Hi; --- On Sun, 8/21/11, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Soon, I hope, the OOo code will be checked into SVN. > After that happens I think we need to coordinate on > the next steps. I know that several of us have code > they'd like to check-in, CWS's to integrate, LGPL code > to remove, etc. But let's stage this work carefully, > so we minimize problems. > > Could we do something like this: > > 1) Initially, only changes are made to make SVN to more > perfectly match the Hg tip. We know there are 10 or so > files that need to be checked in, with attention to EOL > style. And there was a suggestion to update the memo > of the initial checkin. Let's get that work done, > and then tag that revision with a memorable label, before > we make any other changes. (Should also give a tag to the > current Hg tip) > Right after this I would like to see the FreeBSD port committed. These are mostly minor adjustments to the build so that the non-portable issues affecting FreeBSD are addressed: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3-devel/files/ They won't affect the build for already supported platforms but it does let some of us work comfortably. I am not a committer so unless someone else takes this, the commit will probably be made by Maho, which is(?) the OO QA head and has maintained these patches for a while. cheers, Pedro. > > 2) Registration of any cryptographic code in OOo (required > for US > Export regulations, not sure if this was previously > required when OOo was hosted in Germany). > > 3) Then do what is necessary to enable anyone who wishes to > build to > do so. So confirm we can build, add files, etc., if > they are missing. > Get instructions onto the website, or links to > instructions. > Everything we do after this is easier if we first enable > more people > to work with the code. Obviously a newbie is not > going to be > productive on their first day, but the sooner we get them > working with > the code, the sooner they will be productive. I think > we should try to enable that now, than wait 6 months. > > 4) As part of verifying the build we should be able to > confirm what > additional files, if any we need to request that Oracle add > to their SGA. > > 5) Identification and removal of any code that does not > have a compatible license > > 6) Then I think we can open it up to integrating CWS's, > fixing bugs, etc. > > > Does this make sense? I'm open to variations on this, > but I think we > need to stage the work somewhat like the above. > > -Rob > > n
