On 6/14/12 10:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > --- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> ha scritto: > > ... > >>> >>> And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A >>> as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an >>> enhanced A. You won't probably >>> remove features from A but take only some of B. >>> >>> So the decision between Method I and II is also the >>> decision to work for an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an >>> enhanced Symphony. >> > > I might have missed something but the idea behind both > options is to arrive to the same product, that means > reusing as much available code as possible.
more or less, I doubt that we will achieve 100% in both directions. > > >> Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I. >> > > > It would be interesting to could put the options > in some time metric. > > My guess (and it's only a guess, not an estimate) > ... > > Option I : 2 years. > Option II: 8 months. > we should be careful with spreading numbers based on wild guessing. It requires some deeper analysis. > Personally, I think I will work on both options > at the same time: I do want to have an early > Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start > merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :). you are free in the work you are doing but I think it would be wrong. We should find an agreement on the direction we want to move forward. Our goal is to take the best of both and build the best free office suite ever. We shouldn't split further resources by working on 2 code bases. It will be the completely wrong signal. I am of course against releasing 2 source releases based on 2 different source trees. I am surprised about such an idea Juergen
