Hi all,
Am 01.09.22 um 23:16 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi all,
On 01/09/2022 22:47, Michael Meeks wrote:
I would expect the ESC should intervene and cut out the
politics.
I believe that politics have nothing to do with what happened.
Your grep shows that there aren't that many "lool" that could be
renamed "cool" by mistake so I guess it's unlikely for it to happen
again.
I've noticed the very positive and prompt review of this incident by
Thorsten so it's nice to see that solutions that work for all can be
found quickly when the will is there ;-)
I try a bit to give an overview on the latest changes of the file in
discussion:
The naming in the source code contains 'lool' in it until it was changed
five month ago to 'cool'. Thus the original naming was:
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
The change from 'lool' to 'cool' created a break for at least two known
downstream consumer projects.
In my view it is not usual for an OSS project to support within its main
branch downstream consumer projects which make a breaking change in
their own external hosted code.
If we'd do that the next downstream consumer project probably asks
LibreOffice and its voluteers to support a further (naming) break (e.g.
naming it 'silly').
Thus the first solution would be to get the old naming back ('lool') and
fix the break for at least two downstream consumer projects. This was
done with the submitted patch.
Then there were a complain that this would break one downstream consumer
project and I as a volunteer should provide a fix also for that project.
There are two reasons why I think this couldn't be a solution. It's not
a task for a volunteer to fix issues introduced within the external
hosted source code of that project. And if TDF and its community would
do the fix this way another consumer project with a breaking change
could ask for the same.
But if you grep to the LibreOffice source code within core you'll find
out that there are outside this file no other namings of variables ,
functions etc. with 'lool' or 'cool' inside. Thus the naming in the file
could be viewed as used by fault. I share Michael's view in this case. I
grepped also for 'lok' with a much bigger output. Thus as Michael and
also Miklos proposed the renaming with 'lok' instead of 'cool' could be
a solution. But in the end this would break not only one or two
downstream consumer projects but all three known.
If I look at the Python world there are always deprecation warnings long
time before a breaking change. I'd like to avoid the need of such a
time-frame. We currently know that at least three projects are affected
from the naming change. Thus I propose to provide in addition a code
patch and make a pull request to every of this three downstream consumer
projects.
Regards,
Andreas
--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
