Re: [tdf-discuss] Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions
Kohei: That's the wrong assumption I was trying to point out. It's not always applied as-is, and in fact it's rare that patches be accepted as is. Even we don't do that too often. Nonetheless, saying it's better for us if you don't submit your patches to OOo is kind of like saying Lets hope OOo don't spot this bug/issue. It's ethically dubious. If this is the official approach, then why not just make a clean break with OOo and not even try to merge in any future OOo code changes with the LO code? Phil Hibbs. -- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions
Kohei Yoshida: So, as Michael says, I'm not a big fan of people submitting patches to both projects. And yes, it will create extra work for us but not necessarily for them since we pull their changes but they don't pull ours. That's kind of like saying, lets keep working on our project, but hope that OOo stagnates and doesn't change. Any time OOo changes in an area that LO has patched, you will encounter this kind of problem. If ODF fixes a bug, it's likely that the OOo people will also fix that bug, possibly in a very different way. So, it isn't really making more work, given that this is going to happen anyway, and submitting the bug fix to both projects will simplify things where OOo accept the patch more or less as-is. Which would you prefer, OOo and LO both apply Patch X, or LO applies Patch X and OOo applies Patch Y? Phil Hibbs. -- Don't you just hate self-referential sigs? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Google now integrates with MSO, what about Libre/OO?
A word of warning when using Google Docs in combination with ODF - Google usually goes with Excel behaviour rather than OOo/LO behaviour. For instance, they've always used the comma for parameter separation in formulae rather than semicolon (although it exports and imports ODF ok), and their random numbers re-randomize every time anything changes, whereas OOo/LO only re-randomize a cell when it changes. There is a more serious problem, that Google Docs will export a non-working ODF spreadsheet if you use an entire column range, e.g. =SUM(A:A), which OOo/LO do not support. Phil Hibbs. -- Don't you just hate self-referential sigs? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored
Ian Lynch: And of course there is the argument that without certain features some of the large public sector switches might not have happened. Back in my teens, my dad and I wrote a Basic interpreter for the PC based on the Acorn BBC Micro dialect. We went to a computer show, and I lost count of the number of people who just asked Is it 100% compatible?, and when I said no, but..., they just laughed and walked off. It's a hard barrier to break through - there are plenty of people who will say It doesn't have feature X therefore we'll stick with Microsoft. Sometimes it's features that can be worked around, such as only allowing one AutoFilter in a workbook, but someone will use that as an excuse for declaring a show-stop. Phil. -- Don't you just hate self-referential sigs? -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
