--- Gio 12/7/12, Ariel Constenla-Haile <arie...@apache.org> ha scritto: ... > > > > I think we all agree two years is a lot of time. > > We can always start with option I and re-evaluate > > later on. > > > > I would propose the following: > > > > For 3.x Release (x>4) we go option I merging only > > the things that are easy and perhaps a restricted > > set of CWSs. No UI or drastic changes. > > > > For 4.x we go for option II and rebase on Symphony. > > Part of what was done for 3.5+ will likely be useful > > here. > > I still don't understand what ground you have to support > rebasing on Symphony, because as you have answered me > before, you didn't try the build they made, nor > finished building by yourself. So, unless you > started reading the C++ source code, your support is > completely unjustified. >
My current proposal is to continue option I and re-evaluate option II next year. I have been very busy on another project, and you might have noticed that I haven't done anything on AOO lately either but by next year we will surely get the Symphony build issues fixed and we can make a more educated decision. There's no way 4.0 will make it this year so I don't think my proposal is at all disruptive. Pedro.
