Nguyen Vu Hung wrote: > OOo is a very big project( 9.8 MLOC) and it is quite hard to add a new > feature, > or fix a bug. If a local team( or a contributor) shows a bug and tags > it WORK_FOR_ME( a stopper), > chances are they get fixed with very low probability. I don't know what "local team" means. Issues are reviewed by quite a lot of people, not only those in Hamburg. You shouldn't talk so badly about all the wonderful people all over the world that help us to confirm issues. I'm very thankful to them.
If you have an issue that is set to "Works for me" by someone you can work with him to find out how the issue could be reproduced so that it can be reopened. Please understand that if developers can't reproduce an issues, they can't fix it! So help to find out why a problem you have is not reproducible for the QA side. Of course this will need some additional work on your sided, but nobody said that getting involved is possible without doing some work. > Due to the big size, > new comers will find it very hard to get started with OOo. The main > reason, IMO( again) > is that, core coders of the OOo project is not willing to share the knowledge. Sorry, but this is an outrageous allegation that ignores all those many activities we have done to get other people involved. You don't help yourself a lot with that as it damages your credibility. The problem is not that anyone isn't willing to share knowledge, the problem is that people are not willing to accept that getting the knowledge takes more than a few hours. I could show you many examples of people that asked me for help and I invested hours for an answer, explaining things, pointing to documentation etc., but then never got a reply. But all people that replied, bit the bullet and invested the necessary work to get started, got more and more help until they finally reached their goal. > In my case, I am trying to submit some bugs to OOo qa. Most of them > are still there, marked as "NEW" Yes, this is quite normal. As an example, in the Word Processor project alone we have more than 5000 issues. You can't expect that each of these issues will be fixed immediately. We have to prioritize issues. Of course for those that submit issues they usually are the most important ones - but if everything is important, nothing is important! So there must be someone that sets the priorities in all conscience. And of course this "someone" can be wrong at times. But I'm sure that all of these "someones" can be asked if something could be changed in their priorisation. But that would need a kind question, not a bold attack. I change priorities quite often if someone puts a comment into an issue that shows me when I was wrong. But OTOH, when I'm supposed to do the work, I have the right *not* to raise the priority if the arguments don't satisfy me. If you can't accept that and want the developers to be your coding slaves, I can't help. > and a questions pops up in in mind: How OOo treats contributors? How > QA works in OOo? Did you ask on the QA mailing list about that? Or did you have a look on the QA project's web page? If not, please do so, you can learn quite a bit there. > The openness is heart of the Open Source developement model, an open > file format and an open source csv are not enough. > > # Will be there another fork()? I am sure there will be. I fail to see how this is related to a fork. I'm absolutely sure that the problem you have (too many issues remain unfixed) will not be solved by a fork, it will become even worse. As experience shows additional developers in most cases are interested in implementing features, not fixing bugs. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
