On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:51 +0000, Phil Hibbs wrote: > Kohei: > > That's the wrong assumption I was trying to point out. It's not always > > applied as-is, and in fact it's rare that patches be accepted as is. > > Even we don't do that too often. > > Nonetheless, saying "it's better for us if you don't submit your > patches to OOo" is kind of like saying "Lets hope OOo don't spot this > bug/issue". It's ethically dubious. If this is the official approach, > then why not just make a clean break with OOo and not even try to > merge in any future OOo code changes with the LO code?
*sigh* I'll keep it short. * The decision should be up to the patch submitter. We are not in a position to tell him or her what to do. * Since we are being asked, I took my liberty to state my prerence, and my preference is to have the patch submitted to 1) LibreOffice only 2) OOo only 3) both in this order, because 3) increases our workload. I'm making a statement of fact. If stating the fact is somehow unethical, I'll just shut up and go back to handling the workload. * I never said "Let's hope OOo don't spot this" or "OOo will stagnate and die". I hope people will stop putting words into my mouth. This is all from me on this thread. And I really hope you will join us and help us reduce this workload of managing code, Phil. We could use lots of help there. No talk or circular discussion (like this one) will. Have a nice day. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc <kyosh...@novell.com> -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
