On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:05 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
also inherit that bug and they haven't fix it mainly because of the
low level technical knowledge to devote to the performance project.
I seem to
Hi Alexandro,
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 03:17 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.comwrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:05 -0500, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Recently i reported a 7yr old bug on memory management, i am sure LibO
also
Hi Lilly,
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 15:44 +0800, Xia Zhao wrote:
Two or three weeks ago we have had lot of discussion against performance,
and I ever statement that we would provide the performance testing data.
Now the manual testing result is got and we will continuous on automatic
performance
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:54 +0200, Regina Henschel wrote:
There are a lot of CWSs in http://hg.services.openoffice.org/. The files
are still under LGPL3. Some of these CWSs are relevant for LO and for
AOO. It it possible to get these CWSs under APL2.0?
Right ! so I've been delaying
Hi Pedro,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 10:36 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
There are no details of the relicensing process but doesn't look
very clean to me:
- They are basically assuming that OOo 3.3.x (where they started
has been relicensed under ALv2, which is not true.
This is
Hi Rob,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
It seems to be based on an interesting theory about what an SGA
actually does. It seems to assume that the SGA itself puts the code
under the Apache License.
Ah - I can see how you get there from the pre-amble; the
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
There is very little code of value in AOO that can simply be copied
as-is into LO and then never touched again. Typically the code will
need to be modified when initially merged into LO. But then, as bugs
are fixed or the feature is
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 12:52 +0800, Yue Helen wrote:
W...a great milestone! Congratulations!
BTW, is there a page/tool we can get the latest download number?
Sure - it's public on the sourceforge page; it's also filter-able, so
you can easily see the download number for eg. the
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 07:45 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
And so you posted questions on his blog, seeking clarifications on
methodology, and he responded.
Apparently my general concern around promoting such content as being
FUD per-se is hard to answer :-) The only interesting thing to me
Hi there,
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:55 +0800, Liu Da Li wrote:
The IBM Connections Extensions lets you to connect IBM Connections easily
It sounds rather interesting.
IBM Connections
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/connections/is social
software for business that lets
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:04 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
No current plans to make source code available. It is a
free-of-charge extension for OpenOffice. I don't believe we have
tested with LibreOffice. You can see the license details when you
install. Standard IBM license for non-warrantied
Hi Andrew / Ross,
Lets try to get to the bottom of this.
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the
project as it moves forwards then here is what to do...
Go to our repository and look to see if it is
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
them ?
The SGAs
Hi Andre,
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 10:35 +0800, Andre Fischer wrote:
Thanks Michael for your analysis.
No problem :-) hope it helps.
I dont't think that copying the files is a problem. After all we are
already unzipping the zlib tar ball to a location of our choosing. Why
should
Hi there,
Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we
have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child
Workspaces (branches in Mercurial).
It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing
patches (ie. CWS), to
Hi guys,
The appended mail was sent to the old multi-vendor security list at
openoffice.org recipients. That seems reasonable - the infrastructure is
coming to an end.
As previously discussed ( to death ;-) [ and I have no particular
desire to re-opening and re-hash the issue ]
Hi Rob,
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 08:11 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
We've discussed this all before, but to reiterate, the previous list
was a security list for a single open source project. It was hosted by
that open source project. I'm not seeing in what sense that was
neutral.
It was
Hi Pedro,
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 06:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
What will happen is that the code will keep the MPL/LGPL3
restrictions in addition to the AL2.
That would be the plan; though our code will -emphatically- not be
available under the AL2; only an MPL/LGPLv3+ [as well as
Hi Pedro,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 16:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
very well ;-).
But wait, did I confuse you with the chap who suggested that Apple's
non-contribution back to
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 08:40 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
amusing that your signature says you are a pseudo-engineer,
Ah ! fair cop :-) that's so people don't take me too seriously, and
hopefully a good reminder to not take myself so;
Hi Rob,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 09:49 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
...
What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that
LibreOffice is something
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 16:14 +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 11/12/2011 Rob Weir wrote:
The practice is to check in such fixes without making it evident to
the observer that it is security-related.
This would be our normal practise too; though we can't edit git history
but we could
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 07:13 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Remember, we had a securityteam mailing list already. LO folks were
subscribed to it.
Sure that list @openoffice.org.
A ~random sub-set of TDF folks are subscribed to it. Requests to have
an administrator for the TDF side to
So,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 13:00 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
I think we are getting somewhere. The last detail is which is the real ML
and which is the forwarder. While the AOOo project might prefer to have
Fair point - for
Rob,
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 07:37 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Just to be clear. No discussion of this new list has taken place on
ooo-dev or ooo-private.
You did read this thread ? it was discussed, inconclusively at length,
and the unhappiness with the status quo articulated quite clearly,
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:25 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
Not sure how much this is like your original proposal, but maybe the
following is acceptable:
(1) The securityt...@openoffice.org continues.
As mentioned, not happy about an openoffice.org domain; LibreOffice is
not
Hi Rob,
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:59 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I just noticed that the LO help website is heavily linked into the OOo wiki.
Thanks for the report :-)
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahelp.libreoffice.org+link%3Awiki.services.openoffice.org
About 732,000
Hi Dave,
First - thanks for being so reasonable :-) it is rather refreshing to
talk details in a pleasant fashion.
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 08:24 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
However, this is moot (does not matter) if the address is not in
a domain that the ASF is responsible.
Fair
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
You are welcome! I'm looking for common ground and I am trying to listen to
logic.
:-)
So where does that leave us ? one approach that hasn't been discussed
(and is perhaps a good compromise) - is for me to go ahead and
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a
non-Sun member of the public) can see was accepted and made
available under the OpenOffice.org open source project.
I don't believe that to be the case. I'm also
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 08:01 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
In my experience lawyers don't tend to add pointless
distinctions into
In your experience with lawyers, did they ever teach you to
misquote and/or modify the legal language in order to bolster
your arguments?
Dearest Rob,
Hi Dennis list,
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
It is not something that can be done unilaterally here on the AOOo podling.
Do you propose that this be discussed at securityteam@ OO.o? It would
seem that is where consensus is required.
Last I checked
So,
It seems despite the promising flower of agreement here between Dennis
and myself; we seem to have failed to attract any volunteers - and an
openoffice.org branded list is not a suitably neutral place.
Which leaves me to suggest freedesktop again; failing any violent
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael. But are there not already TDF
members among the moderators of the securityteam mailing list?
I have no idea - but I suspect not; not that fixing that would meet my
definition of neutral hosting of
Hi Rob,
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 15:26 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
Reading binary file formats, including the legacy MS Office
formats, is notoriously difficult to do robustly.
Agreed.
2) That security reports should be sent to successor project's
security contacts.
..
3) We should list
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 08:03 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
How is it that this reciprocal action occurred and was made known to
the Apache OOo podling ?
Oh - it's quite simple, you ASF/OOo made your decision to not include
TDF guys, and we (without an endless mail thread)
Hi Rob,
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 12:19 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
It does not seem reasonable to publicly excoriate AOOo for having a
private security list restricted to members while you are
simultaneously and without notice proceed to enforce the same policy
for the TDF security list.
It
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 18:33 +0200, Malte Timmermann wrote:
old/original OOo security list securityt...@openoffice.org.
Which of course is highly sub-optimal, since it is an openoffice.org
branded list, soon to be Apache owned - which is not neutral. Apparently
we can't administer it
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 07:56 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
My guess is that mmeeks signed a JCA for his code and
was even willing to get a JCA for libegg too.
libegg is not my code, and is not covered by any (C) assignment I've
ever signed, it was built as an external library we
Hi Pedro,
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 10:07 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I would think that using directly the GTK+ functionality is
something that LibreOffice will want to do too (if it's not
done already).
Certainly, it was done many moons ago.
I am afraid we will have to ask later on
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 14:18 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
that is an interesting point: we currently ship binaries of C++ runtime
libraries in the installation sets.
One thing that escapes a lot of people's notice is that most C++ app
out there on Linux links vs. crt1.o crti.o crtbegin.o
41 matches
Mail list logo
