Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
146 messages Options
1 ... 5678 « Prev
Marc-André Laverdière Marc-André Laverdière
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

I have not been involved in this discussion for now, but I wanted to
give my 2 paise (Indian cents) based on what I know of the 'corporate
mind'. I am still speaking as an individual here.

Right now, as I see it, there is a big problem for anyone who wants to
contribute anything: which code base? how much work will I have to do
for my patches to work on both trees? Is there a point?

Besides that, here are some things about 'corporates' (= non-technical
managers) that may hurt LO if the community stays fragmented. Maybe your
corporates are more enlightened, but not everyone is.

1) Corporates really love 'SPOCs': Single Point of Contacts... in other
words, having only one interlocutor keep things simple. Having a
fragmented community is really going to hurt corporate contributions in
my opinion.

2) Corporates rely on 'name dropping' a bit too much.
If one is stuck having to pick a project, the suit will ask him 'who is
supporting that?'. OOo has IBM. IBM still has a glowing aura from the
days of yore that shouldn't be under-estimated.
Oh, and did I mention that Apache has brand recognition?

3) Corporates don't understand that FLOSS communities recognize
individuals, not organizations. They'd like to have a stake/control the
project to some degree

4) Corporates don't know the difference between open source licenses.
For them, all open source is the same. So telling them that LO offers
licenses that better protect the users' rights than ASF is NOT going to
be a selling point.

The community is NOT going to benefit from a split at all. And unless
there is something clearly laid out for for cooperation between ASF and
LO, my thinking is that we won't have as much corporate involvement as
we could have. Some full-time developers could help a lot.


Marc-André Laverdière
Software Security Scientist
Innovation Labs, Tata Consultancy Services
Hyderabad, India

On 06/09/2011 12:11 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 14:04, BRM<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm quite pleased to see the ASF members (at least here) not taking offense but
>> continuing to act very diplomatically throughout all of this. (That said, I
>> haven't paid nearly as much attention to the Apache Mailing Lists.)
>
> There is certainly a good bit of defensiveness from Apache people over
> on the other list. Just kind of the nature of things.
>
> I'm just looking forward to a vote on the danged podling so that we
> can start getting "real work" done. Most of the discussion has died
> down now.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simos Xenitellis Simos Xenitellis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Brouwer
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Simon Brouwer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Op 6-6-2011 10:38, Simos Xenitellis schreef:
>>
>> Let's read the document you cite,
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>>
>> A permissive license is recommended/suggested in two cases, when
>> a. «very small projects»
>> b. «projects that implement free standards that are competing against
>> proprietary standards,
>> such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which
>> competes against MPEG-4 video)»
>>
>> I cannot fit OpenOffice in any of these criteria.
>
> Doesn't OpenOffice.org implement the free standard ODF, which is competing
> against the MS Office "standard" file formats?
>

Currently OOo is a big piece of software that among many things can
read/write ODF documents. If OOo was to be simplified into an ODF
(non-GUI) component, reusable in many other applications, then the FSF
suggestion is being read properly.

Simos

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Christophe Strobbe Christophe Strobbe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Christian Lohmaier-2
Hi Christian, All,

At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

>Hi Allen, *,
>
>On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Allen Pulsifer
><[hidden email]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > I don't know what vision IBM has for the project.  I don't know what code
> > contribution they are going to make--I'm certain they will make some, but I
> > don't know what they will be.  I don't know what contributions members of
> > the LibreOffice community will or will not want to make.
>
>Given that they had 35 people working on it according to their press
>releases, that was ended up in OOo was  basically nonexistent. As
>you've been with the OOo project for a couple of years you can
>probably understand that people that were part of OOo project before
>switching over to TDF/LibreOffice don't have much trust in IBM's lip
>service.
>
>The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
>Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
>he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
>needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
>it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
>branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
>http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support

I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one
IBM employee on this list...).
The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not the
"code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org 3.1
(if I remember correctly).
See my comment at
<http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026>.
(Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
was released in December 2006
<http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss>.)

At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe



> > I do know this however.  There is currently an open invitation
> for us to get
> > involved.  If we get involved, we can have a say in with direction of the
> > project.
>
>Not really, as you first have to "surrender" to the Apache's licence
>terms. And that alone is reason for me not to join the effort.
>
> > We can ensure that direction of the project provides the maximum
> > benefit for LibreOffice, which includes any contributions from IBM.
> > Basically, we can get IBM working for us.
>
>I really doubt it. What would change for them now, with the permissive
>licence, that did prevent them in the last 5 years from contributing?
>They (according to their press release) had massive manpower working
>on it (35 people), but what ended up in OOo is two code dumps to
>ancient codeline, one of which being lotuswordprofilter, the other the
>abovementioned accessibility dump.
>
>(...)
>
>ciao
>Christian


--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
www.aegis-project.eu
---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social
networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi Christoph, *,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>
>> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
>> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
>> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
>> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
>> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
>> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
>> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
>>
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
>
> I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was at least one
> IBM employee on this list...).
> The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not
> the
> "code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org
> 3.1

Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
happens in public)
All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
(And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
work to get integrated as contribution)

> (if I remember correctly).
> See my comment at
> <http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026>.
> (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
> was released in December 2006
> <http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss>.)

Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against
the OOo 1.1.5 codeline.
Not against the version that is in current development, but to a
codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the
commitment statment is from 2007)

It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo -
and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to
the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same
figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically.

Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code
"contribution" of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle
engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current
codeline, doesn't matter really).
But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years?

> At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
> the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.

Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post. (about the status of
iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
"blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
at all.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DF3A2E8.8010000@...%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DF3A100.2060105@...%3E
(he posted the very same mail twice)

"Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public
CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo."

And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in
features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take
quite a bit of time.

Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current
bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure
team yet.  An open question since June 17.  Three weeks and still no
answer to the simple question:
"We are looking for more detail about the size of the OOo bugzilla
database. How large is the backup, and what database is being used?
This is the information that Infrastructure needs to know if they have
a preference about our choice."
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3C097E5BC1-6218-422B-8989-8C082EB0F8CF@...%3E

So you can imagine that when it comes on deciding whether to release
OOo 3.4.0 on the old infrastructure will take ages as well.

It's also somewhat ridiculous how long it takes for them to "mirror"
the hg-repos for merging. But I didn't see any real progress wrt.
licencing issues either. So while they then might have a repo will all
open/interesting cws merged in, still the problems of what files are
exactly covered by the grant remains.
Only "progress" in this regard is to use apache-batik for svg-import
(OK), and go back to myspell for spellchecking (and thus crippling
spellchecking, nullifying the progress hunspell brought for langauges
with complex compound and flexation rules) - but that are at least
suggestions to move on.
There are many people on the incubator-ooo-dev list, but only few who
have a real clue. And even fewer who are actively driving stuff (and
that basically includes the apache-mentors who are doing an ungrateful
job). Most are just sitting back and waiting for things to come (and
to be honest most of them don't have any other choice).

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Christophe Strobbe Christophe Strobbe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi Christian, All,

At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

>Hi Christoph, *,
>
>On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
><[hidden email]> wrote:
> > At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> >>
> >> The few times they did contribute, it was code-dumping, far from
> >> contributing in a collaborative manner. The accessibility stuff that
> >> Rob just mentioned on the apache list has been promised since 2007 and
> >> he correctly stated that is is still (considerable) amount of /work/
> >> needed to get it integrated. They dumped it instead of contributing
> >> it. To me that's still a difference. The code is against an obsolete
> >> branch (OOo 1.1.5 codeline (!))
> >>
> >>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Accessibility/IAccessible2_support
> >
> > I am surprised nobody has responded to this (since there is/was
> at least one
> > IBM employee on this list...).
> > The accessibility contribution that Rob Weir referred to was probably not
> > the
> > "code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org
> > 3.1
>
>Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
>been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
>people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
>in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
>happens in public)
>All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
>I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
>(And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
>work to get integrated as contribution)

If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases
OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation,
how is IBM to blame?
Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another
type of repository. That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming
integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2.
The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided
to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why
the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories.



> > (if I remember correctly).
> > See my comment at
> > <http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/06/apache-openoffice.html#comment-20026>.
> > (Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
> > was released in December 2006
> > <http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20773.wss>.)
>
>Yes, and that makes it even more pointless to dump the code against
>the OOo 1.1.5 codeline.

The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely
outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information.


>Not against the version that is in current development, but to a
>codeline that is basically done for since two years. (again the
>commitment statment is from 2007)
>
>It is all about the preception of IBM's past contributions to OOo -
>and those are, despite the massive amount of developers assigned to
>the project (35 developers, in the announcement from 2007, the same
>figure stated in the incubation list) is nonexistant basically.
>
>Know we know that there has been a behind-the-doors code
>"contribution" of the IA2 stuff (or who knows, maybe Sun/Oracle
>engineers did all the work themselves porting the dump to current
>codeline, doesn't matter really).

If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2
implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done
by Sun/Oracle.

>But what else did IBM do in the last 4/5 years?
>
> > At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much of
> > the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.
>
>Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post.

Yes, I missed that. (Curiously, he sent that message from a private
address, not an Oracle address.)


>(about the status of
>iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
>"blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
>OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
>at all.

If that is true, that will be a loss for the accessibility of OpenOffice.org
and LibreOffice on Windows.

Best regards,

Christophe


>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DF3A2E8.8010000@...%3E
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DF3A100.2060105@...%3E
>(he posted the very same mail twice)
>
>"Actually the status with IA2 in OOo is quite good - but not in public
>CWSes yet - I am quite sure it will find it's way to Apache OOo."
>
>And until there is a release of Apache-OOo that is comparable in
>features/functionality to the current OOo codebase: This will take
>quite a bit of time.
>
>Oracle's staff didn't even manage to report the size of current
>bugzilla's database as has been requested by the Apache-infrastructure
>team yet.  An open question since June 17.  Three weeks and still no
>answer to the simple question:
>"We are looking for more detail about the size of the OOo bugzilla
>database. How large is the backup, and what database is being used?
>This is the information that Infrastructure needs to know if they have
>a preference about our choice."
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3C097E5BC1-6218-422B-8989-8C082EB0F8CF@...%3E
>
>So you can imagine that when it comes on deciding whether to release
>OOo 3.4.0 on the old infrastructure will take ages as well.
>
>It's also somewhat ridiculous how long it takes for them to "mirror"
>the hg-repos for merging. But I didn't see any real progress wrt.
>licencing issues either. So while they then might have a repo will all
>open/interesting cws merged in, still the problems of what files are
>exactly covered by the grant remains.
>Only "progress" in this regard is to use apache-batik for svg-import
>(OK), and go back to myspell for spellchecking (and thus crippling
>spellchecking, nullifying the progress hunspell brought for langauges
>with complex compound and flexation rules) - but that are at least
>suggestions to move on.
>There are many people on the incubator-ooo-dev list, but only few who
>have a real clue. And even fewer who are actively driving stuff (and
>that basically includes the apache-mentors who are doing an ungrateful
>job). Most are just sitting back and waiting for things to come (and
>to be honest most of them don't have any other choice).
>
>ciao
>Christian
>
>--
>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
>Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
www.aegis-project.eu
---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social
networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi Christophe, *,

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> [...]
>> Well, as seen on this list (by Malte's post), apparently there has
>> been work on a *private* cws that nobody in the community (and yes,
>> people who are working on private cws are not part of "the community"
>> in this regard - they are of course for that part of their work that
>> happens in public)
>> All promises IBM is making/has made so far is only lip service for me.
>> I only believe it after I see the actual contributions from them.
>> (And as written I don't consider code dumps that need a man-year of
>> work to get integrated as contribution)
>
> If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases
> OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2 implementation,
> how is IBM to blame?

Reality check please. 1st of all: What is stuff you know, and what is
stuff you guess?
Do you know that the 3.1 based ia2 dump/work is because Oracle asked for it?
If Oracle asked for it, do you know when Oracle asked for it?
Do you think Oracle really is so stupid to explicitly ask for code
based on an old branch?
If Oracle did ask for it, and IBM did "contribute" - why wasn't the
cws integrated?
2nd) Obviously you cannot integrate something that is not ready.
Why was it not ready? Because nobody worked on it. Who could do the
work on it? Of course best the developers who know the code, i.e IBM
developers.
And you cannot delay a release for years. (the cws Caolan mentioned in
the blog-comment was created in 2010-05 - while the branch-off for 3.2
already happened 2009-09 more than half a year earlier)

> Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another
> type of repository.

Again reality check. Oracle surely did ask for the code to be
contributed against the current, actively being-worked-on codeline. A
codeline that is not in feature-freeze. What IBM then delivers is a
completely different question. Also whether Oracle/Sun asks for it in
2008, but IBM delivers in 2010, it's obvious that code makes progress.

> That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming
> integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2.

NO! Why does it have to be Oracle to do the integration work. Again
one of the points about collaboration. Just uploading a
million-line-codepatch somewhere is not contributing. It is complying
with whatever deals that were signed or to comply with license matters
at best.

> The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided
> to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why
> the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories.

Again this is stupid argumentation. We're talking about a OpenSource
software here after all. And we're not talking about weeks, but years.
We're talking about big announcements to dedicate more than 30
developers to work on the officesuite and collaborate with upstream,
but no results after 4/5 years.
And this further proves my point about questioning IBM's commitment.
Lip service, but no actual work that ends up "upstream".
They did not contribute to OOo, but they did drop some code at Oracle.
Again this is not my idea of contributing to the project.

> The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely
> outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information.

No, it is not irrelevant, because it is the very same situation. Big
announcement "we will conribute, we have lots of manpower" but no
results. That's the whole point. IBM doesn't have a record of being a
good contributor, the opposite is the case. And to change this, we
don't need another lip-service announcement, but actual code
contribution.
That you can only point at Ia2, but not at other work is further prove
of this topic.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you'll see IBM contributing to
apache-OOo, at least until you can actually build something from
Apache-OOo sources you can ship to the users, but after that I'm
pretty sure that IBM will focus again on its very own Symphony and
only do the necessary stuff to keep their own stuff compatible.

And don't get me wrong²: I'd be happy if IBM proves me wrong.

> If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2
> implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done
> by Sun/Oracle.

Again it is not about the Ia2 work itself, but the porting from the
old 1.1.5 codedrop to "current" codeline.
You apparently don't know any hard facts about this, neither do I. So
while you claim that Oracle did ask IBM for the code ported to the 3.1
codeline, and that IBM then followed this request, I question this
scenario.
Or even if IBM did contribute it against the 3.1 codeline: Why is it
still not integrated? This can only mean that a huge amount of work
is/was still left.

You mentioned that the vcs moved between 3.1 and 3.2 - but sorry
again, this is /no/ technical hindrance to switch from one vcs system
to another. The code is the same, no matter what. And you got the very
same "branch points" to base your work on in the new VCS system.


>> > At this moment I know no one at Oracle who can or wants to say how much
>> > of
>> > the IAccessible2 implementation will end up in OpenOffice.org 3.4.
>>
>> Well, then you missed Malte Timmermann's post.
>
> Yes, I missed that. (Curiously, he sent that message from a private
> address, not an Oracle address.)

Not curiously, as Oracle does not contribute to Apache-OOo apart from
donating the code.
All Oracle-devs who joined Apache-OOo did so privately/not as Oracle-employees.

>> (about the status of
>> iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
>> "blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
>> OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
>> at all.
>
> If that is true, that will be a loss for the accessibility of OpenOffice.org
> and LibreOffice on Windows.

The project did wait 5 years for it, it can wait another two...

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

1 ... 5678 « Prev