You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2013/01/10 18:06:57 UTC
Symphony code in AOO 4.0
I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
"IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything". I
can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
peak level of paranoia.
You may count me old-fashioned, but I have a bit of nostalgia for the
old days where we simply told the truth. Anyone who cares to look can
see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes,
from Symphony, are fixed in the trunk. This is in addition to the
larger pieces that will be merged in branches first.
There are many more fixes where those came from, and anyone is welcome
to help merge or test them.
Regards,
-Rob
ID Summary
121126 [From Symphony]User-definded format code is lost with a cell
which value is TRUE or FALSE when importing xls file
121073 [From Symphony]Loading performance for xls file with row
banded style is bad
121058 [From Symphony]To open a sample file contains chart with large
data source can lead to AOO crash
121001 [From Symphony]Macro doesn't work if click "Undo" button
120962 [From Symphony]Chart data lost if the source data refers to a
range name which is defined as a reference formula
120885 [From Symphony]Sample file's table border is missing
120881 [From Symphony]Page number in footer display incorrectly
120864 [From Symphony]Text is overlapped by the drawing object when
open the .doc file
120848 [From Symphony]"Fit shape to text" property not work after
openning ppt by AOO
120839 [From Symphony]It costs too much memory to open a large
spreadsheet file containing pivot tables
120773 [From Symphony] Numbering will lose when saving or opening a ppt file
120769 [From Symphony]Color of underline display wrongly
120764 [From Symphony] Grid size for snake wipe transition too fine
120759 [From Symphony]Bookmark value changed when opening the doc file
120750 [From Symphony] Repeat count of animations ignored.
120749 [From Symphony] Fill color animations run too fast
120730 [From Symphony] Table changes to multiple shapes after saved in AOO
120718 [From Symphony]after save the sample file with page border and
shadow to doc, the shadow depth and color changed
120717 [From Symphony]The graphic's spacing is not correct when open
the .doc file
120716 [From Symphony]The graphic's border size and spacing is not
correct when open the .doc file
120684 [From Symphony] Animation color is not exported correctly to PPT.
120654 [From Symphony]Number range variable filed shows in AOO
120582 [From Symphony] import of Microsoft Word document: indent of
certain paragraphs in list is wrong
120578 [From Symphony]the text properties from table style are lost
for table in the docx file
120576 [From Symphony]the background color from table style are lost
for table in the docx file
120573 [From Symphony]Page number in footer alignment changed after saved
120554 [From Symphony]Shape Gradient MS2003 import/export Enhancement
120437 [From Symphony]Connector line does not shown correctly in
grouped object
120233 [From Symphony] characters at the beginning of each lines in
shape are lost when loading the sample ppt in AOO
120230 [From Symphony] disable antialiased lines for background hatches
120224 [From Symphony]Cell text direction changed after saved as doc file
120165 [From Symphony]Impress crashed when play screen show with sample file
120158 [From Symphony]Time format is different than MS Office
120143 [From Symphony]the text in textbox display paritially when
opening .ppt file
120140 [From Symphony]After doc file saved by AOO, one more section
is created
120133 [From Symphony]Doc file saved by AOO, section size changed
120051 [From Symphony]the text in the table turn to black from white
when opening the pptx file
120039 [From Symphony]the background of the file create from template
'blue_floral.otp' changed after save as the ppt or pot file
120017 [From Symphony]Filter is not shown in merged cell
119999 [From Symphony]Need press "ESC" key twice to exist chart edit mode
119994 [From Symphony]Cannot modify the second document even if close
range picker in first document
119989 [From Symphony]Pie chart height becomes greater when open Excel file
119974 [From Symphony]Ellipse shape display too large in MS office
after save odp file to ppt format file
119972 [From Symphony]Formula GETPIVOTDATA returns #REF! value
119966 [From Symphony] The Emphasis or Exit or Motion Path effect can
not play if there is an Entrance effect after it.
119965 [From Symphony] Picture missing when saving ODP file
119964 [From Symphony]Number displays different from MS with the same
format code
119963 [From Symphony]TOC should not be updated if load doc in Writer
119962 [From Symphony]Placeholder in ppt file created by MS 2007 is
lost if load in Impress
119960 [From Symphony]Text outside quotation cannot be paste in cell
119959 [From Symphony]Application crashed if undo paste text from shape
119956 [From Symphony]Crash if undo redo creating data pilot from
imported data
119955 [From Symphony]Application crash if insert sample file to section
119954 [From Symphony]Application crashed if undo/redo covert nest
table to text
119953 [From Symphony]Undo redo insert file cause application crashed
119952 [From Symphony]Cannot open sample file
119945 [From Symphony]Application crashed if undo add caption to
drawing object
119943 [From Symphony]Underline "_" can not work with ";" in format
code, the semicolon will always be regarded as separator
119942 [From Symphony]Last agrument of formula should not be removed
119941 [From Symphony] Removing chart in odt file, it causes a crash.
119922 [From Symphony]Graphic in header and footer can not be
displayed correctly
119912 [From Symphony]Crash when redo split the pasted table
119907 [From Symphony] Number formating are changed after save and
reopen it again.
119889 [From Symphony] Import .pptx file into OO3.4, the vertical
text direction of the table will be lost.
119888 [From Symphony]Shape border and fill color lost if open the
ppt doc via AOO
119887 [From Symphony]Shape shadow position changed incorrect if open
the ppt doc via AOO
119884 [From Symphony]Fontwork alignment changes after saving to
another ppt with AOO
119877 [From Symphony]The graphic background in left table display
incorrectly when using AOO open the sample .ppt file
119875 [From Symphony] Vertical text direction in table cell change
to horizontal after saving to another .ppt by AOO
119874 [From Symphony]The vertical text alignment of the placeholder
is wrong while opening the ppt file in AOO
119872 [From Symphony]all drawing objects lost aftering saving to
another ppt by AOO
119870 [From Symphony]Line transparency value is lost after saving as
another ppt by AOO
119868 [From Symphony]Graphic bullet is incorrect in the .ppt doc
which saved via AOO
119866 [From Symphony]The bullet in outline area lost after openning by AOO
119864 [From Symphony]Some shapes in master page lose after save to
another ppt by AOO
119860 [From Symphony]The position of conncector change after save to
another ppt by AOO
119831 [From Symphony]Froze when saving the doc file to another one.
119766 [From Symphony]TOC jumping function lost if save document by AOO
119755 [From Symphony]star and symbol shape in ppt changed after
openning by AOO
119750 [From Symphony]Transparency setting of Fill color lost in cell
comments.
119740 [From Symphony]animation flash once doesn't work after save
the ppt by aoo
119711 [From Symphony]exit animation changed after save as ppt file
to another ppt
119660 [From Symphony]Page number lost if save template to doc format
119658 [From Symphony] Some numbering format not support
119657 [From Symphony] Additional dot appear after the numbering.
119654 [From Symphony]Apply Envelope page style cause application crash
119653 [From Symphony]Crash after delete column(s) from chart's
source table, and then adjusted table size
119652 [From Symphony][Crash]When press "Ctrl+Shift+Backspace" in
table cell "A1" ,Undo,crash
119650 [From Symphony]Font size increased if saved by AOO
119649 [From Symphony]Hyperlink font size increased if saved to .doc file
119637 [From Symphony] Function "Case sensitive" in "Special Filter"
dialog can not work.
119634 [From Symphony]Shape shadow lost if load .doc file in AOO
119632 [From Symphony]Macro button lost if save template to .doc file
119631 [From Symphony]Teardrop shape can not show correct in pptx sample file
119629 [From Symphony]Bullet color is lost when open pptx sample file
119628 [From Symphony]Arrow shape changed is save doc file by AOO
119621 [From Symphony]Outline level in sample file lost
119620 [From Symphony]the .doc page number is incorrect when opened
in aoo 3.4
119612 [From Symphony][BiDi]The order of Hebraic string are changed
after save as new .doc
119609 [From Symphony]Alphabetical and roman numberals became ditial
numbering
119607 [From Symphony] Text font spacing in comments doesn't
expand/condense by the expected value
119592 [From Symphony] The left-style columns display with the same
width when opening with AOO
119587 [From Symphony]MS Word that has Table that with Text wrap
around the table can not be shown correctly
119581 [From Symphony] MS's Macro button symbol can't correct display
in aoo 3.4
119579 [From Symphony]][BIDI]The position and direction of Right
bracket is incorrect in Arabic locale
119576 [From Symphony]Paragraph indent and spacing between bullets
and text are inconsistent with MS word
119570 [From Symphony]the content display mess when open the sample in AOO3.4
119567 [From Symphony]WMF graphic size changed too small to see if
saved by AOO
119560 [From Symphony]The text box style display incorrectly when
open the sample in AOO3.4
119559 [From Symphony]Vertical letters in "VerticalText" fontwork get
horizontal when opening .ppt file
119558 [From Symphony] Table rows get heighter when opening a .docx
file with AOO 3.4
119557 [From Symphony] Column header can not be displayed correclty
in AOO3.4 after open the xls file.
119555 [From Symphony]font size of Fontwork changes from 96 to 36
after save as new .doc file
119553 [From Symphony]Text anchor in subtitle text box is changed
from Top to Center when open a pot template in AOO3.4
119552 [From Symphony] Can't pop up protect password dialog when
attempt to unprotect sheet with password for xls file in AOO.
119551 [From Symphony]Can't open by MS Office correctly when save
sample file contain line with text to ppt format file
119549 [From Symphony]Position of drawing obj incorrect when opening
.doc in aoo 3.4 if the text direction of the whole document is
vertical
119548 [From Symphony]paragraph>pagination>Window/Orphan control
setting lost after save the .doc file by aoo 3.4
119547 [From Symphony]The title text is Align left in sample file,
while in MS Office ,it is align right.
119546 [From Symphony]he table border got lost when open the .ppt file in AOO
119545 [From Symphony]The title text is not Italic in Studio design
template like that in MS Office.
119544 [From Symphony] sequence number is not displayed when open docx
119538 [From Symphony]Failed to open sample file but no any feedback to user
119537 [From Symphony]<Shape><Extrusion>The Extrusion direction of
shape can't be saved correctly
119536 [From Symphony]arrow change size and position in MS after save
odp to ppt format
119535 [From Symphony]Trendline of two Data Series can't be displayed
but after edit it the trendline will be showed correctly
119532 [From Symphony]the bullet color display incorrectly in AOO3.4
119530 [From Symphony]the subtitle area of ppt file display
incorrectly in AOO3.4
119524 [From Symphony]Can not open the sample ppt file which contain
vb controls in the slide master.
119523 [From Symphony]The line indent change after save once by AOO
119520 [From Symphony]the right brace shape cannot display after save
the sample .odt file to .doc file then reopen in aoo
119519 [From Symphony] One shape's border cannot be displayed completely
119518 [From Symphony]Text and fill color in a table are lost while
opening a ppt file
119517 [From Symphony]Text in a text box can not be displayed correctly
119516 [From Symphony]a pic in the .doc file cannot display in Aoo 3.4
119515 [From Symphony] The numbering in table cell changes to bullets
when saved in AOO
119514 [From Symphony]Item lists are incorrectly imported by Symphony.
119513 [From Symphony]Picture is lost when opening sample PPT file
119512 [From Symphony] Import file created by MS Excel, if there is
blank item selected in Page filed of Pivot Table, the selection will
be lost.
119510 [From Symphony]one column is lost if opened in AOO
119502 [From Symphony][Crash]When save the file as ppt, AOO crashes
119496 [From Symphony]PPT Import:Word Art becomes larger
119495 [From Symphony]Arrow style of line changes after save the
sample file to a new .ppt file.
119493 [From Symphony] AOO crash if a connector which connected to PPT table
119492 [From Symphony]The .xlsx sample file is opened with modified state
119491 [From Symphony]Under Handout view mode, Header&Footer displays
inconsistent with the one presented in MS PowerPoint
119487 [From Symphony]Images lose macro association when open Excel
file in AOO.
119485 [From Symphony]TOC lost if saved by AOO
119478 [From Symphony]PPT Import:Cell background color in table gets
lost while opening a ppt file with AOO
119477 [From Symphony]PPT Export: Diagram bullet can not be displayed
correctly after saved as *.ppt in AOO
119470 [From Symphony]page number in header lost when we save the
.doc file as another in web layout
119468 [From Symphony]Picture shadow lost after saved by AOO
119467 [From Symphony]Form controls cannot be saved into .ppt file in AOO3.4
119464 [From Symphony]text alignment changed from left to center when
importing the docx
119459 [From Symphony]The position of Shape (connectors) in slide is
incorrect after save once by AOO3.4.
119450 [From Symphony]The image OLE's icon doesn't display correctly
in Aoo3.4
119446 [From Symphony]Formula field lost
119443 [From Symphony]the shape 3D property effect in MS PPT can't be
load correctly.
119440 [From Symphony]Some field is not shown
118905 [From Symphony]White block( on Mac and Black block on Windows)
appears if click somewhere else in presentation
118879 [From Symphony] Presentation crashed if exit screen show
118878 [From Symphony] Writer crash after modify properties of new Frame
118877 [From Symphony] Calc crashes when Redo refreshing data
118876 [From Symphony] Create summary slide in .odp file which has
expanded blank slides in,there is a crash.
118851 [From Symphony] Calc crashed if paste unsupport formula from MS Excel
108874 [From Symphony] Worksheet.Change event works not correctly
108863 [From Symphony] Application.Run could not work correctly
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
>> this listing is impressive, as it is this page:
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>>
>
> Thanks so much, I was looking for just such a page the other day and missed
> that.
That same page was linked to in the blog post we posted from last week.
-Rob
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
> this listing is impressive, as it is this page:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>
Thanks so much, I was looking for just such a page the other day and missed
that.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 11.01.2013 13:59, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more
>> often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the
>> fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New
>> and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already.
>> We can simply do more in this area.
>>
>
> I must have missed this. What is Herbert's script? We might be able
> to use it for the documentation team as well, since we're thinking of
> authoring the doc on the wiki first.
Please have a look at its sample output for developers [1] or users [2],
the thread "Script to get infos about development snapshot differences"
[3], or the script itself [4].
[1] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/izlist1.htm
[2] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/izlist9.htm
[3] at http://markmail.org/thread/dtlfvv2ztfvtw47v)
[4]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/scripts/svnlog2info.py
Herbert
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/13 10:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:
>> 2013/1/11 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
>>>>>
>>>>> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
>>>>> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
>>>>> peak level of paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little
>>>> context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing
>>> else so
>>>> far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
>>>> apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits
>>> that
>>>> the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the
>>> free/open-source
>>>> software world in general.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who cares to look can
>>>>> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
>>>>> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
>>> this
>>>> listing is impressive, as it is this page:
>>>>
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
>>>>
>>>> If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else
>>>> from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this
>>>> will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's
>>> do
>>>> it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue
>>> (aside
>>>> from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because
>>> someone
>>>> feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
>>> the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
>>> saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
>>> regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
>>>
>>> Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
>>> But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
>>> operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
>>> timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
>>>
>>> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
>>> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
>>> post is unnecessary.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release,
>> including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity,
>> performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform
>> support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story.
>> If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author.
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more
> often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the
> fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New
> and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already.
> We can simply do more in this area.
>
I must have missed this. What is Herbert's script? We might be able
to use it for the documentation team as well, since we're thinking of
authoring the doc on the wiki first.
-Rob
> The key point here is that people take responsibility, for example using
> Herbert's script and convert the output in the wiki to document it. We
> can play with different styles how to present such info best and where.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 1/11/13 10:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote:
> 2013/1/11 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
>>>>
>>>> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
>>>> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
>>>> peak level of paranoia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little
>>> context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing
>> else so
>>> far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
>>> apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits
>> that
>>> the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the
>> free/open-source
>>> software world in general.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyone who cares to look can
>>>> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
>>>> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
>>>
>>>
>>> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
>> this
>>> listing is impressive, as it is this page:
>>>
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
>>>
>>> If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else
>>> from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this
>>> will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's
>> do
>>> it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue
>> (aside
>>> from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because
>> someone
>>> feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
>>>
>>
>> Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
>> the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
>> saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
>> regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
>>
>> Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
>> But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
>> operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
>> timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
>>
>> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
>> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
>> post is unnecessary.
>>
>
> IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release,
> including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity,
> performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform
> support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story.
> If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author.
> Thanks!
>
In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more
often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the
fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New
and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already.
We can simply do more in this area.
The key point here is that people take responsibility, for example using
Herbert's script and convert the output in the wiki to document it. We
can play with different styles how to present such info best and where.
Juergen
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
2013/1/12 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2013/1/11 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Rob Weir wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
> > > >>
> > > >> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only
> be
> > > >> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
> > > >> peak level of paranoia.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very
> > little
> > > > context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing
> > > else so
> > > > far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
> > > > apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the
> benefits
> > > that
> > > > the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the
> > > free/open-source
> > > > software world in general.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Anyone who cares to look can
> > > >> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
> > > >> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree
> that
> > > this
> > > > listing is impressive, as it is this page:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
> > > >
> > > > If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone
> > else
> > > > from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features,
> > this
> > > > will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please,
> let's
> > > do
> > > > it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue
> > > (aside
> > > > from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because
> > > someone
> > > > feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
> > > the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
> > > saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
> > > regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
> > >
> > > Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
> > > But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
> > > operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
> > > timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
> > >
> > > In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
> > > the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
> > > post is unnecessary.
> > >
> >
> > IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release,
> > including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity,
> > performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform
> > support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story.
> > If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Shenfeng (Simon)
> >
>
> Yes, this is a good idea! I would suggest we wait until the 3.4.1 re-spin
> is done on Jan 24th to do this, though.
>
> I could have sworn that when we put out the blog post on Nov. 21 for
> Marketing volunteers that we had a link in to the release planning for 4.0
> -- this would be
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning--
> but I don't see a link now looking at:
> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/.
>
> So, hmmm....maybe a new blog on 4.0 status would help?
>
> Kay,
I agree. Let's post a 4.0 status update after 3.4.1 re-spin.
- Shenfeng (Simon)
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Andrea.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
> --
> Aesop
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/1/11 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Rob Weir wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
> > >>
> > >> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
> > >> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
> > >> peak level of paranoia.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very
> little
> > > context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing
> > else so
> > > far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
> > > apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits
> > that
> > > the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the
> > free/open-source
> > > software world in general.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Anyone who cares to look can
> > >> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
> > >> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
> > >
> > >
> > > People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
> > this
> > > listing is impressive, as it is this page:
> > >
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
> > >
> > > If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone
> else
> > > from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features,
> this
> > > will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's
> > do
> > > it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue
> > (aside
> > > from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because
> > someone
> > > feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
> > >
> >
> > Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
> > the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
> > saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
> > regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
> >
> > Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
> > But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
> > operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
> > timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
> >
> > In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
> > the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
> > post is unnecessary.
> >
>
> IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release,
> including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity,
> performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform
> support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story.
> If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author.
> Thanks!
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
Yes, this is a good idea! I would suggest we wait until the 3.4.1 re-spin
is done on Jan 24th to do this, though.
I could have sworn that when we put out the blog post on Nov. 21 for
Marketing volunteers that we had a link in to the release planning for 4.0
-- this would be
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning--
but I don't see a link now looking at:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/.
So, hmmm....maybe a new blog on 4.0 status would help?
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrea.
> >
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
--
Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Shenfeng Liu <li...@gmail.com>.
2013/1/11 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
> >>
> >> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
> >> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
> >> peak level of paranoia.
> >
> >
> > Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little
> > context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing
> else so
> > far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
> > apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits
> that
> > the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the
> free/open-source
> > software world in general.
> >
> >
> >> Anyone who cares to look can
> >> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
> >> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
> >
> >
> > People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
> this
> > listing is impressive, as it is this page:
> >
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
> >
> > If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else
> > from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this
> > will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's
> do
> > it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue
> (aside
> > from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because
> someone
> > feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
> >
>
> Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
> the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
> saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
> regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
>
> Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
> But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
> operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
> timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
>
> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
> post is unnecessary.
>
IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release,
including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity,
performance&reliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform
support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story.
If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author.
Thanks!
- Shenfeng (Simon)
>
> -Rob
>
> > Regards,
> > Andrea.
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:14 PM, F C. Costero <fj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea
>>>> Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. Here is a draft:
>>>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>>>>>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>>>>>> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
>>>>> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>>>>>
>>>>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>>>>> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
>>>>> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
>>>>> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant.
>>>>> I
>>>>> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has
>>>>> better
>>>>> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at
>>>>> the
>>>>> top.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I
>>>> understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
>>>> incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
>>> interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is
>>> coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
>>> absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
>>> the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
>>> been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible
>>> AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We
>>> haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but
>>>>> the
>>>>> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an
>>>>> interesting
>>>>> twist...
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical,
>>>> I
>>>> think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
>>>> licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added
>>>> under:
>>>>
>>>> "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
>>>> enhanced<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution> for
>>>> their
>>>> customer and corporate use. Last May IBM contributed the source code
>>>> for
>>>> Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
>>>>
>>>> to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code
>>>> and
>>>> "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also
>>> corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
>>> "before& after" screen shots that he posted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
>>> generally happy with.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
>>>> appreciate it!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Aesop
>>
>> Rob,
>> Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple of
>> typos in the third movement:
>
> Great. Thanks for the proof-read. I made those changes.
>
And the blog post is now live:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_moderato
Thanks, all, for the review and suggestions.
-Rob
> -Rob
>
>> "A a modeless property picker" needs only one "A".
>> "So we're considering at several" drop the "at"
>> "and we're bring those into OpenOffice. " should be "and we're bringing
>> those into OpenOffice".
>> I'm also not sure "modeless" will be meaningful to regular users. Would
>> "continuously available" be better?
>> Regards,
>> Francis
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:14 PM, F C. Costero <fj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea
>>> Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> OK. Here is a draft:
>>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>>>>
>>>>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>>>>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>>>>> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
>>>> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>>>>
>>>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>>>> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
>>>> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>>>>
>>>> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
>>>> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant.
>>>> I
>>>> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has
>>>> better
>>>> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at
>>>> the
>>>> top.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I
>>> understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
>>> incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
>>>
>>
>> OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
>> interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is
>> coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
>> absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
>> the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
>> been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible
>> AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We
>> haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time.
>>
>>>
>>>> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is
>>>> clearly
>>>> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but
>>>> the
>>>> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an
>>>> interesting
>>>> twist...
>>>>
>>>> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Andrea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical,
>>> I
>>> think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
>>> licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added
>>> under:
>>>
>>> "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
>>> enhanced<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution> for
>>> their
>>> customer and corporate use. Last May IBM contributed the source code
>>> for
>>> Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
>>>
>>> to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code
>>> and
>>> "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
>>>
>>
>> I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also
>> corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
>> "before& after" screen shots that he posted.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
>> generally happy with.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
>>> appreciate it!
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aesop
>
> Rob,
> Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple of
> typos in the third movement:
Great. Thanks for the proof-read. I made those changes.
-Rob
> "A a modeless property picker" needs only one "A".
> "So we're considering at several" drop the "at"
> "and we're bring those into OpenOffice. " should be "and we're bringing
> those into OpenOffice".
> I'm also not sure "modeless" will be meaningful to regular users. Would
> "continuously available" be better?
> Regards,
> Francis
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by "F C. Costero" <fj...@gmail.com>.
On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK. Here is a draft:
>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>>>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>>>> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>>>
>>>
>> Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
>>> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>>> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
>>> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>>>
>>> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
>>> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I
>>> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has better
>>> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the
>>> top.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I
>> understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
>> incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
>>
>
> OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
> interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is
> coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
> absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
> the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
> been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible
> AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We
> haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time.
>
>>
>>> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is clearly
>>> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the
>>> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an interesting
>>> twist...
>>>
>>> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Andrea.
>>>
>>
>> Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I
>> think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
>> licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under:
>>
>> "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
>> enhanced<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution> for their
>> customer and corporate use. Last May IBM contributed the source code for
>> Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
>>
>> to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and
>> "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
>>
>
> I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also
> corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
> "before& after" screen shots that he posted.
>
>
> So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
> generally happy with.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
>> appreciate it!
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
>> --
>> Aesop
Rob,
Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple
of typos in the third movement:
"A a modeless property picker" needs only one "A".
"So we're considering at several" drop the "at"
"and we're bring those into OpenOffice. " should be "and we're bringing
those into OpenOffice".
I'm also not sure "modeless" will be meaningful to regular users. Would
"continuously available" be better?
Regards,
Francis
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> OK. Here is a draft:
>>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>>> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>>
>>
> Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
>> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
>> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>>
>> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
>> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I
>> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has better
>> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the
>> top.
>>
>
> Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I
> understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
> incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
>
OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is
coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible
AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We
haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time.
>
>> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is clearly
>> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the
>> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an interesting
>> twist...
>>
>> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>
> Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I
> think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
> licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under:
>
> "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
> enhanced <http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution> for their
> customer and corporate use. Last May IBM contributed the source code for
> Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
>
> to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and
> "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
>
I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also
corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
"before & after" screen shots that he posted.
So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
generally happy with.
-Rob
> This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
> appreciate it!
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
> --
> Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> OK. Here is a draft:
>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>
>
Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>
> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>
> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I
> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has better
> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the
> top.
>
Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I
understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is clearly
> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the
> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an interesting
> twist...
>
> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I
think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under:
"IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
enhanced <http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution> for their
customer and corporate use. Last May IBM contributed the source code for
Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and
"use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
appreciate it!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
--
Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> OK. Here is a draft:
> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo
> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
> detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
(they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
"OOXML Support" enhancements).
Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant.
I would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has
better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be
listed at the top.
The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is
clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on
Symphony, but the usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which
adds an interesting twist...
Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>>
>>> Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want
>>> to get too technical.
>>>
>>> But I can put a draft together at least.
>>>
>>
>> OK. Here is a draft:
>> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo
>>
>
> I would think that the people that started this issue are not really interested in the specific
> enhancements or new features. I would also think that the target audience of the blogs
> are mostly non technical so I would suggest:
> -When listing the bugs fixed drop the bugzilla issue number (it says nothing to a non-technical
> reader) and the [From Symphony] tag which is redundant.
Stand back, I know regular expressions!
http://xkcd.com/208/
Done.
> - People will prefer screenshots if possible. A screenshot of Symphony and specifically
> the sidebar would be nice.
>
I agree. Hopefully someone in Beijing can point me to one.
-Rob
> Pedro.
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>>
>> Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want
>> to get too technical.
>>
>> But I can put a draft together at least.
>>
>
> OK. Here is a draft:
> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo
>
I would think that the people that started this issue are not really interested in the specific
enhancements or new features. I would also think that the target audience of the blogs
are mostly non technical so I would suggest:
-When listing the bugs fixed drop the bugzilla issue number (it says nothing to a non-technical
reader) and the [From Symphony] tag which is redundant.
- People will prefer screenshots if possible. A screenshot of Symphony and specifically
the sidebar would be nice.
Pedro.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be
>>>> properly acknowledged and get exposure.
>>>
>>> Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog
>>> authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is
>>> acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it
>>> harder to dismiss it in some quarters.
>>
>>
>> I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view
>> it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team
>> member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a
>> meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made
>> possible.
>>
>
> Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want
> to get too technical.
>
> But I can put a draft together at least.
>
OK. Here is a draft:
https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo
Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
-Rob
> -Rob
>
>> For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be
>> feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but
>> honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe
>> what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be
>>> properly acknowledged and get exposure.
>>
>> Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog
>> authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is
>> acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it
>> harder to dismiss it in some quarters.
>
>
> I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view
> it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team
> member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a
> meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made
> possible.
>
Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want
to get too technical.
But I can put a draft together at least.
-Rob
> For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be
> feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but
> honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe
> what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most...
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be
>> properly acknowledged and get exposure.
> Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog
> authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is
> acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it
> harder to dismiss it in some quarters.
I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of
view it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony
team member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to
write a meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony
contribution made possible.
For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not
be feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge,
but honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to
describe what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most...
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
>> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
>> post is unnecessary.
>
>
> Regardless of what prompted the discussion here, a specific blog post about
> what the Symphony contribution specifically has meant for OpenOffice would
> probably be very informative for our users.
>
> It would also be a nice way to show that formerly proprietary code was
> incorporated in OpenOffice and is now available to other products that can
> integrate it (and actually, in a few cases, probably already did).
>
> Of course, no need to post it today, and especially no need to post it with
> the aim of refuting misleading claims... I'm just saying that the discussion
> here suggested that the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be
> properly acknowledged and get exposure.
>
Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog
authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is
acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it
harder to dismiss it in some quarters.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 11/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
> In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
> the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
> post is unnecessary.
Regardless of what prompted the discussion here, a specific blog post
about what the Symphony contribution specifically has meant for
OpenOffice would probably be very informative for our users.
It would also be a nice way to show that formerly proprietary code was
incorporated in OpenOffice and is now available to other products that
can integrate it (and actually, in a few cases, probably already did).
Of course, no need to post it today, and especially no need to post it
with the aim of refuting misleading claims... I'm just saying that the
discussion here suggested that the Symphony contribution in itself is
worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
>>
>> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
>> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
>> peak level of paranoia.
>
>
> Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little
> context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so
> far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that
> apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that
> the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source
> software world in general.
>
>
>> Anyone who cares to look can
>> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
>> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
>
>
> People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this
> listing is impressive, as it is this page:
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
>
> If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else
> from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this
> will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do
> it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside
> from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts), not because someone
> feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim.
>
Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of
the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We
saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation
regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility.
Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored.
But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project
operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and
timing of a post to correct such misinformation.
In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of
the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog
post is unnecessary.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I
> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
> peak level of paranoia.
Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very
little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but
nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact,
that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about
the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to
the free/open-source software world in general.
> Anyone who cares to look can
> see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into
> the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes
People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that
this listing is impressive, as it is this page:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341
If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone
else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features,
this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please,
let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly
overdue (aside from a brief mention in the "top 10 questions" posts),
not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or
misleading claim.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything". I
> can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be
> held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that
> peak level of paranoia.
could that be someone who worked at Burson Marsteller ? am I thinking
about the same Public Relations specialist?
A PR guy being a master of spin? surely some mistake.... (sarcasm)
http://pages.citebite.com/k9g2s1t6neji
"history has shown that the proprietary StarOffice and Oracle Open
Office have never been able to generate any visible turnover (and have
not attracted a single company)" (...) "None of these companies – some
of them very large, up to 100.000 seats – ever asked for a license of
Sun StarOffice."
https://blogs.oracle.com/ontherecord/entry/staroffice_8_and_sixth_annual
"The Sixth Annual eWEEK Excellence Award winners posted yesterday.
This year almost 800 entries were submitted for the award, from which
19 winners in different categories were chosen. StarOffice 8 is the
Productivity Applications category winner."
http://philwilson.org/blog/2006/07/bristol-adopts-odf
"Bristol City Council has joined the ODF Alliance, The Council already
uses StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office "
"Largest implementation of Sun's StarOffice office productivity suite
in the UK retail sector"
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/jessops-develops-new-point-of-sale-and-desktop-infrastructure-to-achieve-2m-pounds-sterling-cost-saving-154678395.html
"By centralising our POS management and moving to StarOffice, we will
not only save money, we will have a centralised view of each and every
Jessops store across the UK. "
India insurance firm moves 10,000 seats to StarOffice
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854037075.html
" Banca Popolare di Milano
4,500 SUSE Linux desktops with a Mozilla web browser, web client for
Lotus Notes, * Sun’s StarOffice suite*, and a Java-based custom suite
of banking applications in its 500 branch offices."
HDFC Bank uses StarOffice
http://computer.financialexpress.com/20050228/market01.shtml
So how does this compare to claims that "None of these companies ever
asked for a license of Sun StarOffice." ?? and "not a single company"
Wonder how anyone still takes him seriously...
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> > Da: Rob Weir
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen
> > wrote:
> >> Rob,
> >>
> >> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know
> which
> >> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
> > to
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
> >> doesn't mean that it didn't.
> >>
> >
> > I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
> > list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
> > case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
> > carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
> > rebutted. IMHO.
> >
>
> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and doesn't
> really have any idea what is going on here.
>
> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>
> Pedro.
>
I think we're back to "please don't feed the trolls" on this one. No blog
or additional attention necessary. It seems this may be isolated to a
single individual. Anyone can review the commit logs.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
--
Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/11/2013 12:03 AM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:53:40 +0100
> "Marcus (OOo)"<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 01/10/2013 11:40 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>>> Hello Marcus;
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>>> Da: Marcus (OOo)
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
>>>>>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
>>>>>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
>>>>>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
>>>>>> rebutted. IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and
>>>>> doesn't really have any idea what is going on here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
>>>>> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>>
>>>> Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will
>>>> (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in
>>>> the UI and accessibility.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and
>>> we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by
>>> getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until
>>> 4.0 takes shape.
>>>
>>>> So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be
>>>> appropriate.
>>
>> Maybe, it was just a thought why it would be good this time.
>>
>>> Me wonders what is the usual way ;-).
>>
>> Kay has described it perfectly. ;-)
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
> I would suggest merely an informative blog, not in reply to anyone, a blog telling of what was happening in the AOO world and what work was currently under way. Of couse things are mapped out on the mailing lists, but the world of AOO users is far wider than those and they deserve to be kept informed.
Sure, I don't thought about a direct reply but as you suggested to write
in general.
Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:53:40 +0100
"Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 01/10/2013 11:40 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
> > Hello Marcus;
> >
> >
> > ----- Messaggio originale -----
> >> Da: Marcus (OOo)
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
> >>>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
> >>>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
> >>>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
> >>>> rebutted. IMHO.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and
> >>> doesn't really have any idea what is going on here.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
> >>> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
> >>>
> >>> Pedro.
> >>
> >> Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will
> >> (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in
> >> the UI and accessibility.
> >>
> >
> > The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and
> > we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by
> > getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until
> > 4.0 takes shape.
> >
> >> So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be
> >> appropriate.
>
> Maybe, it was just a thought why it would be good this time.
>
> > Me wonders what is the usual way ;-).
>
> Kay has described it perfectly. ;-)
>
> Marcus
>
I would suggest merely an informative blog, not in reply to anyone, a blog telling of what was happening in the AOO world and what work was currently under way. Of couse things are mapped out on the mailing lists, but the world of AOO users is far wider than those and they deserve to be kept informed.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/10/2013 11:40 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
> Hello Marcus;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Marcus (OOo)
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
>>>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
>>>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
>>>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
>>>> rebutted. IMHO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and
>>> doesn't really have any idea what is going on here.
>>>
>>> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
>>> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>
>> Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will
>> (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in
>> the UI and accessibility.
>>
>
> The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and
> we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by
> getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until
> 4.0 takes shape.
>
>> So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be
>> appropriate.
Maybe, it was just a thought why it would be good this time.
> Me wonders what is the usual way ;-).
Kay has described it perfectly. ;-)
Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello Marcus;
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Marcus (OOo)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
>>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
>>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
>>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
>>> rebutted. IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and
>> doesn't really have any idea what is going on here.
>>
>> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
>> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>>
>> Pedro.
>
> Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will
> (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in
> the UI and accessibility.
>
The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and
we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by
getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until
4.0 takes shape.
> So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be
> appropriate.
>
Me wonders what is the usual way ;-).
Pedro.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/10/2013 11:11 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
> Hello;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen
>> wrote:
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which
>>> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
>> to
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
>>> doesn't mean that it didn't.
>>>
>>
>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
>> rebutted. IMHO.
>>
>
> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and doesn't
> really have any idea what is going on here.
>
> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>
> Pedro.
Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will
(IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in
the UI and accessibility.
So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be
appropriate.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
Also, the ia2 support, will be a natural point of interest and it would be
foolish not to include it in the normal course of presenting ongoing work.
Personally I would not reward that email with special attention given the
above.
In specific, no response to that email came to the list, no support at all.
For myself again, I decided not to reply as long as that were the case.
//drew
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello;
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> > Da: Rob Weir
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen
> > wrote:
> >> Rob,
> >>
> >> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know
> which
> >> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
> > to
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
> >> doesn't mean that it didn't.
> >>
> >
> > I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
> > list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
> > case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
> > carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
> > rebutted. IMHO.
> >
>
> The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and doesn't
> really have any idea what is going on here.
>
> Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
> like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
>
> Pedro.
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen
> wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which
>> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
> to
>> it.
>>
>> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
>> doesn't mean that it didn't.
>>
>
> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
> rebutted. IMHO.
>
The "TDF director and Marketing Lead" does no development and doesn't
really have any idea what is going on here.
Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me
like he just wants to bring some attention to his project.
Pedro.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
> On 1/10/13, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know
>>> which
>>> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
>>> to
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
>>> doesn't mean that it didn't.
>>>
>>
>> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
>> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
>> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
>> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
>> rebutted. IMHO.
>
> Playing devils advocate here, I would say that there is no feature or
> design element in the current 3.4.1 version of AOO that resembles
> Symphony nor its functionality. That said I never really used symphony
> except the screenshot and the casual youtube video but as a user I
> would expect an option to switch the UI to the panes that made
> Symphony stand out from the rest of the OOo forks back in the day.
>
Right. I doubt there is much in AOO 3.4.1 due to Symphony. The
merging work was occurring in the trunk while the AOO 3.4.1 work
happened in branch. This was true for bug fixes as well as UI
enhancements. Expect to see this in 4.0.
-Rob
> Also not even sure, how much of the old old IBM workbench
> authentication and collaboration features really held to Symphony and
> eventually to AOO.
>
> So bugfixing is nice, but as a user I expect for bugfixing to happen,
> but I would have expect much more for a product incorporation. (i.e.
> Homesite merge into Dreamweaver in 2002, the code editor got so much
> more usable) and that only took 6 months to do the product merging.)
>
> I would have expect maybe 3.5 or 4.0 to have a functional and easy way
> to do a one click UI change to the pane views. And be able to connect
> have collaboration features at least present on the Options dialog to
> connect it to some messaging-backend system.
>
> Or alternatively some IBM hosted extensions for their products.
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Drew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500
>>>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that
>>>> > >> the
>>>> > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
>>>> > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > I assume he is confusing two different things:
>>>> >
>>>> > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
>>>> > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
>>>> > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
>>>> > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
>>>> >
>>>> > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
>>>> > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
>>>> > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
>>>> > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
>>>> > have required additional work from the project, including IP
>>>> > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
>>>> > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
>>>> > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
>>>> > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
>>>> > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
>>>> >
>>>> Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0
>>>> will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code
>>>> donation;
>>>> this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to
>>>> that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
On 1/10/13, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know
>> which
>> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply
>> to
>> it.
>>
>> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
>> doesn't mean that it didn't.
>>
>
> I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
> list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
> case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
> carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
> rebutted. IMHO.
Playing devils advocate here, I would say that there is no feature or
design element in the current 3.4.1 version of AOO that resembles
Symphony nor its functionality. That said I never really used symphony
except the screenshot and the casual youtube video but as a user I
would expect an option to switch the UI to the panes that made
Symphony stand out from the rest of the OOo forks back in the day.
Also not even sure, how much of the old old IBM workbench
authentication and collaboration features really held to Symphony and
eventually to AOO.
So bugfixing is nice, but as a user I expect for bugfixing to happen,
but I would have expect much more for a product incorporation. (i.e.
Homesite merge into Dreamweaver in 2002, the code editor got so much
more usable) and that only took 6 months to do the product merging.)
I would have expect maybe 3.5 or 4.0 to have a functional and easy way
to do a one click UI change to the pane views. And be able to connect
have collaboration features at least present on the Options dialog to
connect it to some messaging-backend system.
Or alternatively some IBM hosted extensions for their products.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500
>>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that
>>> > >> the
>>> > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
>>> > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
>>> > >
>>> > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I assume he is confusing two different things:
>>> >
>>> > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
>>> > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
>>> > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
>>> > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
>>> >
>>> > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
>>> > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
>>> > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
>>> > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
>>> > have required additional work from the project, including IP
>>> > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
>>> > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
>>> > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
>>> > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
>>> > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
>>> >
>>> Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0
>>> will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code
>>> donation;
>>> this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to
>>> that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0
>>> release?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>>
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which
> one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to
> it.
>
> I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
> doesn't mean that it didn't.
>
I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing
list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any
case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it
carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be
rebutted. IMHO.
-Rob
> Thanks
>
> Drew
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500
>> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
>> > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
>> > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
>> > >
>> > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
>> > >
>> >
>> > I assume he is confusing two different things:
>> >
>> > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
>> > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
>> > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
>> > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
>> >
>> > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
>> > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
>> > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
>> > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
>> > have required additional work from the project, including IP
>> > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
>> >
>> > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
>> > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
>> > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
>> > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
>> > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
>> >
>> Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0
>> will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation;
>> this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to
>> that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Drew Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
Rob,
Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which
one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to
it.
I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that
doesn't mean that it didn't.
Thanks
Drew
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500
> Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
> > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
> > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
> > >
> > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
> > >
> >
> > I assume he is confusing two different things:
> >
> > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
> > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
> > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
> > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
> >
> > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
> > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
> > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
> > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
> > have required additional work from the project, including IP
> > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
> >
> > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
> > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
> > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
> > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
> > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
> >
> Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0
> will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation;
> this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to
> that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release?
>
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500
Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
> >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
> >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
> >
> > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
> >
>
> I assume he is confusing two different things:
>
> 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
> Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
> Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
> should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
>
> 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
> discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
> was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
> rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
> have required additional work from the project, including IP
> Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
>
> Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
> certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
> things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
> interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
> these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
>
Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0 will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release?
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
>> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
>> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
>
> Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
>
I assume he is confusing two different things:
1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant
Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF
Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there
should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF.
2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After
discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference
was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to
rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would
have required additional work from the project, including IP
Clearance, modifying file headers, etc.
Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It
certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane
things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about,
interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about
these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post?
-Rob
> Don
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the
> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the
> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything".
Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF?
Don