Hi Andrew;
----- Original Message ----- ... > > Couple of questions: > > (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating changes between AOO and > LO > would not be overly complicated (bad memory, but maybe it was Tom Davis > referencing the fact that Symphony was kept in sync with OOo). Are any > changes > integrated between AOO and LO (in either direction) at this time? I have been > asked this question specifically (as it related to the code clean-up effort > in > LO), and I generally say "I don't know, but I don't think so". > Some of it has happened in both ways. I won't talk about the LO "relicensing" because I simply don't understand how it is supposed to work and ultimately I am not a lawyer. In the case of AOO. I have in my HD some code that authors have agreed to contribute. The code will remain uncommitted because: - In one case the code is big enough that I need a signed iCLA and while the author has agreed he hasn't really had time lately. - In another case the code is not big but I have requested the patches be submitted through bugzilla to keep a record of the contribution (private email is not trustable nowadays). In both cases I can wait: the code is not critical, just nice to have. I wish it were easier to contribute though: we cannot expect someone to go over the trouble of porting and testing their patches twice. This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs that I can't reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to keep it that way. > > (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as [email protected] and > [email protected]. Assuming that AOO is taken from incubator > status, > will incubator be dropped from the list names and will current subscribers be > ported to the new list? > I would think so, yes. Pedro.
