Cor, Le Wed, 19 May 2010 22:59:58 +0200, Cor Nouws <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany wrote > (19-05-10 17:14) > > On Wed, 19 May 2010 14:20:57 +0200 > > Thorsten Behrens<[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > The discussion went a bit wide sometimes (IMO) > > Charles, could you pls help me and write in 2, 3 short sentences what > the goal is, and by what simple means could be started (as concluded > in the discussion). > (Leaving out for the moment the more complex stuff (of various > nature)) > > Thanks, > Cor I'm going to try: Currently the quality of experience of OOo on Linux differs greatly with other platforms such as Windows and often disparities exist also among Linux distributions. On Linux, many versions of OOo are actually not considered to be upstream (binaries coming straight out of www.openoffice.org) but our source code compiled with the ooo-build system with a varying number patches coming from Novell, Debian or sometimes the distribution itself. Bug reports are filed in several bug trackers with some redundancy and some loss of information at the same time, with nobody having a clear vision of what bugs exist in general. Bug trackers work as silos. A set of solutions has been proposed in order to give to the upstream bug tracker (OOo) a global visibility on these bugs, by creating one or several aliases linking to existing bugtrackers for other OOo branches and in one case to gradually merge the Go-OO IZ into the upstream one as to pool resources and gain a global visibility on bugs and patches. Does it sound better? Charles. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
