Hi Christoph, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
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 (!))
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
"code dump" for OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 but a contribution to OpenOffice.org
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
(Note: OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 was released in September 2005; IAccessible2
was released in December 2006
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
(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."
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).
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Greg Stein
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Marvin Humphrey
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Christophe Strobbe
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Christian Lohmaier
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy