You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/15 23:37:17 UTC
questions about the "porting" project
Hi all--
I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully currently
involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation of the porters listed
--
http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for each, if they
were kept somewhere, that would be great.
Thanks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 05/16/12 15:07, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/16/2012 11:48 AM, � wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Confused,
>>>
>>> My reply is long; short answer: Porting evolved, and there were those
>>> builds maintained by Sun for its clients and then there were those
>>> initiated and maintained by the community. Over time, the roster of
>>> Sun-maintained ports changed. I can give a bigger history of
>>> this�it's kind of interesting, if you are really bored�:-)
>>>
>>
>> well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
>>
>> Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with any
>> open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.
>>
>> Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should
>> include as "official" builds vs not.
>>
>> Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved
>> with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on the
>> mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
>>
>>
> There are technical reasons: mostly that I don't want to add FreeBSD
> specific
> hacks until the build structure is in better shape (with the gnumake4 CWS
> mainly).
>
OK...
>
> There's also the issue that FreeBSD users know very well where to get AOO:
> we don't really have the multiple distributors issue that plagues linux
> and we
> can take care better of the dependency on system library versions.
>
Well we don't have those issues either as we only supply "generic" installs
in either RPM or DEB. I don't know, however, what the identification would
be for FreeBSD, vis a vis , navigator.platform for example.
I understand what you're saying. Right now, I'm just in investigative
mode.
>
> In the future we would certainly like to set up a buildbot with trunk,
> which will
> be interesting since FreeBSD is throwing away gcc in favor of clang for
> FreeBSD 10.
>
hmmmm...OK. Thanks for this information.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 05/16/12 15:07, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 05/16/2012 11:48 AM, � wrote:
>> Dear Confused,
>>
>> My reply is long; short answer: Porting evolved, and there were those
>> builds maintained by Sun for its clients and then there were those
>> initiated and maintained by the community. Over time, the roster of
>> Sun-maintained ports changed. I can give a bigger history of
>> this�it's kind of interesting, if you are really bored�:-)
>
> well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
>
> Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with
> any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can
> sustain.
>
> Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should
> include as "official" builds vs not.
>
> Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are
> involved with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these
> builds on the mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
>
There are technical reasons: mostly that I don't want to add FreeBSD
specific
hacks until the build structure is in better shape (with the gnumake4 CWS
mainly).
There's also the issue that FreeBSD users know very well where to get AOO:
we don't really have the multiple distributors issue that plagues linux
and we
can take care better of the dependency on system library versions.
In the future we would certainly like to set up a buildbot with trunk,
which will
be interesting since FreeBSD is throwing away gcc in favor of clang for
FreeBSD 10.
Pedro.
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On 2012-05-16, at 16:07 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
> >
> > Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with
> any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.
>
> More or less, yes: the no part being, I would maintain, that as long as
> one is honest about what is being done and can be done, then what counts as
> "sustainable" can, arguably, be relaxed. After all, the original Mac OS X
> builds maintained by the community members numbered two and had day jobs.
> The effort, fuelled by coffee and IM, was in a way not sustainable at all;
> but it inspired and proved a point, and so in the end, became sustainable.
> A key reason? Not the execs at Sun who liked Macs—nearly all—but the
> actuality of a noisy market. That is to say: marketing can help bridge the
> gulf between what is feasible by the resources at hand and what can be
> done, given the needed resources. (A 'resource' is a person, here, whose
> salary, in this case, is in effect, a debt paid back by the users and those
> who supply them with services at a cost.)
> >
> > Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should
> include as "official" builds vs not.
>
> It's a difficult question, and I do wonder: do we need "official' or
> simply a limit on the size that can be held? When I set up the mirror
> system, I stratified it by "stable" and "contributor" (or the like) builds.
I didn't know this....I don't remember seeing this though it may have
existed.
> The "stable" would map to "official," but the point was that it related
> more to builds that were *ready* to go than to builds that demanded
> privileged treatment because they were "official." A ready-to-go build
> could be ready simply because it attracted the right level of interest
> among the right sort of people, not because it had been deemed "official."
> Yes, there will be a degree of competition.
>
> There may also be—would be—confusion among users, esp. the big ones, like
> governments. In this case, I'd suggest we have more of an argument to
> insist that they actually put their money where their code is.
>
> As to corporate contributors: they have their own agenda, and it probably
> is pretty much most everyone else's. The point is that they will need to do
> what their clients want, no matter what.
>
> >
> > Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved
> with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on the
> mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
> >
> I think that if their builds are ready, great. We *could* instate a simple
> requirement, that Build A must have a roadmap leading to Build A.n+2, if
> not B. That is, two post-A releases, but that is probably not necessary.
> It's only put there, as a suggestion, to give users and contributors a
> sense of where to allocate their own energies.
>
>
> > A further discussion I think. I would think any "ports" by AOO
> committers would at some point, be part of the official builds. But more to
> follow...
>
>
> Good; yes, this is a worthy discussion, and I wish we could have had these
> at the old OOo community council. Certainly, many of us wanted that. But
> [redacted].
>
OK, and thanks again for all the history/input.
>
> cheers
> Louis
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
On 2012-05-16, at 16:07 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
>
> Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.
More or less, yes: the no part being, I would maintain, that as long as one is honest about what is being done and can be done, then what counts as "sustainable" can, arguably, be relaxed. After all, the original Mac OS X builds maintained by the community members numbered two and had day jobs. The effort, fuelled by coffee and IM, was in a way not sustainable at all; but it inspired and proved a point, and so in the end, became sustainable. A key reason? Not the execs at Sun who liked Macs—nearly all—but the actuality of a noisy market. That is to say: marketing can help bridge the gulf between what is feasible by the resources at hand and what can be done, given the needed resources. (A 'resource' is a person, here, whose salary, in this case, is in effect, a debt paid back by the users and those who supply them with services at a cost.)
>
> Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should include as "official" builds vs not.
It's a difficult question, and I do wonder: do we need "official' or simply a limit on the size that can be held? When I set up the mirror system, I stratified it by "stable" and "contributor" (or the like) builds. The "stable" would map to "official," but the point was that it related more to builds that were *ready* to go than to builds that demanded privileged treatment because they were "official." A ready-to-go build could be ready simply because it attracted the right level of interest among the right sort of people, not because it had been deemed "official." Yes, there will be a degree of competition.
There may also be—would be—confusion among users, esp. the big ones, like governments. In this case, I'd suggest we have more of an argument to insist that they actually put their money where their code is.
As to corporate contributors: they have their own agenda, and it probably is pretty much most everyone else's. The point is that they will need to do what their clients want, no matter what.
>
> Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on the mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
>
I think that if their builds are ready, great. We *could* instate a simple requirement, that Build A must have a roadmap leading to Build A.n+2, if not B. That is, two post-A releases, but that is probably not necessary. It's only put there, as a suggestion, to give users and contributors a sense of where to allocate their own energies.
> A further discussion I think. I would think any "ports" by AOO committers would at some point, be part of the official builds. But more to follow...
Good; yes, this is a worthy discussion, and I wish we could have had these at the old OOo community council. Certainly, many of us wanted that. But [redacted].
cheers
Louis
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 05/16/2012 11:48 AM, � wrote:
> Dear Confused,
>
> My reply is long; short answer: Porting evolved, and there were those
> builds maintained by Sun for its clients and then there were those
> initiated and maintained by the community. Over time, the roster of
> Sun-maintained ports changed. I can give a bigger history of
> this�it's kind of interesting, if you are really bored�:-)
well I am not quite THAT bored at the moment. ;)
Thanks for all this. Yes, it did help. Our current situation, as with
any open source project, is that you can only *build* what you can sustain.
Mostly I was asking about this to try to get a feel for what we should
include as "official" builds vs not.
Considering Maho and Pedro (with FreeBSD) and Dario (OS/2) are involved
with the project as committers, why wouldn't we include these builds on
the mirrors? And, we have a Solaris participant as well now.
A further discussion I think. I would think any "ports" by AOO
committers would at some point, be part of the official builds. But more
to follow...
Yeah, these walks down memory lane can be quite interesting. :)
>
> On 2012-05-16, at 13:50 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Louis
>> Su�rez-Potts<lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 2012-05-15, at 17:37 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all--
>>>>
>>>> I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
>>>>
>>>> could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully
>>>> currently involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation
>>>> of the porters
>>> listed
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
>>>>
>>>> were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
>>>>
>>>> And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for
>>>> each, if
>>> they
>>>> were kept somewhere, that would be great. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I think I can probably answer most of the questions, as we did
>>> track those data, but not sure: much of what was there is a)
>>> gone, b) old, really old.
>>>
>>> That said, regarding the committers: See,
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
>>>
>>> "Domain Developer," as you know, meant that one had access as a
>>> committer globally.
>>>
>>> As to general ports, from memory:
>>>
>>> 1. Windows.> 95% And then Mac OS X And then, in the single
>>> digits, the rest. (Linux distros., of course, included OOo and
>>> its variants.)
>>>
>>> The old spreadsheets from the first few years are probably not
>>> quite accurate--they never were--but suggestive of the breakdown
>>> then of "everything else". However, now, things are quite a lot
>>> different, and past data ought not to prescribe present, let
>>> alone future behaviour.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>
>> Hi Louis--
>>
>> OK, I'm already confused. The porting page above has no Windows
>> info on it at all...what I see are mostly *nix derivatives, along
>> with a few others -- VMS, OS/2, etc.
>>
>
> Yes. The Porting Project, led by Martin H., and originally at
> porting.openoffice.org/, now www.oo.org/porting/ I think, focused on
> community builds. The old wiki (I mean *old*) Roadmap that sheds
> some ancient light is at
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Porting_Roadmap. (One could
> also just ask Martin, of course.) I couldn't find a project wiki for
> Porting�perhaps Eric or Maho or Joost might know�but I also think
> that there was never one. As you know, many projects did not have
> evolved doubles living in the wikis�Website, for instance, didn't,
> afaik.
>
> The standard builds were Windows, Solaris, LInux; community builds
> were everything else, including Mac OS X, but this was then
> established as something Sun was officially interested in working on
> sometime in 2006-2007, I think, though Eric B can correct me. (The
> OOo Milestone page would have that datum.)
>
>> My question, more specifically, is why weren't these included with
>> the other releases -- i.e. Windows, Solaris, MacIntel -- and
>> shuttled to the mirrors instead of a separate area like this?
>
> Eric Bachard, Maho NAKATA, could probably answer better, as could
> Joost or Juergen, I'm sure. But it has to do, to a degree, with the
> cleaving elements of OOo: that some ports were substantially QA'd and
> maintained by the contributing company as well as the interested
> community and others pretty much only by the interested community,
> which nevertheless followed the strictest QA protocols. Another way
> of thinking of it, is that it had to do with resources available-and
> able to be coordinated.
>
> The overall issue was very difficult to resolve, and probably wasn't
> (continuance relied more on personality than structure). We are
> encountering a version of it here. Some builds�say the most desired
> and popular, both platform and language-wise�are ready before other,
> less popular ones. Do we issue the ready ones immediately? Or do we
> wait? And if you are dealing with, say, a dozen ports and over 100
> languages, many of which are not regularly maintained but you don't
> always know which, the logistics become even more fun. So, in
> coordination with the community and centring a lot of this on QA,
> compromises were made. They were unstable, as became evident. But,
> really, this is a perennial problem in open source projects: what to
> release, how to release, when to release, and so on. Fwiw, my friend
> Martin Michlmayr, of Debian fame and now with HP leading the best of
> that company's open source window, wrote his dissertation on the
> problem of releases in open source projects. The conclusion: You need
> a release programme.
>
>
>>
>> They seem to be considered "official" from OpenOffice.org and yet,
>> not quite.
>>
>> Can you tell me why?
>
> Without being dangerously cynical? No. :-) But more directly�and I
> have difficulty in being cynical--I probably framed the scenario
> above. The bigger issue, which is less obvious, and characteristic of
> some few corporate engagements with open source, is that large
> company Z. responds to market pressures, and though open source
> projects, which include participants generally part of the same
> market environment, may nevertheless look to satisfy insistent user
> demands that significantly diverge from those the sponsoring company
> is working on and thus allocating its resources to resolving. In the
> case of OOo, as well as other projects, where we had "project leads"
> and where the route to becoming one was as obvious as the route to
> heaven and more difficult, it put into question the governance model,
> especially as we proclaimed democratic and meritocratic virtues like
> any other open source project.
>
> Sorry for length.
>
> Cheers Louis
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
MzK
>>>>
>>>> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you And life has
>>>> a funny way of helping you out Helping you out." -- "Ironic",
>>>> Alanis Morissette
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
MzK
>>
>> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you And life has a
>> funny way of helping you out Helping you out." -- "Ironic", Alanis
>> Morissette
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Louis R Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>.
Dear Confused,
My reply is long; short answer: Porting evolved, and there were those builds maintained by Sun for its clients and then there were those initiated and maintained by the community. Over time, the roster of Sun-maintained ports changed. I can give a bigger history of this—it's kind of interesting, if you are really bored—:-)
On 2012-05-16, at 13:50 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On 2012-05-15, at 17:37 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all--
>>>
>>> I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
>>>
>>> could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully currently
>>> involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation of the porters
>> listed
>>> --
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
>>>
>>> were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
>>>
>>> And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for each, if
>> they
>>> were kept somewhere, that would be great.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> I think I can probably answer most of the questions, as we did track those
>> data, but not sure: much of what was there is a) gone, b) old, really old.
>>
>> That said, regarding the committers: See,
>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
>>
>> "Domain Developer," as you know, meant that one had access as a committer
>> globally.
>>
>> As to general ports, from memory:
>>
>> 1. Windows. > 95%
>> And then Mac OS X
>> And then, in the single digits, the rest.
>> (Linux distros., of course, included OOo and its variants.)
>>
>> The old spreadsheets from the first few years are probably not quite
>> accurate--they never were--but suggestive of the breakdown then of
>> "everything else". However, now, things are quite a lot different, and past
>> data ought not to prescribe present, let alone future behaviour.
>>
>> Louis
>>
>
> Hi Louis--
>
> OK, I'm already confused. The porting page above has no Windows info on it
> at all...what I see are mostly *nix derivatives, along with a few others --
> VMS, OS/2, etc.
>
Yes. The Porting Project, led by Martin H., and originally at porting.openoffice.org/, now www.oo.org/porting/ I think, focused on community builds. The old wiki (I mean *old*) Roadmap that sheds some ancient light is at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Porting_Roadmap. (One could also just ask Martin, of course.) I couldn't find a project wiki for Porting—perhaps Eric or Maho or Joost might know—but I also think that there was never one. As you know, many projects did not have evolved doubles living in the wikis—Website, for instance, didn't, afaik.
The standard builds were Windows, Solaris, LInux; community builds were everything else, including Mac OS X, but this was then established as something Sun was officially interested in working on sometime in 2006-2007, I think, though Eric B can correct me. (The OOo Milestone page would have that datum.)
> My question, more specifically, is why weren't these included with the
> other releases -- i.e. Windows, Solaris, MacIntel -- and shuttled to the
> mirrors instead of a separate area like this?
Eric Bachard, Maho NAKATA, could probably answer better, as could Joost or Juergen, I'm sure. But it has to do, to a degree, with the cleaving elements of OOo: that some ports were substantially QA'd and maintained by the contributing company as well as the interested community and others pretty much only by the interested community, which nevertheless followed the strictest QA protocols. Another way of thinking of it, is that it had to do with resources available-and able to be coordinated.
The overall issue was very difficult to resolve, and probably wasn't (continuance relied more on personality than structure). We are encountering a version of it here. Some builds—say the most desired and popular, both platform and language-wise—are ready before other, less popular ones. Do we issue the ready ones immediately? Or do we wait? And if you are dealing with, say, a dozen ports and over 100 languages, many of which are not regularly maintained but you don't always know which, the logistics become even more fun. So, in coordination with the community and centring a lot of this on QA, compromises were made. They were unstable, as became evident. But, really, this is a perennial problem in open source projects: what to release, how to release, when to release, and so on. Fwiw, my friend Martin Michlmayr, of Debian fame and now with HP leading the best of that company's open source window, wrote his dissertation on the problem of releases in open source projects. The conclusion: You need a release programme.
>
> They seem to be considered "official" from OpenOffice.org and yet, not
> quite.
>
> Can you tell me why?
Without being dangerously cynical? No. :-) But more directly—and I have difficulty in being cynical--I probably framed the scenario above. The bigger issue, which is less obvious, and characteristic of some few corporate engagements with open source, is that large company Z. responds to market pressures, and though open source projects, which include participants generally part of the same market environment, may nevertheless look to satisfy insistent user demands that significantly diverge from those the sponsoring company is working on and thus allocating its resources to resolving. In the case of OOo, as well as other projects, where we had "project leads" and where the route to becoming one was as obvious as the route to heaven and more difficult, it put into question the governance model, especially as we proclaimed democratic and meritocratic virtues like any other open source project.
Sorry for length.
Cheers
Louis
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
>>> And life has a funny way of helping you out
>>> Helping you out."
>>> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> And life has a funny way of helping you out
> Helping you out."
> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2012-05-15, at 17:37 , Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > Hi all--
> >
> > I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
> >
> > could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully currently
> > involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation of the porters
> listed
> > --
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
> >
> > were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
> >
> > And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for each, if
> they
> > were kept somewhere, that would be great.
> > Thanks.
>
> I think I can probably answer most of the questions, as we did track those
> data, but not sure: much of what was there is a) gone, b) old, really old.
>
> That said, regarding the committers: See,
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
>
> "Domain Developer," as you know, meant that one had access as a committer
> globally.
>
> As to general ports, from memory:
>
> 1. Windows. > 95%
> And then Mac OS X
> And then, in the single digits, the rest.
> (Linux distros., of course, included OOo and its variants.)
>
> The old spreadsheets from the first few years are probably not quite
> accurate--they never were--but suggestive of the breakdown then of
> "everything else". However, now, things are quite a lot different, and past
> data ought not to prescribe present, let alone future behaviour.
>
> Louis
>
Hi Louis--
OK, I'm already confused. The porting page above has no Windows info on it
at all...what I see are mostly *nix derivatives, along with a few others --
VMS, OS/2, etc.
My question, more specifically, is why weren't these included with the
other releases -- i.e. Windows, Solaris, MacIntel -- and shuttled to the
mirrors instead of a separate area like this?
They seem to be considered "official" from OpenOffice.org and yet, not
quite.
Can you tell me why?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> > And life has a funny way of helping you out
> > Helping you out."
> > -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
And life has a funny way of helping you out
Helping you out."
-- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
Re: questions about the "porting" project
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
On 2012-05-15, at 17:37 , Kay Schenk wrote:
> Hi all--
>
> I was just taking a look at the porting project site:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
>
> could someone who is familiar with this project, and hopefully currently
> involved with it, fill us in on what the affiliation of the porters listed
> --
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/porting_overview.html
>
> were to the OpenOffice.org project? Were they committers, etc?
>
> And, if you could provide some idea of the usage numbers for each, if they
> were kept somewhere, that would be great.
> Thanks.
I think I can probably answer most of the questions, as we did track those data, but not sure: much of what was there is a) gone, b) old, really old.
That said, regarding the committers: See, http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/DomainDeveloper
"Domain Developer," as you know, meant that one had access as a committer globally.
As to general ports, from memory:
1. Windows. > 95%
And then Mac OS X
And then, in the single digits, the rest.
(Linux distros., of course, included OOo and its variants.)
The old spreadsheets from the first few years are probably not quite accurate--they never were--but suggestive of the breakdown then of "everything else". However, now, things are quite a lot different, and past data ought not to prescribe present, let alone future behaviour.
Louis
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> And life has a funny way of helping you out
> Helping you out."
> -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette