Enrique wrote:
I do wholeheartly agree with you Daniel that JCA is not appropriate for add-ons. Regarding your proposed "testing" release, I see it not like a kind of "stabilized" developing branch. I would think of this "testing" more like a "OOExtras/OOMacros included" site.
A distribution of OOo based on latest _stable_ and with submitted macros and add-ons alarady applied. [snip]
I think that in this other way new functional additions by the community could be tested and polled (if one macro/addon is widely used, you have a quantitative basis to support claims for inclusion on core codebase).
That's a fascinating idea. I like it. It wouldn't be testing of the code itself, but testing whether a functionality is desirable, works well, can be reasonably implemented, etc. That could work out well.
Sun enginering process would be speed up by having a functional prototype working. (It is not as in: "I want word-count", and then "no, not _that_ word-count, this other way"; but as in "RFE: this is the BASIC working prototype, rewite to do the same in C++")
I like that idea. A working prototype can styll be of value. And if we're lucky, after the add-on is mature, maybe /then/ the author will decide that the JCA is not such a bad idea.
I mean, if I have a working add-on, it works well, people love it, and I have the promise that it will go into the OOo tree... I would be much more willing to sign the JCA to see it happen.
This "testing" site should have any legalese needed to warn that it include third-party, non-Sun developements etc: "use at you own risk"
Yes. We'd probably have to host this on some other server to keep Sun's legal team happy. But that can be arranged.
Cheers, Daniel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
