Hi Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote:
[...]
AFAIK Heiner and Kendy had already a discussion about some aspects of
this. I guess they are happy to follow-up together with the appointed
people.
I read their mail exchange; it seems to talk about rather odd top-level
svn structures: I'm unconvinced that any innovation at all is required
there. Simply including a set of patches, and a patching perl script in
a sub-directory of OO.o would be entirely adequate I think.
There is no possibility that ooo-build will move en-masse up-stream
until Sun adjusts it's heliocentric view of the universe: we will
require a separate ooo-build, in a separate repository, that works vs. a
fixed up-stream version and contains substantial code.
The trick here of course, is making sure we arrive at a setup whereby
we can work together somehow - and I guess there are several ways to do
that.
Anyhow - I have attached our simple perl script to patch OO.o to:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=90651
Just to clarify the scope; we are talking about work going into the
OpenOffice.org repository in the project tools (or other appropriate
areas) - under SCA. I guess this excludes "most ooo-build patches" as
mentioned in b) below.
Not at all; by number most ooo-build patches are intended to go
up-stream, and tons of them are mouldering in IZ. Of course - there are
still substantial numbers that Sun refuses to take, but that concerns
only Sun.
If not - you know how CWSs work.
Sure - I know viscerally. They work -very- slowly, and they're a royal
PITA.
So let's start with a). Rüdiger would be happy to follow-up with a
counterpart from your end on the framework, including configure, the
continuation of the discussion we had already about the handling of
milestone releases, fixes on master, ...
Sure - well; Petr or Kendy are perhaps the best people to advise on
this work - though we don't have a lot of time to invest in it. Why
doesn't Rudiger propose a concrete solution & we'll discuss it by mail -
I have to admit that I am quite unexperienced with what your patch
framework looks like. That's why I do not have a proposal yet. Thanks
for issue 54423 and the patch you attached, that's a good starting point
for me. I'll see, perhaps ask some more or less stupid questions, and
than come back to you/Petr/Kendy.
the things I would like to see addressed up-front are:
a) where do the patches go
+ what are the commit rules on that place ?
+ CWS + specification + QA on <N> platforms ?
b) how can you (easily) disable up-stream patches
c) how can you (easily) replace up-stream patches
d) who is going to commit & maintain patches up-stream ?
as some suggestions for b) it's possible ooo-build could just clobber
up-stream patches as it unpacks the archive, for c) perhaps having a
patch to the up-stream 'apply' file, for d) I have no good answer.
Regarding a) we will find a good solution, I think. As long as those
things are not part of a masterworkspace I see no need for such
restrictions.
For the other points I am not sure whether I really understand what you
mean, so I do not want to comment them here.
Rüdiger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
