Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Hi Thorsten, Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: Simon Brouwer wrote: The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is yes. And another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass. All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ... While I fully agree that the commit history is of value, I do not see the need to include them when switching to AL. IMHO it is perfectly legal for anyone to clone the currently available repositories and archive them and also make them available publicly. So those information will not be lost, this is the internet :-) This is not an argument against having the history, I'm perfectly fine with that solution also. But in this case my personal preference would be to start clean. Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Hi Steve, Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran: [...] The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just vanishes. They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is different. to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the active knowledge goes along with their departure That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound to the salary :-) Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Corporate Contribution [Blondie's Parallel Lines...]
Hi Steve, Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran: [...] The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just vanishes. They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The turnover/year may be the same, but the way the turnover happens is different. to make things worse, because the paid FTEs tend to work full time on the projects, they understand the code well, gain committers status through their contributions, and so when they go, a big chunk of the active knowledge goes along with their departure That are valid concerns. What I like to point out that at this moment I count at least 7 Oracle people who want to contribute as an individual. So I think this is an indication that there is a strong interest in the project itself that is not directly bound to the salary :-) Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Am 06.06.2011 12:02, schrieb Christian Lohmaier [...] - Sam Ruby raw numbers: wc -l repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst 69076 repo.lst 39616 sorted_ooo.lst So even calling this seems to include the full repo and that even twice is either with malicious intent, or with no clue. Christian Lippka really should know better, but had stated this at least twice. Close to 3 files gone, who cares source seems complete.. I never said I did an analysis on the files. This would have made no sense since as an oracle employee I'm missing an unbiased view even so I'm on this list as an individual. My interest was just if this list contains additional modules not available at OOo which would have been an interesting FYI for others. My apologies if my understanding of seems is imperfect as I'm not a native speaker. At least I haven't stated it thrice, who knows what I could have sommoned :-) While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. Regards, Christian Disclaimer: These are my opinions as an individual interested in the future of an open source office suite. I do not speak for my current employer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: List of files covered by the OpenOffice grant
Hi Sam, thank you for the list. From a first glance it looks like that this is exactly the same set of sources that is already available in the OpenOffice.org repository. I do not want to imply that this is too much or too little, just a FYI for those interested and to lazy to compare for themselfs :-) Regards, Christian Am 05.06.2011 12:43, schrieb Sam Ruby: I extracted the text from the Grant. It needed some minor cleanup (for example, to remove page numbers). It is possible that I introduced errors in the process, but that seems unlikely given how clean this data was. In any case, in the event that there are any differences the original grant is authoritative. Without further ado, here are the list of files: http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt I do not recommend accessing this page via a dialup connection as this list alone is ~1.75Mb - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. This set of sources in itself is already build by many individual contributers. So while there may be more in Oracles posession, the given source set is IMHO a valid starting point for an OOo reboot. Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Am 05.06.2011 21:34, schrieb André Schnabel: Hi, Am 05.06.2011 20:24, schrieb Simon Phipps: I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are they, and how much of a problem will that be? I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the actual release. I have no deep knowledge of the OOo repository, but at least the are that I worked on the last couple of years seems to be missing: translation. There should be a bunch of .sdf files covering some 500k words in ~100 languages. Would be a pity if it was forgotten for OOo, as the translation servers at OOo are down for quite a while now and nobody is answering any request on bringing them up again. Furtheremore all the artwork (icons, branding elements) seem to be missing. I'd expect some .png, .gif or .ico files in the list. Yes I can confirm this. The gap was so big that I looked right through it. Nice catch. Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer: Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef: Hi Ralph, Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers: On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in on topics more relevant to this list. But maybe that is just because it was Saturday :-) Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the libreoffice lists at this point. What I am still waiting to hear on are: 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us under the Apache License. Not a blocker for starting incubation. IOW we don't ask for this level of detail from other podlings. It might be a blocker for my vote. You are, of course, free to vote differently. This is a much larger project than usually enters the incubator. I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of work to deal with it will kill the community. If I understand you correctly, your question is if the supplied set of source files is missing something to make this a working project. As stated earlier, the list of source files provided look like a 1:1 copy from the mercurial repository available at OpenOffice.org. I was looking at that, but I have the impression that the source code for a number of external projects is not present in the mercurial checkout and still has to be retrieved as part of the building process. There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth mentioning, in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt... It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/ Yes and no. Usually external project would be build in modules like stlport, openssl etc. The archives with the sources would be in the above url. But what is missing are the patches to those external source archives. Those patches usually contain modifications so that the source in questions builds in the OOo build environment and also on all platforms supported by OOo. Then it may also contain additional changes or fixes that are not yet upstreamed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial vs. Git
Am 02.06.2011 22:40, schrieb Noel J. Bergman: We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code and it didn't work well for a project this size. Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the problems you experienced with Subversion. Our infrastructure team, working closely over the years with the Subversion team, has done wonders to get Subversion working for the ASF. We've often been their canary in the coal mine. :-) I'm afraid that having the luxury of full time release engineers at StarOffice/Sun/Oracle kept me away from the gory details. I just heard them complaining often. As a developer I noticed unacceptable delays when committing changes. The core of this issue may be the childworkspace handling we had at OOo. More precisely the re-sync process where you had to do frequently to merge changes from the master in your childworkspace branch. The main complain from release engineering was the integration of said childworkspace branches into the master took way to much time. Overall the performance compared to CVS we used before was worse. I agree that svn may not be a problem if you have a series of small patches. But usually on OOo with medium to large features a lot of files needs to be changed and it often takes some time until it is mature enough to be integrated in the master. Having a local repository to work on and share with others is also a plus. But starting with svn should not be a problem either, just wanted to point out that git or mercurial would be preferred from the majority of existing OOo contributers. Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Development infrastructure and methodology for OO
Am 03.06.2011 14:52, schrieb Benson Margulies: Here is a thread for some infrastructure implications of an OO podling. Things to note: 1. OO is very large. 2. OO is a good-old C++ giant. It's not 'build once, run anywhere'. It has to be built many times in many configurations to maintain regression testing. There is, in short, a detectable dollar cost in build machines to run all the builds needed to keep up with it. Yes, build machines are something that is needed, since not all developers have two linux flavors, a windows and a mac system available at all times. Fortunately, the software to do automated builds on dedicated machines connected to the web is already available. 3. OO has a well-establish development methodology which will be new and interesting at Apache. It is a very branch-intensive methodology, involving these CWS things. This, I think, is the root of the 'oh, no, svn' traffic. I've never seen extensive bi-directional merging work well in svn. If there was ever a job for a dvcs ... While personally I favor the CWS thingy, there are other opinions on this. So this may be a process that needs to be re evaluated. What I'm currently thinking about is a model using both svn and a dvcs in the short term. Having development of medium to large code changes take place in self hosted git or mercurial repositories. Providing an infrastructure of build machines so that interested and QA community members can request builds to check out work in progress stuff. If the work is deemed to be stable enough for the master it could be transfered from the dvcs to svn. IMHO, this is a practice that Novel used for the go-oo fork before OpenOffice.org switched to Mercurial. Regards, Christian Disclaimer: These are my opinions as an individual interested in the future of an open source office suite. I do not speak for my current employer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
OpenOffice - Wiki - Required Resources - Subversion vs. Mercurial vs. Git
Hello, The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as a required resource. We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code and it didn't work well for a project this size. I do not like to start a religious ware so from my point of view both git or mercurial should be fine and preferred over subversion. Regards, Christian Lippka - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
