Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Rob Weir wrote: OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here, http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all OOXML Support enhancements). Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list, but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I would put issues containing crash first, but maybe someone who has better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the top. The title Allegro non troppo is a clever pun! The expression is clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the usual meaning of allegro in Italian is happy which adds an interesting twist... Minor typo just before the bullet list: the fix fro Symphony. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: Rob Weir wrote: OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=** merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppohttps://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. Highly interesting *and* entertaining! Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here, http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_** Improvement_Since_AOO341http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all OOXML Support enhancements). Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list, but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I would put issues containing crash first, but maybe someone who has better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the top. Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some. The title Allegro non troppo is a clever pun! The expression is clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the usual meaning of allegro in Italian is happy which adds an interesting twist... Minor typo just before the bullet list: the fix fro Symphony. Regards, Andrea. Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under: IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM enhanced http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution for their customer and corporate use.Last May IBM contributed the source code for Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and use it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example. This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will appreciate it! -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: Rob Weir wrote: OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=** merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppohttps://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. Highly interesting *and* entertaining! Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here, http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_** Improvement_Since_AOO341http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all OOXML Support enhancements). Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list, but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I would put issues containing crash first, but maybe someone who has better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the top. Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some. OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time. The title Allegro non troppo is a clever pun! The expression is clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the usual meaning of allegro in Italian is happy which adds an interesting twist... Minor typo just before the bullet list: the fix fro Symphony. Regards, Andrea. Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under: IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM enhanced http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution for their customer and corporate use.Last May IBM contributed the source code for Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and use it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example. I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the before after screen shots that he posted. So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm generally happy with. -Rob This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will appreciate it! -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.orgwrote: Rob Weir wrote: OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=** merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppohttps://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. Highly interesting *and* entertaining! Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here, http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_** Improvement_Since_AOO341http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all OOXML Support enhancements). Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list, but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I would put issues containing crash first, but maybe someone who has better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the top. Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some. OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time. The title Allegro non troppo is a clever pun! The expression is clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the usual meaning of allegro in Italian is happy which adds an interesting twist... Minor typo just before the bullet list: the fix fro Symphony. Regards, Andrea. Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under: IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM enhancedhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution for their customer and corporate use.Last May IBM contributed the source code for Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and use it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example. I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the before after screen shots that he posted. So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm generally happy with. -Rob This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will appreciate it! -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop Rob, Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple of typos in the third movement: A a modeless property picker needs only one A. So we're considering at several drop the at and we're bring those into OpenOffice. should be and we're bringing those into OpenOffice. I'm also not sure modeless will be meaningful to regular users. Would continuously available be better? Regards, Francis
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:14 PM, F C. Costero fjcc.apa...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.orgwrote: Rob Weir wrote: OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=** merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppohttps://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. Highly interesting *and* entertaining! Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here, http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_** Improvement_Since_AOO341http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all OOXML Support enhancements). Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list, but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I would put issues containing crash first, but maybe someone who has better knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the top. Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list. I understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some. OK. Look now. I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more interesting ones first. I also added a header. Since an article is coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving the full list. We should leave no doubt that work in this area has been ongoing. While some were working on the more publicly visible AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk. We haven't really spoken about that work before. Now is a good time. The title Allegro non troppo is a clever pun! The expression is clearly recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the usual meaning of allegro in Italian is happy which adds an interesting twist... Minor typo just before the bullet list: the fix fro Symphony. Regards, Andrea. Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs licensing here in some way. Even if a few sentences could be added under: IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM enhancedhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution for their customer and corporate use.Last May IBM contributed the source code for Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and use it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example. I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is. I also corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the before after screen shots that he posted. So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm generally happy with. -Rob This is a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will appreciate it! -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop Rob, Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple of typos in the third movement: Great. Thanks for the proof-read. I made those changes. -Rob A a modeless property picker needs only one A. So we're considering at several drop the at and we're bring those into OpenOffice. should be and we're bringing those into OpenOffice. I'm also not sure modeless will be meaningful to regular users. Would continuously available be better? Regards, Francis
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure. Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it harder to dismiss it in some quarters. I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made possible. For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most... Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure. Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it harder to dismiss it in some quarters. I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made possible. Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want to get too technical. But I can put a draft together at least. -Rob For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most... Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 16/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure. Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it harder to dismiss it in some quarters. I can try to understand these concerns, but from a practical point of view it is quite difficult for someone who is not a (former) Symphony team member, or who wasn't involved with porting code from Symphony, to write a meaningful post about the improvements that the Symphony contribution made possible. Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want to get too technical. But I can put a draft together at least. OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need detail. I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details. -Rob -Rob For example, analyzing the hundreds of [From Symphony] issues would not be feasible for me. Well, let's see if someone else takes the challenge, but honestly there's nobody better than the people who know Symphony to describe what was ported and what areas will benefit from its code most... Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hello; - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir ... Well, much of the material is on the wiki. And we probably don't want to get too technical. But I can put a draft together at least. OK. Here is a draft: https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo I would think that the people that started this issue are not really interested in the specific enhancements or new features. I would also think that the target audience of the blogs are mostly non technical so I would suggest: -When listing the bugs fixed drop the bugzilla issue number (it says nothing to a non-technical reader) and the [From Symphony] tag which is redundant. Stand back, I know regular expressions! http://xkcd.com/208/ Done. - People will prefer screenshots if possible. A screenshot of Symphony and specifically the sidebar would be nice. I agree. Hopefully someone in Beijing can point me to one. -Rob Pedro.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 11/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. Regardless of what prompted the discussion here, a specific blog post about what the Symphony contribution specifically has meant for OpenOffice would probably be very informative for our users. It would also be a nice way to show that formerly proprietary code was incorporated in OpenOffice and is now available to other products that can integrate it (and actually, in a few cases, probably already did). Of course, no need to post it today, and especially no need to post it with the aim of refuting misleading claims... I'm just saying that the discussion here suggested that the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure. Agreed. So I am glad then that you made the call for additional blog authors. It is probably best if the Symphony contribution is acknowledged, etc., by a non-IBM project member. That would make it harder to dismiss it in some quarters. -Rob Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 1/10/13, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Rob, Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to it. I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. Playing devils advocate here, I would say that there is no feature or design element in the current 3.4.1 version of AOO that resembles Symphony nor its functionality. That said I never really used symphony except the screenshot and the casual youtube video but as a user I would expect an option to switch the UI to the panes that made Symphony stand out from the rest of the OOo forks back in the day. Also not even sure, how much of the old old IBM workbench authentication and collaboration features really held to Symphony and eventually to AOO. So bugfixing is nice, but as a user I expect for bugfixing to happen, but I would have expect much more for a product incorporation. (i.e. Homesite merge into Dreamweaver in 2002, the code editor got so much more usable) and that only took 6 months to do the product merging.) I would have expect maybe 3.5 or 4.0 to have a functional and easy way to do a one click UI change to the pane views. And be able to connect have collaboration features at least present on the Options dialog to connect it to some messaging-backend system. Or alternatively some IBM hosted extensions for their products. -Rob Thanks Drew On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff and IBM faked the donation of the Symphony code and IBM did not donate anything. Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? I assume he is confusing two different things: 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would have required additional work from the project, including IP Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. Maybe the belief was that the slow merge was not for real? It certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that forthcoming AOO 4.0 will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; this process will continue throughout further AOO releases or words to that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release? -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On 1/10/13, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Rob, Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to it. I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. Playing devils advocate here, I would say that there is no feature or design element in the current 3.4.1 version of AOO that resembles Symphony nor its functionality. That said I never really used symphony except the screenshot and the casual youtube video but as a user I would expect an option to switch the UI to the panes that made Symphony stand out from the rest of the OOo forks back in the day. Right. I doubt there is much in AOO 3.4.1 due to Symphony. The merging work was occurring in the trunk while the AOO 3.4.1 work happened in branch. This was true for bug fixes as well as UI enhancements. Expect to see this in 4.0. -Rob Also not even sure, how much of the old old IBM workbench authentication and collaboration features really held to Symphony and eventually to AOO. So bugfixing is nice, but as a user I expect for bugfixing to happen, but I would have expect much more for a product incorporation. (i.e. Homesite merge into Dreamweaver in 2002, the code editor got so much more usable) and that only took 6 months to do the product merging.) I would have expect maybe 3.5 or 4.0 to have a functional and easy way to do a one click UI change to the pane views. And be able to connect have collaboration features at least present on the Options dialog to connect it to some messaging-backend system. Or alternatively some IBM hosted extensions for their products. -Rob Thanks Drew On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff and IBM faked the donation of the Symphony code and IBM did not donate anything. Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? I assume he is confusing two different things: 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would have required additional work from the project, including IP Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. Maybe the belief was that the slow merge was not for real? It certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that forthcoming AOO 4.0 will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; this process will continue throughout further AOO releases or words to that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release? -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 11/01/2013 Rob Weir wrote: In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. Regardless of what prompted the discussion here, a specific blog post about what the Symphony contribution specifically has meant for OpenOffice would probably be very informative for our users. It would also be a nice way to show that formerly proprietary code was incorporated in OpenOffice and is now available to other products that can integrate it (and actually, in a few cases, probably already did). Of course, no need to post it today, and especially no need to post it with the aim of refuting misleading claims... I'm just saying that the discussion here suggested that the Symphony contribution in itself is worth to be properly acknowledged and get exposure. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 1/11/13 10:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: 2013/1/11 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that peak level of paranoia. Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source software world in general. Anyone who cares to look can see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside from a brief mention in the top 10 questions posts), not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility. Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored. But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and timing of a post to correct such misinformation. In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release, including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity, performancereliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story. If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author. Thanks! In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already. We can simply do more in this area. The key point here is that people take responsibility, for example using Herbert's script and convert the output in the wiki to document it. We can play with different styles how to present such info best and where. Juergen
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 1/11/13 10:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu wrote: 2013/1/11 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that peak level of paranoia. Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source software world in general. Anyone who cares to look can see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside from a brief mention in the top 10 questions posts), not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility. Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored. But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and timing of a post to correct such misinformation. In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release, including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity, performancereliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story. If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author. Thanks! In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already. We can simply do more in this area. I must have missed this. What is Herbert's script? We might be able to use it for the documentation team as well, since we're thinking of authoring the doc on the wiki first. -Rob The key point here is that people take responsibility, for example using Herbert's script and convert the output in the wiki to document it. We can play with different styles how to present such info best and where. Juergen
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On 11.01.2013 13:59, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: [...] In general we can improve our communication to the public. We can more often talk about what we are doing, or can collect on a regular base the fixes we have made. Herbert prepared a nice script that we can use. New and bigger things can we highlight separately as we partly did already. We can simply do more in this area. I must have missed this. What is Herbert's script? We might be able to use it for the documentation team as well, since we're thinking of authoring the doc on the wiki first. Please have a look at its sample output for developers [1] or users [2], the thread Script to get infos about development snapshot differences [3], or the script itself [4]. [1] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/izlist1.htm [2] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/izlist9.htm [3] at http://markmail.org/thread/dtlfvv2ztfvtw47v) [4] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/scripts/svnlog2info.py Herbert
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/1/11 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that peak level of paranoia. Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source software world in general. Anyone who cares to look can see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside from a brief mention in the top 10 questions posts), not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility. Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored. But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and timing of a post to correct such misinformation. In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. IMHO, we can consider a blog post about our progress on the 4.0 release, including the contents we are working on, e.g. fidelity, performancereliability, accessibility, usability, enhanced platform support... Symphony's contribution is part of this story. If we decided to post it, I'd like to be the co-author. Thanks! - Shenfeng (Simon) Yes, this is a good idea! I would suggest we wait until the 3.4.1 re-spin is done on Jan 24th to do this, though. I could have sworn that when we put out the blog post on Nov. 21 for Marketing volunteers that we had a link in to the release planning for 4.0 -- this would be https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Planning-- but I don't see a link now looking at: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/. So, hmmmmaybe a new blog on 4.0 status would help? -Rob Regards, Andrea. -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff and IBM faked the donation of the Symphony code and IBM did not donate anything. Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? I assume he is confusing two different things: 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would have required additional work from the project, including IP Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. Maybe the belief was that the slow merge was not for real? It certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? -Rob Don
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: Rob, Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to it. I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. -Rob Thanks Drew On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff and IBM faked the donation of the Symphony code and IBM did not donate anything. Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? I assume he is confusing two different things: 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would have required additional work from the project, including IP Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. Maybe the belief was that the slow merge was not for real? It certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that forthcoming AOO 4.0 will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; this process will continue throughout further AOO releases or words to that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release? -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Am 01/10/2013 11:11 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni: Hello; - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: Rob, Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to it. I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. The TDF director and Marketing Lead does no development and doesn't really have any idea what is going on here. Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me like he just wants to bring some attention to his project. Pedro. Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in the UI and accessibility. So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be appropriate. My 2 ct. Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Hello Marcus; - Messaggio originale - Da: Marcus (OOo) I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. The TDF director and Marketing Lead does no development and doesn't really have any idea what is going on here. Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me like he just wants to bring some attention to his project. Pedro. Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in the UI and accessibility. The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until 4.0 takes shape. So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be appropriate. Me wonders what is the usual way ;-). Pedro.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hello; - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Drew Jensen wrote: Rob, Are you referring only to the email on the TDF mailing list - I know which one that would be I'm sure, and I drafted but then did not send a reply to it. I ask because I did not see that go any further then the ml, but that doesn't mean that it didn't. I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. The TDF director and Marketing Lead does no development and doesn't really have any idea what is going on here. Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me like he just wants to bring some attention to his project. Pedro. I think we're back to please don't feed the trolls on this one. No blog or additional attention necessary. It seems this may be isolated to a single individual. Anyone can review the commit logs. -- MzK No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. -- Aesop
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Am 01/10/2013 11:40 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni: Hello Marcus; - Messaggio originale - Da: Marcus (OOo) I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. The TDF director and Marketing Lead does no development and doesn't really have any idea what is going on here. Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me like he just wants to bring some attention to his project. Pedro. Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in the UI and accessibility. The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until 4.0 takes shape. So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be appropriate. Maybe, it was just a thought why it would be good this time. Me wonders what is the usual way ;-). Kay has described it perfectly. ;-) Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Am 01/11/2013 12:03 AM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell: On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:53:40 +0100 Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 01/10/2013 11:40 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni: Hello Marcus; - Messaggio originale - Da: Marcus (OOo) I learned about these claims via email, but not from the TDF mailing list. But I would not be surprised if it originated there. In any case, when a TDF Director and Marketing Lead makes such claims, it carries some weight, and if utterly false the claims should be rebutted. IMHO. The TDF director and Marketing Lead does no development and doesn't really have any idea what is going on here. Why is that surprising or why should we blog about it? It looks to me like he just wants to bring some attention to his project. Pedro. Because it's not a relatively small part but the Symphony code will (IMHO) play a bigger role in coming AOO releases, e.g., improvements in the UI and accessibility. The code is in the tree, we have Wikis describing the changes and we have people working on them. I don't think we gain anything by getting drawn into a communication war about this. Let's wait until 4.0 takes shape. So, I think in this case an exception from the usual way would be appropriate. Maybe, it was just a thought why it would be good this time. Me wonders what is the usual way ;-). Kay has described it perfectly. ;-) Marcus I would suggest merely an informative blog, not in reply to anyone, a blog telling of what was happening in the AOO world and what work was currently under way. Of couse things are mapped out on the mailing lists, but the world of AOO users is far wider than those and they deserve to be kept informed. Sure, I don't thought about a direct reply but as you suggested to write in general. Marcus
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Rob Weir wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that peak level of paranoia. Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source software world in general. Anyone who cares to look can see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside from a brief mention in the top 10 questions posts), not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Drew Jensen drewjensen.in...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_** Improvement_Since_AOO341http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 Thanks so much, I was looking for just such a page the other day and missed that. That same page was linked to in the blog post we posted from last week. -Rob
Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects ... I can certainly sympathize with leaders of communities that can only be held together by irrational fears. It is not easy to maintain that peak level of paranoia. Your personal opinions on the people involved (I admit I have very little context, I only had the time to read the discussion here but nothing else so far) are best kept separated from the important fact, that is that apparently incorrect information is being circulated about the benefits that the Symphony donation is bringing to OpenOffice and to the free/open-source software world in general. Anyone who cares to look can see that we've actually integrated quite a but of Symphony code into the AOO trunk already. For example, the following 167 bug fixes People don't care to look, unfortunately... But I definitely agree that this listing is impressive, as it is this page: http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341 If you manage to co-author a blog post with Shenfeng Liu (or someone else from the former Symphony team) about the integrated fixes/features, this will be an important service to the OpenOffice users. But please, let's do it because it's important in itself and because it's clearly overdue (aside from a brief mention in the top 10 questions posts), not because someone feels the need to address some particular wrong or misleading claim. Clarifying the facts where misinformation is being spread is part of the necessary communications that any project needs to engage in. We saw that as a podling, when the ASF itself addressed misinformation regarding this project. Now this is our responsibility. Of course, misinformation about insubstantial matters is best ignored. But where misinformation is propagated about substantial project operations, then that is sufficient motivation for the contents and timing of a post to correct such misinformation. In any case, pointing out the lie on this list already gives 90% of the benefit, since such FUD cannot survive the light of day. A blog post is unnecessary. -Rob Regards, Andrea.
