Hi Paolo, hi all,
Am 06.09.22 um 13:39 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi Andreas,
On 05/09/2022 17:50, Andreas Mantke wrote:
(...)
This new patch was merged as signed by me. I wasn't asked if I was fine
with the new patch and I never signed this new patch (and are not fine
with it).
thanks for your summary of the events which, by reading emails and
comments in gerrit, seems accurate.
I see this as a violation and ask TDF to de-merge the patch.
Not being a developer I can't judge if there is a violation of any
rules (BTW are there any standard rules?), maybe others can check the
sequence of events and tell us if that's the best way to manage these
situations.
It's really not fair to turn ones commit into the opposite and sign this
new patch with the original author (of the opposite). How would you
describe such a behavior in the 'analog' live?
I haven't been involved directly in development for the past 20+ years
but following the logic of the patch that has been pushed through,
which doesn't fix Andreas issue, this kind of makes sense to me:
SlideShow.prototype.exitSlideShowInApp = function()
{
if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lok !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lok.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
// FIXME remove this in a follow-up commit
if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers.cool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.cool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
// FIXME notify the community about the standardisation to lok and
remove in 6 months
if (window.webkit !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers !== undefined &&
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool !== undefined)
window.webkit.messageHandlers.lool.postMessage('EXITSLIDESHOW', '*');
}
I thought that the developer that pushed through and merged the
current patch could have thought about it to fix the original requests
but if it helps then please do merge it in.
I think about submitting a new patch and let's see if this will not be
turned into the opposite again.
In addition: in my opinion there is much space for improving the
interaction with volunteer developers inside the LibreOffice community.
But maybe this only my opinion and everyone else is fine with the
current process.
Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and the delay in answering back
due to the fact that you couldn't login into gerrit might have led
some to believe that you didn't want to interact with the issue and
the proposed changes.
I don't judge about this. I find the work with Gerrit sometimes not very
intuitive.
I'm sure everyone involved will look objectively at what happened and
will help in improving communication and processes.
I think it is in the interest of the board to foster a good
communication behavior inside the LibreOffice developer (volunteer and
paid) group. And I hope it also a goal that every developer (independent
from his role and skills) will be treated sympathetically, thus she/he
felt very welcome inside the community.
In addition I think it is also in the best interest of TDF/LibreOffice
community to establish such behavior/environment between volunteers of
different areas of contribution too. In my view there is no superior
group of volunteers. All talents and a different sort of contributions
are needed to drive LibreOffice and it community forward and make the
project successful.
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
