Hi Thorsten, > I cannot imagine changes to OOo code that do not "potentially cause > pain" someone somewhere. The thing is, it's a change for the better, > removes a ton of unnecessary, fragile & hard to maintain code, and there > simply won't be "a better time" for this.
Sure. Again: The question is whether the gain is worth the pain. Personally, I somehow doubt it. > Are you suggesting to do this incrementally? In which way would that > help, for the individual developer, who needs to resync one or more > CWSs against the inevitably changed include portion of her files? The developer has better control. If I touch includes in any file of any module of any CWS, and have to resync to the big-bang-MWS (the one containing incguards01), I will almost certainly get a conflict. This happens for all people touching any include in any file of any module of any CWS. If I touch includes in any file of any module of any CWS, and let the script run immediately before I pass the CWS to QA, then at least for this particular CWS, and this particular module (more precise: all files in this module where I tampered with the includes), I will not have conflicts. IoW: There's a little less pain. Still, I am unsure whether the reduced pain is worth the gain. But if we minimize the former, I'd perhaps be willing to sacrifice this uncertainty to the higher abstract goals of removing some uglyness ;) Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
