Hi joerg
For the web install, see Mathias' answer. If we support that and make it
easy for anyone to upload their macros to an 'official' repository the
security risk is really high.
I agree (hum almost as i strongly would like a repository :) ), there
should be an audit of every macro/addon
Sophie GAUTIER wrote:
If people saw that, I think we would have made a step forward. Part
of that is seeing that there is progress going on. You know, seeing
light at the end of the tunnel.
imho this is what is worked here :)
Yes, Joerg has been fantastic.
If they can maintain the stability of
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Carrera a crit :
Sophie GAUTIER wrote:
If people saw that, I think we would have made a step forward. Part
of that is seeing that there is progress going on. You know, seeing
light at the end of the tunnel.
imho this is what is worked here :)
Yes, Joerg has been fantastic.
If
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
If people really find something they can't live with they can use use
our processes to get obstacles removed (like the Community Council or
the Engineering steering comittee). But of course, as in any OSS
project, if you can't live with project
Hello Joerg,
Thank you for your input. It's important to hear the developers' side of
the story.
But it is something different to criticize a policy and to
define a viable replacement that removes the problems.
Yes, and that's what I'm trying to do here. Explore options to find a
viable
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
To be fair, I do believe a lot of Linux organisations decided long ago
it was more effective to focus developer efforts on projects where the
patch acceptance ratio was higher (ie GNOME). So contributions are
minimalistic now but don't blame people when there are so many
Philipp Lohmann - Sun Germany wrote:
snip
Face it: the patch acceptance is not that bad, It's just there are not
many patches.
Ok. It seems to be that people are saying that patches are generally
submitted to the Ximian OOo group, rather than the OOo official group.
Um, does anyone have time
On Mer 20 avril 2005 11:04, Philipp Lohmann - Sun Germany a écrit :
Face it: the patch acceptance is not that bad, It's just there are not
many patches.
Quoting (from memory) a developper on a Linux list (answering why a
feature had reverted to a suboptimal state after being fixed during a
Hi Justin,
Justin Clift a crit :
Philipp Lohmann - Sun Germany wrote:
snip
Face it: the patch acceptance is not that bad, It's just there are not
many patches.
Ok. It seems to be that people are saying that patches are generally
submitted to the Ximian OOo group, rather than the OOo official
Hi Sophie and all,
progress has been made here with EIS
Yes, all discuss@ subscribers may want to take a look at:
http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/servlet/GuestLogon
Try Child workspaces. :)
And why don't you try to subscribe the cws-announce.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You will see who
who are acting don't find any more time to report about it.
Right! I can name some Japanese developers and contributors:
Nakata, FreeBSD and Mac OSX porter; Kato, Mac OSX porter; Ono, MinGW
porter; Taniguchi, Solaris porter; and more, they are volunteers who
contribute patches to OpenOffice.org
Kazunari Hirano wrote:
Hi Sophie and all,
progress has been made here with EIS
Yes, all discuss@ subscribers may want to take a look at:
http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/servlet/GuestLogon
Try Child workspaces. :)
thanks for this link - sometimes only cws is mentioned in the issue, so
i
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 19 avril 2005 14:11 +, Andrew Brown a crit :
Erwin Tenhumberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Some people might interpret the article in a way that the ration
between Sun and non-Sun developers is something like 50:14. If that
really was
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 18:08 +0200, Joerg Barfurth a crit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
The atmosphere on ooo lists is so Sun-centric I can understand non-Sun
contributors prefer to work through separate projects like Ximian oo.o.
Huh? It is a fact that the majority of developer are
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
If people really find something they can't live with they can use use
our processes to get obstacles removed (like the Community Council or
the Engineering steering comittee). But of course, as in any OSS
project, if you can't live with project policies, you have to bite
Erwin Tenhumberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Some people might interpret the article in a way that the ration
between Sun and non-Sun developers is something like 50:14. If that
really was the case wouldn't that mean that a little more than 20% of
the features (=
Okay. Hold your horses. Let us not forget one of the most major reasons for SUN
open sourcing this project in the first place. To promote competition. If it
wasn't open source, StarOffice would most likely still be free to non-commercal
customers.
I think SUN's biggest concern was communicating
Erwin Tenhumberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Some people might interpret the article in a way that the ration
between Sun and non-Sun developers is something like 50:14.
Well, I started poking around on Google and found a web chat from 2001,
nine months after OOo had
HI,
Erwin Tenhumberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Some people might interpret the article in a way that the ration
between Sun and non-Sun developers is something like 50:14.
Well, I started poking around on Google and found a web chat from 2001,
nine months after OOo
19 matches
Mail list logo
