On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:42 +0200, Niklas Nebel wrote: > On 06/10/09 16:51, Michael Meeks wrote: > > What makes you think they are being held back ? the issues around > > DataPilot that Kohei are working on have been communicated quite clearly > > to Sun - eg. i#101328 - how clear can it be: the comment "accepting it > > for 3.2" from Kohei; i#100619, i#22029 both assigned to > > Kohei, all fitting the mould of work we send up-stream. > > > > It seems extraordinarily short sighted, and saddening to try and > > avoid co-ordination on this; it makes it appear that you almost relish > > destroying other people's work by duplication, even when they are trying > > hard to work with you - which is a highly unfortunate and unpleasant > > position. Strangely, sad to say, this is a friction that is not normally > > experienced when dealing with your co-workers. > > > > Despite your obviously offensive mail; to make it easier for IBM to > > review the changes, I've asked Kohei to create a CWS and whack the > > patches in there - please don't do the normal witheringly negative critique, > > they may not be completely ready yet. FWIW, I'm always amused when I ask for > > design review, people prefer instead to rave about commented (or not) > > debugging fprintfs instead ;-) > > There is code that the IBM people want to contribute now, and code that > you advertise as a go-oo feature but didn't contribute yet.
So, what you mean exactly by 'contribute'? I have created issues for my work, has set the status to STARTED, and expressed my interest on contributing. How does that not constitute as a desire to contribute? Obviously that's not too different from the way IBM has expressed their interest in "contributing". Besides, what's wrong with advertising features as go-oo? IBM obviously advertises their features as features of Symphony. How is that different? Please enlighten me. > If you're > changing your mind now, that's good. As I wrote: Then we can try to > merge them (the changes). Otherwise, what else can we do but use the > code that we can get? I am not going to delay integration of IBM's > changes until you decide you've kept your changes to yourself long enough. I have no mind to change here; I have always expressed interest in contributing the DataPilot code back once the code matures & becomes in good shape. Perhaps it is your mind that needs to change; the way you seem to see us (or see me), in a very twisted way, and unwillingness to communicate with us (or me, I don't care the distinction). If you had asked me on the update, and asked me to hurry up on the integration, I would have gladly done so as I have done so in the past when I was asked to do it. > > > So - the context is that Kohei has asked, politely, and reasonably > > asked, to co-ordinate this work so we don't waste effort here - he talks > > of a pipeline of changes in data-pilot, of solidifying the code. And then > > you turned him down: why all this aggressive talk of deliberate work > > duplication ? > > > > If you choose to dig up the past, lets do it: sure - we remember > > the solver, there was my code in there too; we remember your leading > > role in destroying a volunteer's spare-time creation, your tone almost > > sounds as if you enjoyed that. I had always assumed this appalling > > initiative to abuse, divide and stifle the 'Open'Office.org project, > > purely in Sun's proprietary interest, was forced by StarDivisions's > > (visionary) senior management, rather than being cheer-lead by > > individual Sun developers. > > > > Since I see almost nothing defensible about Sun's past action > > here, I would (personally) recommend avoiding raking over it all again; > > why don't we just get on with the technical issues around improving > > the DataPilot implementation. > > For at least two years (2005 to 2007) we didn't start a solver > component, although there was demand and the approach was sketched out, > because I believed Kohei was going to make (and contribute) one. I don't > want the same situation with DataPilot enhancements. So, your mind is unfairly fixed on the past solver issue. Have you checked my track record since then? When did I explicitly hold back my contribution to Calc core ever since that solver incident? Please tell me. I'm confused. Kohei --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@sc.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@sc.openoffice.org
