Re: Definition of draw:angle in ODF1.2 does not fit to implementation
[restoring Cc to libreoffice dev list] The draw:angle attribute has the date type integer. A value of n is interpreted as n*0.1 degrees. Sorry, I would not do that. This would limit the possible precision without needs in a format definition. Tend to agree. Keep the double type, but define a unitless value as being n*0.1 degrees? That's backwards-compatible future-proof. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpIACNEgcSeo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Commit message summaries
Herbert Duerr wrote: I also suggest to mention the issue tracker when referring to an issue number. In the history of the OOo project there were already three different bug-trackers were used. E.g. issuetracker that has been migrated to our bugzilla instance was referred to by the 'i' before the bug number such as #i123456#. Other projects in our ecosystem use similar conventions such as #fdo12345#. If we want to be good citizens in this ecosystem then we should not be egocentric by working as if there are no other trackers and there never have been other trackers. Hi Herbert, yes, I think that would be helpful. There's no pre-Apache history in svn itself, but the code is full of 'i#12345', '#123456' etc. references - deviating from that scheme in commit messages appears needlessly confusing. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpp7mNczGjbA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AOOo in Debian/Ubuntu (Was: Re: /usr/bin/openoffice.org)
Andre Fischer wrote: Yes, as well as a higher code quality. Metrics please, or didn't happen! ;) Cheers from the off, -- Thorsten pgpGf0wXp2F6G.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Mac OS X, Intel] some issue with Apple remote
eric wrote: Unfortunaly, LibreOffice developers who did the commits, did not put my real name as author. Complaints to svn please - e.g. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1195273 Beyond that, thanks for the fixes of course. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgp8jrSk8msmo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anti-grain Geometry (was Re: Solve SVG visualization without cairo and librsvg)
Pedro Giffuni wrote: AGG stays. It's used here: canvas/source/tools/canvastools.flt canvas/source/tools/image.cxx image.cxx is dead code as well. both can go, with agg. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpRpxR25jtd3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice
Jim Jagielski wrote: I agree it needs to be addressed. What is ironic is that this discussion did NOT result in a breakdown of B at all, but rather a breakdown in another entity also not having a policy in place in sharing info with other community members. Hi Jim, since this is ambiguous and leaves the possibility you refer to TDF - the information *was* shared. I may remind you that, at the point of responsible disclosure to securityteam@ooo, the ooo-security@apache list was still in the process of being setup/populated, and there was an ongoing policy discussion here. Really, it seems the breakdown was on this side... Cheers, -- Thorsten pgp8OnzAzzHmo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice
Dave Fisher wrote: I may remind you that, at the point of responsible disclosure to securityteam@ooo, the ooo-security@apache list was still in the process of being setup/populated, and there was an ongoing policy discussion here. When that discussion was settled it seems someone on the TDF side should have taken some initiative to inform AOOo at our list. To not have that happen was not in any spirit of cooperation. Sure. Or print it, and have it sent as a registered letter, to *really* make sure it reaches destination. Committers and PPMC members were aware of the issue, and apparently didn't share the information. 'nuff said, end of story for me. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpzkCkeJTvCg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Hi Jürgen, first off, glad to hear you stay with our code the ecosystem! :) Jürgen Schmidt wrote: From my point of view the reasons for the fork are not longer valid and it should be possible to continue one project, one office together. I don't believe it's helpful to start a discussion by asserting that the other party's motivations are no longer valid. But from a technical perspective it doesn't make sense to split the resources in 2 groups working on more or less the same thing. Oh, I'm perfectly with you on that one! :) It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpYp5tCmwqoi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Not new but under a new hat
Jürgen Schmidt wrote: It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best choice for our users. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that name can only be made by the ASF, or can they? how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO it can be probably handled in the same way. There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball release. So reunify as OOo sounds very much like a non-starter to me. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpuFLhH1B2xa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PLEASE STOP RE: svn commit: r795631 - in /websites/production/openofficeorg:
TJ Frazier wrote: Absent information to the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the authors were Sun/Oracle employees, doing their jobs. That is not accurate. For example the German pages have been (mostly) under the curation of the German volunteer community. Whether submissions to those pages where under the JCA/SCA is unclear to me, and even if, it is my understanding they'd need inclusion of the files in the SGA. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpleTfXWDKT1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fundraising
eric wrote: educoo.us and educoo.de are .. I'd say not correctly maintained (because owned by pro-LO people). nonsense. educoo.de points to your servers, you're free to post whatever content you desire there (yes, I've read Florian's and your answer to this). Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpZdebKfA4Dx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ooo Hg to Apache Extras (was Re:OOO340 to svn)
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I am going to operate from the assumption that it is not appropriate to cherry-pick the OOo Apache Extra into the Apache SVN in any manner, although that code base can certainly be used consistent with the license already applied to it. Does anyone recognize a problem with that (i.e., something critical would be unavailable for use by Apache OpenOffice.org)? Quite. As mentioned before, as yet un-merged CWS like gnumake4 or aw080 represent significant amount of work (order of magnitude: man years, I'd guess). Mathias suggested to extract patches out of those, and have these patches covered by an extended source code grant. That should nicely expedite legal review. Cheers, -- Thorsten pgppOMfIAmazL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fetch-all-cws.sh (was: Building a single Hg repository)
Mathias Bauer wrote: Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that will never be used? The alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review. A somewhat related question would be, until when will the Oracle offer to extend the source code grant last? Since work done by Oracle developers would otherwise be effectively unusable for Apache, even *if* someone then later comes picks it up? Cheers, -- Thorsten, who therefore sees some merit in reviewing them all pgpMgryRkt0e4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
Ross Gardler wrote:
At present the only way I can see to start doing this is to a) drop
the ego on both sides, this is a different world from the one in
which the fork was seen as necessary. There are still fundamental
licence differences, but I am sure that, for many, the licence is less
important than getting results. b) spending some time understanding
one another (for some that will mean rebuilding relationships) in
order to work towards your second suggestion...
Hi Ross,
hm, not sure I like your particular combination of a) and b) here -
understanding the other side should start with admitting that indeed
for a not insubstantial subset of LibreOffice hackers, the license
indeed *is* important. ;)
I don't know OOo or LO well enough to know if there is scope for a
common, well-defined cooperative objective. It would be great if
some people could spend some time considering this. It might well be
that there is little scope for true collaboration. However, during the
proposal phase there were a few people who wanted to explore this.
To be frank - having two projects targetting the ~same {market,
devs, QA, sponsors, code lines, ...} makes this extra-hard. It's
like asking two boys in a dog fight to both voluntarily step back
shake hands - whereas in reality, it'll likely only stop after one
side has won (for some values of win and reality).
From the earlier discussions, the idea to focus on basis
libraries/functionality at Apache, and build applications on top of
that had some appeal to me - also since it appeared to be much more
in line with (most of) the other Apache projects.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
pgpGdTKqJnMiP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
