You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> on 2011/07/18 18:32:31 UTC
Before Symphony contribution
Dear all,
I welcome the contribution from the Symphony team. But before the
Symphony contribution, shouldn't it be the first task to move the source
onto Apache SVN or something, instead of the current mercurial hg? Not
only IBM would like to contribute back to OpenOffice.org, but many of us
here would like to do so, too. Having a new public SVN enables everyone
here to be able to participate. And this should not be IBM
OpenOffice.org, but Apache OpenOffice.org. (I already heard people
talking so.)
Sorry to be blunt. ^^;
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 18.07.2011 18:32, imacat wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I welcome the contribution from the Symphony team. But before the
> Symphony contribution, shouldn't it be the first task to move the source
> onto Apache SVN or something, instead of the current mercurial hg? Not
> only IBM would like to contribute back to OpenOffice.org, but many of us
> here would like to do so, too. Having a new public SVN enables everyone
> here to be able to participate. And this should not be IBM
> OpenOffice.org, but Apache OpenOffice.org. (I already heard people
> talking so.)
>
> Sorry to be blunt. ^^;
>
Of course we won't integrate anything from anywhere before we are done
with the initial stuff. At least that is my understanding.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
On 2011/07/19 19:02, Rob Weir said:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> On 2011/07/19 03:08, Rob Weir said:
> Possibly. But I don't see anything from Symphony is a "must have" for
> AOOo 3.4. I think it is more important that we complete 3.4 with the
> feature set that was originally planned.
> I assume so. 3.4.0 beta 1 was released a few months ago. We should
> review any bugs reports received, etc. I'd also expect that our
> replacement of LGPL dependencies will introduce new bugs. So we'll
> need a good QA cycle on 3.4 before we release it. I think we should
> aim for release 3.4 to continue the tradition of high quality releases
> that OOo is known for.
I see. I agree. That is good idea. ^_*'
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
> On 2011/07/19 03:08, Rob Weir said:
>> +1 Let's start from a stable build and make changes from there that
>> leave the build stable. So I think it looks like this:
>> 1) Get all OOo Hg repository converted over to SVN. This will include
>> all the code that was granted us in the Oracle SGA, as well as code
>> that was not granted us as well as LPGL dependencies. It will be
>> essentially equivalent to to the current OOo trunk.
>
> It's very nice we all have this understanding, at least something we
> can tell our local community about the current progress.
>
> So, we'll still have to have SVN up first.
>
>> 2) Verify that this builds. I'd like to see independent confirmation
>> from several developers that we can build from that source, including
>> at least the 3 major platforms.
>
> As far as I know, the current OpenOffice.org HG source does not
> build on Debian. I can help on this as much as I can. But we still
> have to have SVN up first.
>
>> 3) Based on that and the original Oracle SGA, find out what files we
>> need to be added to the SGA. I know work on this has already started.
>
> Thanks for everyone that is working on this.
>
>> 4) At this point, once we have the complete Oracle SGA, then IBM can
>> contribute the Symphony source. Why? Because our code is
>> contributable under Apache 2.0 to the extent that the code is either
>> original, or based on code that also under Apache 2.0. So our
>> contribution depends on the amended SGA of the core code.
>
> That said, will there be Symphony candies in our first 3.4?
>
Possibly. But I don't see anything from Symphony is a "must have" for
AOOo 3.4. I think it is more important that we complete 3.4 with the
feature set that was originally planned.
>> 6) Then at some point we have an OOo 3.4.0 that is functionality
>> identical to the 3.4 beta, but all under Apache license. Then we work
>> on getting to release quality. This might include some additional
>> testing, integrating existing patches, making additional fixes, etc.
>> Of course, this is not just code, but doc, help, translations, etc.
>
> So, will there be fixes to the existing OOo 3.4 that we can work on?
>
I assume so. 3.4.0 beta 1 was released a few months ago. We should
review any bugs reports received, etc. I'd also expect that our
replacement of LGPL dependencies will introduce new bugs. So we'll
need a good QA cycle on 3.4 before we release it. I think we should
aim for release 3.4 to continue the tradition of high quality releases
that OOo is known for.
> --
> Best regards,
> imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
> PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
>
> <<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
> Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
> Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
> OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
> EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
>
>
Re: Debian build
Posted by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org>.
On 20.07.2011 12:16, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi imacat,
>
> On Tuesday, 2011-07-19 12:17:44 +0800, imacat wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, the current OpenOffice.org HG source does not
>> build on Debian.
>
> There was at least one breakage in avmedia/source/gstreamer, but with
> the copyleft patch to configure that isn't built anymore and the build
> didn't break anywhere.
about gstreamer breakage, see patch attached to my mail:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201106.mbox/%3Citn50l$igl$1@dough.gmane.org%3E
regards,
michael
Debian build (was: Before Symphony contribution)
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi imacat,
On Tuesday, 2011-07-19 12:17:44 +0800, imacat wrote:
> As far as I know, the current OpenOffice.org HG source does not
> build on Debian.
There was at least one breakage in avmedia/source/gstreamer, but with
the copyleft patch to configure that isn't built anymore and the build
didn't break anywhere.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by imacat <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>.
On 2011/07/19 03:08, Rob Weir said:
> +1 Let's start from a stable build and make changes from there that
> leave the build stable. So I think it looks like this:
> 1) Get all OOo Hg repository converted over to SVN. This will include
> all the code that was granted us in the Oracle SGA, as well as code
> that was not granted us as well as LPGL dependencies. It will be
> essentially equivalent to to the current OOo trunk.
It's very nice we all have this understanding, at least something we
can tell our local community about the current progress.
So, we'll still have to have SVN up first.
> 2) Verify that this builds. I'd like to see independent confirmation
> from several developers that we can build from that source, including
> at least the 3 major platforms.
As far as I know, the current OpenOffice.org HG source does not
build on Debian. I can help on this as much as I can. But we still
have to have SVN up first.
> 3) Based on that and the original Oracle SGA, find out what files we
> need to be added to the SGA. I know work on this has already started.
Thanks for everyone that is working on this.
> 4) At this point, once we have the complete Oracle SGA, then IBM can
> contribute the Symphony source. Why? Because our code is
> contributable under Apache 2.0 to the extent that the code is either
> original, or based on code that also under Apache 2.0. So our
> contribution depends on the amended SGA of the core code.
That said, will there be Symphony candies in our first 3.4?
> 6) Then at some point we have an OOo 3.4.0 that is functionality
> identical to the 3.4 beta, but all under Apache license. Then we work
> on getting to release quality. This might include some additional
> testing, integrating existing patches, making additional fixes, etc.
> Of course, this is not just code, but doc, help, translations, etc.
So, will there be fixes to the existing OOo 3.4 that we can work on?
--
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' <im...@mail.imacat.idv.tw>
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc
<<Woman's Voice>> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
OpenOffice.org http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net> wrote:
> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, that is the right sequence. Our project is Apache OpenOffice, no
>>> question there. The intent behind the future code contribution of Symphony
>>> is to make it possible to harvest some of the value from it, and to merge
>>> that value into Apache OpenOffice. PPMC members affiliated with IBM, will be
>>> volunteering to do this effort in collaboration with others in the project,
>>> in the Apache Way.
>>>
>>> Building Apache OpenOffice from Oracle's Software Grant to Apache is the
>>> priority. If there's another view on this, let's here it.
>>
>> Symphony replaced most of OO.o's GPL/LGPL dependencies with more
>> liberally licensed code. Shouldn't we use those bits now, to get to
>> Apache OO.o quickly?
>>
>> Damjan
>>
>
> We have to have the code to make sure that it will build properly before
> making any changes. Then the process to remove/replace unusable code.
> This is where the IBM code can be looked at and added.
>
+1 Let's start from a stable build and make changes from there that
leave the build stable. So I think it looks like this:
1) Get all OOo Hg repository converted over to SVN. This will include
all the code that was granted us in the Oracle SGA, as well as code
that was not granted us as well as LPGL dependencies. It will be
essentially equivalent to to the current OOo trunk.
2) Verify that this builds. I'd like to see independent confirmation
from several developers that we can build from that source, including
at least the 3 major platforms.
3) Based on that and the original Oracle SGA, find out what files we
need to be added to the SGA. I know work on this has already started.
4) At this point, once we have the complete Oracle SGA, then IBM can
contribute the Symphony source. Why? Because our code is
contributable under Apache 2.0 to the extent that the code is either
original, or based on code that also under Apache 2.0. So our
contribution depends on the amended SGA of the core code.
5) Then work on removing the incompatible 3rd party code, GPL, LGPL,
etc. This can be done in parallel with #4 if we want.
6) Then at some point we have an OOo 3.4.0 that is functionality
identical to the 3.4 beta, but all under Apache license. Then we work
on getting to release quality. This might include some additional
testing, integrating existing patches, making additional fixes, etc.
Of course, this is not just code, but doc, help, translations, etc.
7) We'll also want to do some minimal rebranding, in splash screen,
Help/About, documentation, etc. to acknowledge that this is an ASF
project.
8) Once we're happy with the build, we can go through the process to
approve a "Podling Release"
9) In future releases we can discuss what other features and fixes
from Symphony it makes sense to merge in. But I would not recommend
complicating the steps 1-8 above with that. Let's try to finish OOo
3.4 with the features it currently has. That will be hard enough.
> Andy
>
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, that is the right sequence. Our project is Apache OpenOffice, no
>> question there. The intent behind the future code contribution of Symphony
>> is to make it possible to harvest some of the value from it, and to merge
>> that value into Apache OpenOffice. PPMC members affiliated with IBM, will be
>> volunteering to do this effort in collaboration with others in the project,
>> in the Apache Way.
>>
>> Building Apache OpenOffice from Oracle's Software Grant to Apache is the
>> priority. If there's another view on this, let's here it.
>
> Symphony replaced most of OO.o's GPL/LGPL dependencies with more
> liberally licensed code. Shouldn't we use those bits now, to get to
> Apache OO.o quickly?
>
> Damjan
>
We have to have the code to make sure that it will build properly before
making any changes. Then the process to remove/replace unusable code.
This is where the IBM code can be looked at and added.
Andy
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is the right sequence. Our project is Apache OpenOffice, no
> question there. The intent behind the future code contribution of Symphony
> is to make it possible to harvest some of the value from it, and to merge
> that value into Apache OpenOffice. PPMC members affiliated with IBM, will be
> volunteering to do this effort in collaboration with others in the project,
> in the Apache Way.
>
> Building Apache OpenOffice from Oracle's Software Grant to Apache is the
> priority. If there's another view on this, let's here it.
Symphony replaced most of OO.o's GPL/LGPL dependencies with more
liberally licensed code. Shouldn't we use those bits now, to get to
Apache OO.o quickly?
Damjan
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that is the right sequence. Our project is Apache OpenOffice, no
question there. The intent behind the future code contribution of Symphony
is to make it possible to harvest some of the value from it, and to merge
that value into Apache OpenOffice. PPMC members affiliated with IBM, will be
volunteering to do this effort in collaboration with others in the project,
in the Apache Way.
Building Apache OpenOffice from Oracle's Software Grant to Apache is the
priority. If there's another view on this, let's here it.
/don
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 07/18/2011 06:32 PM, schrieb imacat:
>
> I welcome the contribution from the Symphony team. But before the
>> Symphony contribution, shouldn't it be the first task to move the source
>> onto Apache SVN or something, instead of the current mercurial hg? Not
>> only IBM would like to contribute back to OpenOffice.org, but many of us
>> here would like to do so, too. Having a new public SVN enables everyone
>> here to be able to participate. And this should not be IBM
>> OpenOffice.org, but Apache OpenOffice.org. (I already heard people
>> talking so.)
>>
>
> Sure. First we will have our initial release and then we will have a look
> how to integrate the Symphony code (or parts) into the project.
>
> Marcus
>
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/18/2011 06:32 PM, schrieb imacat:
> I welcome the contribution from the Symphony team. But before the
> Symphony contribution, shouldn't it be the first task to move the source
> onto Apache SVN or something, instead of the current mercurial hg? Not
> only IBM would like to contribute back to OpenOffice.org, but many of us
> here would like to do so, too. Having a new public SVN enables everyone
> here to be able to participate. And this should not be IBM
> OpenOffice.org, but Apache OpenOffice.org. (I already heard people
> talking so.)
Sure. First we will have our initial release and then we will have a
look how to integrate the Symphony code (or parts) into the project.
Marcus
Re: Before Symphony contribution
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
imacat wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I welcome the contribution from the Symphony team. But before the
> Symphony contribution, shouldn't it be the first task to move the source
> onto Apache SVN or something, instead of the current mercurial hg? Not
> only IBM would like to contribute back to OpenOffice.org, but many of us
> here would like to do so, too. Having a new public SVN enables everyone
> here to be able to participate. And this should not be IBM
> OpenOffice.org, but Apache OpenOffice.org. (I already heard people
> talking so.)
>
> Sorry to be blunt. ^^;
>
I happen to agree.
Andy