What action is there to take? It is a valid action by a downstream. Do we wish they posted changes upstream? Yes! Can we require it? No!
Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 17, 2019, at 9:19 PM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote: > > The Question is: > > Do we want to take action here or not? > > >> On 17.01.19 21:19, Matthias Seidel wrote: >> Hi Marcus, >> >>> Am 17.01.19 um 20:42 schrieb Marcus: >>>> Am 17.01.19 um 13:41 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >>>> Two of my commits were immediately picked by LO. [1] [2] >>>> >>>> Always nice to see, that down streaming still works for the fork... :-D >>> sure, better then to draw this on their own. >>> >>> Again with a note who has tested and reviewed it - which is totally >>> fine - but no hint where it comes from and who is the author. They >>> still don't want to tell where they get the code from. >> Not exactly, Pilot_Pirx is me... ;-) >> >> But now it looks like I would have committed it directly to LO, while >> they just monitor aoo/trunk and take what they can use. [1] >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/1170f10906a9bca78782df6ab1b6a4e20cf0435a >> >>> Is this redicioulous or just sad? I don't know. :-( >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/28dee1129c7a9c4da34b9253aefd6c6b2df1a073 >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/9796738e1149a99f8b3ff687b0f72264ba3a56ff >>>> >>>> >>>>> Am 14.01.19 um 16:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>> At this stage, I think just back porting (svn merge) to the AOO42X >>>>> branch is fine. >>>>> As we get close to a release, we'll need to either have an RM >>>>> approve it >>>>> or so something like creating a STATUS file, with a list of proposed >>>>> backports >>>>> and requiring at least 3 +1s to backport (ie: RTC) >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 14, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Matthias Seidel >>>>>> <matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jim, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 09.01.19 um 21:54 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ahh... something w/ the cppuhelper stuff. Obviously, some UDK >>>>>>>> issue I'm thinking... >>>>>> How is the process to get commits merged from trunk to AOO42X? >>>>>> >>>>>> I adjusted some pointers for Windows and Linux: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851110 >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851111 >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1851214 >>>>>> >>>>>> Additionally I updated some pointers for OS/2. I know that Bitwise is >>>>>> already working on a port of 4.2.0, so they would be useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since it took me several attempts it would be easier, if I would >>>>>> commit >>>>>> them directly. .. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeppers... for sure it's the udk versioning, which is more a Linux >>>>>>> thing than a macOS (or Windows) thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will look into either hacking around it or something else. I >>>>>>> thought I had fixed it. Obviously not :( >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
