On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote: > On 1/10/13, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen <drewjensen.in...@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 <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 >>>> Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@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 <ofarr...@iol.ie> >>>> >> > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > Apache OpenOffice Contributor > http://es.openoffice.org
