Re: [tdf-discuss] 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
> <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> 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@gmx.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DF3A100.2060105@gmx.com%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@comcast.net%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 discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
> 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 discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
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