (CC-by-sa 3.0 Paulo Jose, Bjoern Michaelsen)

Read more

LibreOffice bugzilla status

Im kind of over gettin told to throw my hands up in the air

so there

Team, Pure Herione, Lorde

So, somewhere between the LibreOffice 4.2.0 and the 4.1.5 release, broke through 25.000 reported bugs. A time to throw the hands up in despair? Not at all, as the following chart shows:

LibreOffice bug states on freedesktop

LibreOffice bug states on freedesktop

  • 7% of reports are still unconfirmed or need more information
  • 22% are confirmed and unresolved issues, that are not enhancements requests
  • 6.5% are unresolved enhancement requests.

On the other hand:

  • 33% of all reports have been fixed in some way
  • and 30% are invalid or duplicates.

Its interesting to see how now a quarter of the confirmed unresolved reports are asking for new features and enhancements. Its gets even more encouraging, if you take into account that the number of bugs reports is at a long term constant 20-25 reports per day, while over 40% of the bugs intentionally or collaterally fixed changed their state in the last 12 month. So we are picking up speed in triaging and fixing bugs, while the influx of new reports stays constant.

If you are interested, please help QA quite a bit in all this by writing good bug reports, identifying duplicates, confirming new reports, bibisecting regressions, run and test daily builds and prereleases or otherwise helping with the QA Easy Hacks!

Read more

It’s so hard when it doesn’t come easy

It’s so hard when it doesn’t come fast

– So Hard, Taking The Long Way, Dixie Chicks

So, LibreOffice 4.2 is released, FOSDEM is over, was very nice and I am back home in Hamburg after a week in London. I missed the LibreOffice UX Hackfest for that, which I heard was also awesome. So without further ado, here are the slides from my quick talk at FOSDEM:

(direct link if you are watching this on a planet that does not support embedded speakerdecks:

and some errata for it: On slide 13 it says “the same file is also hardlinked from workdir/” — thats not true for quite a while already. LibreOffice keeps around exactly one copy of a library, unlike the confusing three copies that we had in LibreOffice 3.3. This should be a lot less confusing to the curious first time contributor.

Reviewing all these changes in toto, it became how much we simplified getting involved with LibreOffice through this. As the lyrics quoted above say: “Back when we started, we didn’t know how hard it was”.

If there is just one number to take away from all these slides, its that a noop rebuild for LibreOffice on a three year old developer notebook with the distro provided GNU make 3.81 takes just 17 seconds(*). And slide 7 shows still some possibilities to still speed things up beyond that — and while at current speeds it might not be worth it on Linux, it might be worthwhile for e.g. Windows, which is traditionally rather slow when it comes to file I/O.

On a related note, over time we improved the way new contributors can submit their changes on our instance of gerrit in many ways. Thanks a lot to David, Norbert and Robert for the work on this. One only has to look at one of daily digests generated from activity on gerrit and imagine we would still get one mail for each change, update and merge to the mailing list for manual patch tracking as we did in the early days. Thanks a lot also to Mathias Michel for his work on the script!

So if you haven’t done that yet, consider graping an EasyHack and get started!

A copy of the original .odp is also available at FOSDEM or on the LibreOffice wiki.

(*) This includes checking 1.3GB of generated c++ dependency files for some >8000 object files, which we simplify to <350MB.

Read more


“Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fuenf, sechs, sieben, acht”

– Nummern, Computerwelt, Kraftwerk

So LibreOffice 4.2.0 release candidate 3 has been tagged yesterday evening. A good time to look back at the cycle and look at some numbers. The number of issues fixed in the 4.2 series are in line with our historic trends:

There is no page for the third release candidate yet, but I assume it to be no exception. Fixing issues is mainly done by development, although QA does the preparation for that by triaging a bug well. But QA also does quite a bit of work before a bug is triaged, and this is not directly locked to changes in code. So I had a look at the numbers simply in the timeframe between the tagging of 4.1.0 rc3 (2013-07-17) and 4.2.0 rc3 (yesterday). In this timeframe, QA did:

  • confirm 3114 bugs (change of ever_confirmed).
  • resolve 3393 bugs (change of resolution and not unresolved now, this includes the bugs fixed by development).

Naturally, these can not be simply be added up: for example, a bug can be confirmed and then be resolved by fixing it. If all of that happens in the timeframe (as it likely will for a relevant bug), it will appear in all the above counts. Meanwhile, in this timeframe 4092 bugs have been filed by endusers. Of those new bugs filed, 9.3% where enhancement requests. Since not all resolved bugs need to be confirmed (e.g. invalid bugs), these numbers add up nicely.

Speaking of quality, another thing to look at is regressions. How many of those will be fixed in 4.2 as of now? Here is the rundown:

  • 1 regression introduced in 3.4 or before
  • 2 regressions introduced in 3.5 or before
  • 3 regressions introduced in 3.6 or before
  • 2 regressions introduced in 4.0 or before
  • 8 regressions introduced in 4.1 or before
  • 51 regressions introduced on master or found in betas and release candidates

As you can see, most of the regressions fixed with this have actually never been released. This should be encouraging news to those testing daily builds: If you do that, you will be rewarded with quick bug fixes. Still, only fixing 16 regressions that were visible in previous releases seems a rather low count for a release. Well, this is because this count does not count fixed regressions that are also backported to the updates on the 4.1 stable series. As regressions are usually worth that effort, this is usually done unless it is to risky a change for that. If you look for regressions that were fixed in 4.2 and also backported to 4.1, you as of now get a count of:

  • 230 regressions fixed in 4.2 that were also backported to the 4.1 series

in addition. See this earlier post for more details on how the backporting works and some numbers on it.

Speaking of regressions, we have a pretty unique tool to corner them: bibisect. How well does this work? I keep tracking these in bugzilla for the last months. Currently 176 bugs have been bibisected, with the number of unresolved bibisected bugs staying constant in the 60-70 range. That is encouraging, as it means that for each regression bibisected, a developer fixes a bibisected regression. This happens currently at a rate of ~2 bugs per week, which is not too bad, as such regressions might be quite hard cornercases that without bibisect would be tricky to pin down. However, only ~14% of our unresolved regressions are bibisected as of now. Clearly, we can improve that ratio with more bibisecting and get more regressions fixed even quicker.

Ok, admittedly, this was a boring and dry post on bug numbers. What can I do to lighten you up? Here is catcontent, presented in LibreOffice Draw 4.2 running on Ubuntu trusty with the awesome new libreoffice-style-sifr icon theme:

More info about the upcoming 4.2 release can be found in the still evolving release notes and in this nice sneak peak video on 4.2. by Leif Lodahl.

tl;dr: We are doing well, but could use even more people testing daily builds and do bibisects.

addendum: The LibreOffice 4.2.0 release candidate 3 page is populated — additional 29 bugfixes. And the final release candidate 4 has 12 more.

addendum: Michael wrote a nice wrap-up what happened elsewhere in the (now released) LibreOffice 4.2.0.

Read more

Sometimes I wonder if the world’s so small,
Can we ever get away from the sprawl?

Sprawl II — Arcade Fire

So these days, most people prefer to use an IDE to navigate their source code. This has often been greeted with some defensive elitism of the “real programmers” kind since the early days of the open sourcing of StarOffice. One does not simply load a code base the size of LibreOffice in your wimpy IDE: while it is possible somehow in the end, its a lot more trouble than its worth to manually set up e.g. all the include path manually to get the fancy stuff like autocompletion. Add to that, that e.g. UNO headers are generated during the build and header were at distributed over multiple IDE unfriendly locations, with many headers even available as copies from multiple locations, before we fixed that.

All these things are fixed now. And while LibreOffice still is a huge beast with our new build system we can get a holistic view of what needs to get build where, how and when. This makes it easy, almost trivial to generate an IDE project file from the build system. And to prove this point, I did just that for the kdevelop IDE. This isnt limited in principle to this one IDE — in fact the kdevelop specific part of this is some 150 lines of Python. So no matter what IDE you use: Eclipse, Netbeans, Anjuta, Visual Studio, Code::Blocks or XCode — you should be able to adapt this. In fact, while writing this, I find there is already work going on for XCode. Feel invited to join the party and make LibreOffice trivially buildable in your favourite IDE!

So as announced to the developer list, this allows you to make navigating, editing, building, testing and running LibreOffice much easier, giving you features like:

  • autocompletion
  • building a module from the IDE
  • building all of LibreOffice from the IDE
  • nondebug and debug build configs for the above
  • starting LibreOffice from the IDE
  • running unitchecks, slowchecks and subsequentchecks from the IDE

Dont believe it? Here is a video featuring a stuttering german guy (me) on the audio track showing this:

If you want to show this around on social media, there is also a shorter version featuring the essentials (make sure to link to the HD versions).

A closing note: A long time, common IDEs embrace and extended into the buildsystems so once you used an IDE, you could only use this one IDE and no other. In retrospect, this is obviously doing it wrong. With the current approach, we can make LibreOffice easily buildable in any IDE on any platform. A very important fact for a product available on so many platforms.

addendum: As Karl Fogel wrote LibreOffice is now ridiculously easy to build. before we even had this, it just shows that one can always do better. ;)

Read more

He asked me if I’d seen a road with so much dust and sand.
And I said, “Listen, I’ve travelled every road in this here land!”
I’ve been everywhere, man.
I’ve been everywhere, man.

I’ve been Everywhere, Johnny Cash

So about a month ago I travelled in one week from Hamburg via Zürich and San Francisco to Oakland and then via San Francisco, Munich and Basel to Freiburg to attend the LibreOffice Hackfest Freiburg 2013 and back to Hamburg. The Freiburg Hackfest is the third and last Hackevent we had in Germany this year (after the Impress Sprint in Dresden and the Hackfest in Hamburg) nicely accompanying the international events like the LibreOffice conference in Milan and our usual presence at FOSDEM.

Bags packed to get back to Europe

I have to admit that I arrived at this event with some travel fatigue and some upcoming Ubuflu, so I was not too productive myself, but its good to see fixes like for example in the kde integration (Jan-Marek), in Calc (Eilidh), for enabling bitcoin donations (Florian), to mail merge (again Jan-Marek), to Math (Marcos), for the build system (Michael and David) happening (or at least be prepared at the event). A big “Thank You” to all the angels of the Chaos Computer Club Freiburg that organized the event — when I learned that I would need to travel to the US right before this, I had some doubts if it would result in “remote-organization-troubles” given this was a first time in Freiburg. This was completely unfounded, the support of our hosts was amazing and they seemed to have made a deal with Eris to take revenge for the original snub somewhere else on this weekend. ;)

So, given that I did not do much coding (just some preparation for the KDevelop integration for LibreOffice, more on that later), what can I offer you? Catcontent was not available (no cats at this Hackfest), so I give you the second best thing: the deputy chairman of the board of the Document Foundation patrolling the premises on a skateboard:

skateboard patrol

So, whats next? FOSDEM! We will of course be there again, and back-to-back with the event we will have a user experience Hackfest in Bruessels. So come and join us:

Read more