On 10/19/2010 12:43 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Christian Lippka wrote:
So we have at least 4430 patches included and a maximum of 273 of
patches rejected. Even if all of the 273 where rejected without
reason (which they are not, just read the issues) I suspect
your point is invalid.
Hi Christian,
I wonder why you (without a need) exclude the more interesting
new/unconfirmed/started/reopened patch issues - some of them with
nice 4-digit issue numbers:
http://is.gd/g7jW5
While it is true that there are outstanding patches, it is also true
that - as Joost pointed out - some of them are assigned to developers
that now work on LO. I don't want to pass the buck - it just should
explain that sometimes there may be valid reasons for not integrating a
patch immediately.
Anyway, even if you included these outstanding patches, I hope that you
don't join Jonathan in his ridiculous allegation that Sun had rejected
"the majority of contributions from others". This just isn't true, and
even if we wanted to prove that, we couldn't, as he didn't back that up
with data.
OTOH, the data presented by you and Christian at least proves the
opposite. I know that you will understand what I want to express, but
for others that don't: I don't say that Sun did not reject contributions
(we did, for various reasons, most of the time a missing SCA or that the
patch just was not sufficient), but I deny that Sun rejected "the
majority of contributions". Read the presented data, do the math.
Regards,
Mathias
--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: 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]
