Pavel Janík wrote:
From: James Mckenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:30:40 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Looks like I can't visually parse your message because it looks like if you
wrote what I have written and your new words are already cited (and thus
look like I wrote them). Hmm. I'll try to parse it using brain.
> Hmmm. Ok, I'll 'byte'. I will look at Eric B's FTP site to see if he
> has a set of build instructions for his last successful build and see
> if he has a listing of the patches he used.
You wrote that no one is publishing what he does. I disagreed with you
because at least one of the other builders is publishing everything he
builds (the negative of everyone doesn't is at least one does). I do not
know about Eric B., but I publish *everything*. Have you ever seen the
build script of my build system?
Ok. I 'stand corrected'. However, I don't know where you keep your
information.
> I work with on a daily basis. What I meant to say, 'Is I hope that
> SUN merges back into the 1.1.x branches, improvements made in the
> 2.0.x branch that bring further functionality, after 2.0 is released.'
And again: this is principal misunderstanding of the OpenOffice.org
development model. 1.1.x is stable. My prediction is that 1.1.5 is the last
version in 1.1.x series and if there will be 1.1.6, it will fix only
*minor* issues in ODT support because no developer (Sun or community
developer) wants to spend time with it... Sun (I can't speak for them
though) is surely not going to invest more time into old releases. Do you
remember people investing time into 1.0.x when 1.1.x was out?
I was not around when 1.1 was published. I was using Linux at that time
and was getting OOo on a downstream basis, which I admit is not the best
way to keep current with an ongoing project.
> that cannot fully upgrade to the 2.0 version. Things like the ability
> to read ODT formatted files would be very nice.
You must fall from moon yesterday ;-) Version 1.1.5 that is now in RC2
phase *can* read ODT files. See
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=releases&msgNo=8641
where it was announced. It was Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:49:51 +0200.
Again, thank you for the update. Does this include a MacOSX release?
> 1.1.x is old stable branch. We are all now working on the development
> branch to make it the new stable branch.
This looks like I wrote it :-) Hmm yes, I really wrote it.
> I agree that 1.1.x is old. However, that does not mean that we should
> stop development in this branch and bring into it, features that will
> be in the 'new' 2.0 series.
Yes, you described exactly what OpenOffice.org project *will be doing* :-)
Good. I think that we should ALL concentrate on getting OOo 2.0 to a
stable release version.
> True, that is why I'm suggesting going BACK to 1.1.x AFTER 2.0 is out.
No ;-)
Why? All I'm suggesting is adding ODT read and possibly security
features. I'm not suggesting a complete rework of 1.1 to be a second
2.0. There are folks out there that do not have systems robust enough
to run OOo 2.0.
> Right now it appears that there is effort being used to put
> funtionality back into the 1.1.x (SRX645 branch) that is not fully
> tested on the SRC680 branch.
Sorry? Can you point to some example?
I don't know if the ODT capability has been tested completely. If there
are problems with it, then it makes no sense to put it into 1.1. If it
has, then adding the ability to read/write ODT formattted files makes sense.
Again, a focus should be to get more than one or two builders/testers to
check out OOo 1.9_mxxx. If your code is pubically available, please
post the URL.
Thank you.
James McKenzie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
