Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
At 3:11am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Kevin Hunter wrote: At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers.) Heh, yeah, awhile ago. Had a whole discussion with the Meeks. :-) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-October/001178.html In short: LGPLv3. Having talked with Michael out of band, I'm now convinced of the viability and need for 3+ and MPL. Please accept my patches to the LibreOffice project, both prior and yet to come, as LGPLv3+/MPL1.1. Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: At 4:15pm -0400 Tue, 04 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Thanks a lot for the patch. I think the real intent always was to actually look through all the returned getSuperclasses(), and the error that superclasses past the first one are effectively ignored has never been noticed. Excellent. Was wondering, but don't yet know LO well enough to make such declarations. Well, modulo any errors on my part, the logic I sent in patch 1 should be the same as what was originally there, but I hope easier to read/see for comparison/fixing. Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now changes the semantics of it actually used to do. If you know how to test it ... Yes, that's how I would have done it, too. Pushed now, thanks again. (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers.) -Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now changes the semantics of it actually used to do. If you know how to test it ... Yes, that's how I would have done it, too. Pushed now, thanks again. (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers.) Heh, yeah, awhile ago. Had a whole discussion with the Meeks. :-) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-October/001178.html In short: LGPLv3. I should update that list, but I figure I'm yet a minor contributor, etc. Cheers, Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now changes the semantics of it actually used to do. If you know how to test it ... Yes, that's how I would have done it, too. Pushed now, thanks again. (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers.) Incidentally, do we have a set of tests for this? I wouldn't know where to begin. This was truly a drive-by reading of a commit and surrounding code. Thanks, Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
Hi Kevin, On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 03:11 -0400, Kevin Hunter wrote: (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at .. Heh, yeah, awhile ago. Had a whole discussion with the Meeks. :-) Goodness; yes - that thread is still on my festering and ever growing list of things to do ;-) If I remember you wanted the ability to assign rights to the Document Foundation for your contribution but I'd like to explore that some more. In short: LGPLv3. Well; we need to discuss that. We are asking for the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license from everyone. Having uniform licensing is really important. Without it we will collect large numbers of individuals insisting on the right to veto future LGPL version (eg.) which is highly sub-optimal, as IIRC you agree. I should update that list, but I figure I'm yet a minor contributor, etc. AFAIR we were going to have a call to straighten this out before getting you git push access, and then I dropped the ball: sorry for that. In general, I'm not eager to see any more code / patches merged under the LGPLv3-only, and we'll need to go and clean up our story there - but I'd love to talk about it. Can you mail me privately with your phone # availability (again, sorry) ? :-) Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
On 10/05/2011 09:13 AM, Kevin Hunter wrote: At 2:58am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 10/04/2011 11:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote: Here is a second patch that compiles, /should/ respond to what you just confirmed was the original intent, but is untested. (It was a random drive by patching.) Specifically, I suppose it's obvious that this now changes the semantics of it actually used to do. If you know how to test it ... Yes, that's how I would have done it, too. Pushed now, thanks again. (I assume you already stated somewhere what license your contributions are under, even though that's not explicitly listed at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers.) Incidentally, do we have a set of tests for this? I wouldn't know where to begin. This was truly a drive-by reading of a commit and surrounding code. Unfortunately, there's no good unit tests for this code. Blame it on me for taking the all too easy road out and committing the fix without doing the boring ^H^H^H joyful work of adding a test for it first. That said, people wanting to write unit tests for the introspection stuff would be more than welcome! There's definitely things to unearth there... -Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] [PUSHED] .: stoc/source
At 5:39am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Unfortunately, there's no good unit tests for this code. Blame it on me for taking the all too easy road out and committing the fix without doing the boring ^H^H^H joyful work of adding a test for it first. There's no blame,[1] only hopeful questions. As I already alluded -- flat out said -- *I* don't know how to get at this particular code, and I'm worried that having now corrected the logic, we're changing semantics for some (incorrect) code that relies on the broken behavior. Ah well, I suppose it'll work itself out in the end. Cheers, Kevin [1] It occurs to me that this is a great point for OS software: you *can't* blame anyone. Unlike in proprietary software, where (supposedly) the boss always wants to be able to blame someone ... the flip side is that we're safe as developers, no? ;-) ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
