You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org> on 2012/10/14 00:48:23 UTC
Apache OO General Questions
Couple of questions:
(Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO
and LO would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom
Davis referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are
any changes integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this
time? I have been asked this question specifically (as it related to the
code clean-up effort in LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I
don't think so".
(Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator
status, will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current
subscribers be ported to the new list?
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 10/13/2012 07:20 PM, Regina Henschel wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak schrieb:
>>
>> Couple of questions:
>>
>> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO
>> and LO would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom
>> Davis referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo).
>
> Such exchange is mainly a question of license. Currently form AOO to
> LO would be possible. But LO does not take changes, because (AFAIK) LO
> has not finished relicensing. From LO to AOO is currently only
> possible, of the author puts it under Apache License in addition.
>
> Are
>> any changes integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this
>> time?
>
> The patch about line caps (from Armin and me) is still waiting to be
> integrated into LO. Other parts, which I have integrated, are not
> coming from AOO or LO but from OOo time.
>
> Technically both directions are possible. But some work is necessary
> because LO removed German comments, some variable names and types
> changed, some content moved to other files and the name of the debug
> macros were changed. I'm no professional developer, so there might
> exist some tricks to make applying a patch smoother than it was for me.
There have been wide-spread changes in the LO code, and I thought that
it would be very difficult to keep things in sync. Some of those
wide-spread changes would be useful in AOO. Had not even thought of the
licensing issues (as mentioned by Pedro).
>
> I have been asked this question specifically (as it related to the
>> code clean-up effort in LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I
>> don't think so".
>>
>>
>> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
>> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator
>> status, will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current
>> subscribers be ported to the new list?
>
> I don't know. But the change will surely be announced loudly, so that
> you will not miss it :)
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Douglas Pitonyak schrieb:
>
> Couple of questions:
>
> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO
> and LO would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom
> Davis referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo).
Such exchange is mainly a question of license. Currently form AOO to LO
would be possible. But LO does not take changes, because (AFAIK) LO has
not finished relicensing. From LO to AOO is currently only possible, of
the author puts it under Apache License in addition.
Are
> any changes integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this
> time?
The patch about line caps (from Armin and me) is still waiting to be
integrated into LO. Other parts, which I have integrated, are not coming
from AOO or LO but from OOo time.
Technically both directions are possible. But some work is necessary
because LO removed German comments, some variable names and types
changed, some content moved to other files and the name of the debug
macros were changed. I'm no professional developer, so there might exist
some tricks to make applying a patch smoother than it was for me.
I have been asked this question specifically (as it related to the
> code clean-up effort in LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I
> don't think so".
>
>
> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator
> status, will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current
> subscribers be ported to the new list?
I don't know. But the change will surely be announced loudly, so that
you will not miss it :)
Kind regards
Regina
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 10/13/2012 07:07 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
> <an...@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>> Couple of questions:
>>
>> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO and
>> LO would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom Davis
>> referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are any
>> changes integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this time? I
>> have been asked this question specifically (as it related to the code
>> clean-up effort in LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I don't think
>> so".
>>
> I've seen a couple of examples of:
>
> 1) A contributor contributing the same code (or similar code) to both
> AOO and LO.
>
> 2) LO taking a patch from AOO and integrating it into LO.
>
> I've also heard that LO is "rebasing" on AOO code in order to switch
> their license to MPLv3.. But I have not been able to figure out what
> this actually means and whether or not it involves source code.
>
> But it is probably safe to say that there is no widespread sharing of
> code between the two projects. I have hopes that this will change in
> the near future.
Thanks Rob. I had seen no specific evidence that there was wide-spread
sharing, but figured that I was perhaps sufficiently not in the know.
>
> -Rob
>> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
>> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator
>> status, will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current
>> subscribers be ported to the new list?
>>
> The addresses will map like this:
>
> ooo-XXX@incubator.apache.org ===> XXX@openoffice.apache.org
>
> There is a list of other migration tasks here:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#transfer
>
> I don't know if it will be necessary to resubscribe or not. But even
> if the subscription information is preserved, subscribers who use
> filters and rules in their mail client will need to update them.
>
> We should probably start a wiki page for migration-related
> information, so we can keep project members and observers up to date.
>
> -Rob
>
>> --
>> Andrew Pitonyak
>> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
>> Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>>
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
<an...@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>
> Couple of questions:
>
> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO and
> LO would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom Davis
> referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are any
> changes integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this time? I
> have been asked this question specifically (as it related to the code
> clean-up effort in LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I don't think
> so".
>
I've seen a couple of examples of:
1) A contributor contributing the same code (or similar code) to both
AOO and LO.
2) LO taking a patch from AOO and integrating it into LO.
I've also heard that LO is "rebasing" on AOO code in order to switch
their license to MPLv3.. But I have not been able to figure out what
this actually means and whether or not it involves source code.
But it is probably safe to say that there is no widespread sharing of
code between the two projects. I have hopes that this will change in
the near future.
-Rob
>
> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator
> status, will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current
> subscribers be ported to the new list?
>
The addresses will map like this:
ooo-XXX@incubator.apache.org ===> XXX@openoffice.apache.org
There is a list of other migration tasks here:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#transfer
I don't know if it will be necessary to resubscribe or not. But even
if the subscription information is preserved, subscribers who use
filters and rules in their mail client will need to update them.
We should probably start a wiki page for migration-related
information, so we can keep project members and observers up to date.
-Rob
>
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
> Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 10/13/2012 09:07 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Andrew;
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> ...
>> Couple of questions:
>>
>> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO and LO
>> would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom Davis
>> referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are any changes
>> integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this time? I have been
>> asked this question specifically (as it related to the code clean-up effort in
>> LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I don't think so".
>>
> Some of it has happened in both ways. I won't talk about the LO "relicensing"
> because I simply don't understand how it is supposed to work and ultimately
> I am not a lawyer.
>
> In the case of AOO. I have in my HD some code that authors have agreed to
> contribute. The code will remain uncommitted because:
>
> - In one case the code is big enough that I need a signed iCLA and while the
> author has agreed he hasn't really had time lately.
> - In another case the code is not big but I have requested the patches be
> submitted through bugzilla to keep a record of the contribution (private
> email is not trustable nowadays).
>
> In both cases I can wait: the code is not critical, just nice to have.
>
> I wish it were easier to contribute though: we cannot expect someone to go
> over the trouble of porting and testing their patches twice. This said, the
> latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't reproduce on AOO. AOO is
> very stable and we want to keep it that way.
Had not even considered the License issue.....
>
>> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
>> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator status,
>> will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current subscribers be
>> ported to the new list?
>>
> I would think so, yes.
>
> Pedro.
>
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
On 10/14/2012 06:08 AM, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>> This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't
>> reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way.
> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs that are
> fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features that LO has.
>
> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with pointing fingers.
>
> Eike
>
I have bounced between the two depending on a particular bug or feature
at the point of installation. As such, I had assumed that he meant that
there was one particular bug that was an issue for him. Been there, done
that, for both versions.
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Alexandro,
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 03:17 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:05 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> > > Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
> > > also inherit that bug and they haven't fix it mainly because of the
> > > low level technical knowledge to devote to the performance project.
...
> > We have certainly inherited lots of bugs though; perhaps
> > you have a bug number ?
>
> Headless memory leak #105191
I was under the impression from your mail, that this was fixed in
Apache OpenOffice but that doesn't seem to be reflected in the bug
state.
I have a personal bug / TODO to fix what (may well) be the same
underlying issue titled "Image caching / management is utterly
shambolic" - which has a number of duplicates.
ATB,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:05 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> > Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
> > also inherit that bug and they haven't fix it mainly because of the
> > low level technical knowledge to devote to the performance project.
>
> I seem to remember doing some work on performance somewhen,
> perhaps in
> glibc, gcc, binutils & misc. plumbing etc. in the past - seemingly it
> has even had an effect, linking is nowadays only a small proportion of
> startup. It can be nice to have a low as well as a high level view.
>
> IIRC the OO.o performance project where we mentored and tried to
> advise
> others on improving things was lead by myself and Mathias Heutsch - but
> my memory management is often flaky ;-)
>
> We have certainly inherited lots of bugs though; perhaps
> you have a bug number ?
>
Headless memory leak #105191
>
> All the best,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
>
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:05 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
> also inherit that bug and they haven't fix it mainly because of the
> low level technical knowledge to devote to the performance project.
I seem to remember doing some work on performance somewhen, perhaps in
glibc, gcc, binutils & misc. plumbing etc. in the past - seemingly it
has even had an effect, linking is nowadays only a small proportion of
startup. It can be nice to have a low as well as a high level view.
IIRC the OO.o performance project where we mentored and tried to advise
others on improving things was lead by myself and Mathias Heutsch - but
my memory management is often flaky ;-)
We have certainly inherited lots of bugs though; perhaps
you have a bug number ?
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Just IMHO;
----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>
...
>>
>> Then what I'd like to say, speaking from my personal point of view of
>> course, is that we could make millions of users happier by sharing
>> bugfixes (not necessarily features).
>
Sharing bugfixes would be indeed constructive for both projects,
it would save huge efforts related to QA, It's rather silly not to
do it
> I think people will be happy if we share features as well.
I think we should work together on extensions.
More than that is probably wishful thinking. :(.
Pedro.
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On 10/18/12, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 14/10/2012 Eike Rathke wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't
>>> reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way.
>> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs that are
>> fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features that LO has.
>>
>> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with pointing fingers.
>
> Then what I'd like to say, speaking from my personal point of view of
> course, is that we could make millions of users happier by sharing
> bugfixes (not necessarily features).
I think people will be happy if we share features as well. That said,
I think there is a point on how many resources each project has.
Looking at LibO conference, there are many things being talked about
on Writer, Base and Calc that could be implemetned or fixed.
Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
also inherit that bug and they haven't fix it mainly because of the
low level technical knowledge to devote to the performance project.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by jan iversen <ja...@gmail.com>.
In my humble opinion it should be possible to have a shared code base,
shared bug fixing but separate features !!
When big companies like SAP, IBM and firmer SUN can do what, it should be
soo much easier for us, being all volunteers working with one goal, to make
quality software free of roalties being paid back to shareholders !!
I have worked a lot in these environments so comming back to earth, working
together is more often a question of people than of philosophies...so let
me put it like this:
Now we are a top level apache project, so let us (meaning the project
committee) be the ones who actively stretch out a hand and say "lets sit
down and have a pow-pow". Writing a lot of words does not reach that goal !
Please remember one thing, we are ALL on the same side fighting for a world
of royalty (share holder earnings) free software !! if you have to pick a
fight, down fight your brother in arms fight those who want your money.
have a nice night.
jan
On 18 October 2012 22:46, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 14/10/2012 Eike Rathke wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>> This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't
>>> reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way.
>>>
>> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs that are
>> fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features that LO has.
>>
>> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with pointing fingers.
>>
>
> Then what I'd like to say, speaking from my personal point of view of
> course, is that we could make millions of users happier by sharing bugfixes
> (not necessarily features).
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 14/10/2012 Eike Rathke wrote:
> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't
>> reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way.
> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs that are
> fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features that LO has.
>
> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with pointing fingers.
Then what I'd like to say, speaking from my personal point of view of
course, is that we could make millions of users happier by sharing
bugfixes (not necessarily features).
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello,
> From: Eike Rathke [mailto:ooo@erack.de]
> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with
> pointing fingers.
yes, indeed.
Only this is not a one-way street.
For example, i will never forget what the FSF said against AOO:
http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
and I'm watching very very attentively what the TDF is doing - in the past and
currently.
Yes, I am (since 8 years) only a simple member of the community and not a real
developer, but that's my opinion.
Greetings,
Jörg
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Dom 14/10/12, Eike Rathke ha scritto:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni
> wrote:
>
> > This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs
> > that I can't
> > reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to
> keep it that way.
>
> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs
> that are fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features
> that LO has.
>
> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with
> pointing fingers.
>
I wasnt pointing fingers: I am just saying we cant really take patches blindly and expect them to work fine even if the licensing permits it.
I see that all days in other projects: in FreeBSD we can take patches from NetBSD and DragonFly without asking for permission, but patches that work there dont necessarily fix issues in FreeBSD.
As I see it neither AOO and LO will disappear and both projects will keep diverging and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Pedro.
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Pedro,
On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't
> reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way.
Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs that are
fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features that LO has.
What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with pointing fingers.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Support the FSFE, care about Free Software! https://fsfe.org/support/?erack
Re: Apache OO General Questions
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Andrew;
----- Original Message -----
...
>
> Couple of questions:
>
> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO and LO
> would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom Davis
> referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are any changes
> integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this time? I have been
> asked this question specifically (as it related to the code clean-up effort in
> LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I don't think so".
>
Some of it has happened in both ways. I won't talk about the LO "relicensing"
because I simply don't understand how it is supposed to work and ultimately
I am not a lawyer.
In the case of AOO. I have in my HD some code that authors have agreed to
contribute. The code will remain uncommitted because:
- In one case the code is big enough that I need a signed iCLA and while the
author has agreed he hasn't really had time lately.
- In another case the code is not big but I have requested the patches be
submitted through bugzilla to keep a record of the contribution (private
email is not trustable nowadays).
In both cases I can wait: the code is not critical, just nice to have.
I wish it were easier to contribute though: we cannot expect someone to go
over the trouble of porting and testing their patches twice. This said, the
latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't reproduce on AOO. AOO is
very stable and we want to keep it that way.
>
> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org and
> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator status,
> will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current subscribers be
> ported to the new list?
>
I would think so, yes.
Pedro.