Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino <pe...@gmail.com>]

Hi all

Today I submitted this bug request
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125291

It was marked as a duplicate of
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=8812

Although I agree that it is a duplicate, the original was so old that when
I searched for a similar bug request, it didn't even show up.

However I think that closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)

I think that the number of comments and number of duplicates should
indicate that this is not an irrelevant feature. Shouldn't this be enough
to bump the IMPORTANCE?

Furthermore, after commenting I could notice that copies were sent to
vaughn_reid_iii@elitemail.org, pedlino@gmail.com, skiani@alum.mit.edu,
polo8495@hotmail.com, ooo@mbayer.de, jeffooo@orange.fr, a.stucki@solcept.ch,
vyacheslav.sedov@gmail.com, james.peterson@linuxjet.com,
julien.touche@touche.fr.st, fun-stuff@gmx.net, jaap@vinksda.nl,
Carsten.Huetter@gmx.de, de_logics@openoffice.org, kamataki@gmail.com,
bart.hanssens@fedict.be, erich@rupp.de, mh.hh@gmx.net, gbpacheco@gmail.com,
issues@openoffice.apache.org, thomas.lendo@gmail.com, philip-elec@orange.fr,
stgildea@openoffice.org, francesco.catani@gmail.com, simon.eu@gmail.com,
gurt@gmx.de, frank.schoenheit@gmx.de, guillaume.audirac@gmail.com,
dnelson_1901@yahoo.com

Are any of these people still involved in AOO?

Comments?

Pedro

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino <pe...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ariel, all

> However I think that closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
>  > is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)
>
> The bug is a duplicated, then why isn't a good idea to mark it as such?
> Besides, I already answered on bug 8812 that I don't see where is the
> more recent information in bug 125291, apart from the statement that the
> bug is solved in LO: there is no mention of LO bug reports, code
> commits, developers, etc.
>

I don't know how to use git, gerrit or any similar tools. From my
perspective informing that this has an Open Source solution in another
project seems to be a good pointer. I think that the idea for a community
is that each person contributes with whatever skills they have and that
doesn't make the contribution less important?


> "Unlimited number of rules for conditional formatting" seems a feature
> by Robert Dargaud, see
>
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/PATCH-conditional-formatting-with-an-unlimited-number-of-rules-td2777088.html
>

Personally I think this solution is quite elegant and as Robert comments on
the thread, he just did copy and paste of existing code, so I guess doing
the same with AOO code could not possibly be a copyright breach???



> "New conditional formats" is a feature by Markus Mohrhard. You or anyone
> interested is free to contacted them and ask them if they are willing to
> relicense their code under the ALv2 - I wouldn't be too optimistic, see
>
> http://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/why-i-contribute-my-changes-to-libreoffice-and-wont-relicense-them-to-a-non-copyleft-license/
>

Yes, his position seems quite firm. But does his freedom remove the freedom
for someone else to create a similar code? If he uses a condition (this is
just an example, I'm not a developer) like "From ColourA to ColourB" does
this mean that nobody can use that line of code ever in any other software?
I don't think so...
In fact in order to make LO compatible with Excel he had to copy the ideas,
right? He had to create a conditional formatting with a gradient from A to
B. Who implemented that first? Is that not a copy?



> Also note that raising the importance has no effect on development has
> long as there is no developer to code the feature.
>

I am well aware of that fact. But since any project has to have some
directions maybe some developers focus on most requested/higher importance
features (instead of coding what they feel like)?

Regards,
Pedro
Faro, Portugal

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>]

Hi Pedro,

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:10:27PM +0100, Pedro Lino wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Today I submitted this bug request
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125291
> 
> It was marked as a duplicate of
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=8812
> 
> Although I agree that it is a duplicate, the original was so old that when
> I searched for a similar bug request, it didn't even show up.
> 
> However I think that closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
> is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)

The bug is a duplicated, then why isn't a good idea to mark it as such?
Besides, I already answered on bug 8812 that I don't see where is the
more recent information in bug 125291, apart from the statement that the
bug is solved in LO: there is no mention of LO bug reports, code
commits, developers, etc.

"Unlimited number of rules for conditional formatting" seems a feature
by Robert Dargaud, see
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/PATCH-conditional-formatting-with-an-unlimited-number-of-rules-td2777088.html

"New conditional formats" is a feature by Markus Mohrhard. You or anyone
interested is free to contacted them and ask them if they are willing to
relicense their code under the ALv2 - I wouldn't be too optimistic, see
http://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/why-i-contribute-my-changes-to-libreoffice-and-wont-relicense-them-to-a-non-copyleft-license/

But all this is unrelated to the bug report and its duplicated nature.

> I think that the number of comments and number of duplicates should
> indicate that this is not an irrelevant feature. Shouldn't this be enough
> to bump the IMPORTANCE?

Of course, this can be done; I don't use Calc, so I cannot measure how
important the feature is (and have no idea how to measure those 34
votes; compared with the millions of downloads, they don't seem much).
Also note that raising the importance has no effect on development has
long as there is no developer to code the feature.

> Furthermore, after commenting I could notice that copies were sent to
[...] 
> Are any of these people still involved in AOO?

I've no idea (with the exception of some familiar addresses); some may
have added themselves, others were added by the bug tracking system when
marking duplicates; in any case, bugzilla emails them about changes in
the bug, and if they find this annoying, they can remove themselves from
the Cc list, or edit their mail preferences.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino <pe...@gmail.com>]

Hi Andrea, all

If you are worried that people will not see it, remember that all changes
> to any bugs are sent to a dedicated mailing list (issues) that most of the
> active developers follow (so, even if you don't see them explicitly in CC,
> they are informed via the list).
>

I'm glad to "hear" that. Thanks!

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>]

On 21/07/2014 Pedro Lino wrote:
> closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
> is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)

Nothing to add to what Ariel wrote. It makes perfectly sense to add a 
comment to an old, "dormant" bug with the new information. If you are 
worried that people will not see it, remember that all changes to any 
bugs are sent to a dedicated mailing list (issues) that most of the 
active developers follow (so, even if you don't see them explicitly in 
CC, they are informed via the list). See 
http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org