Am 30.08.2011 19:08, schrieb Maho NAKATA:
Hi Mathias,
Is it the time to push FreeBSD patches?
Now I'm at Dener to attend a conference, and just now my talk has finished.
I'll work when I go back to Japan. Maybe next Monday or so.
Building on FreeBSD surely is important - and if the patches
Hi Rob;
The FreeBSD fixes surely won't introduce IP problems and have
been up for review in bugzilla for a while, so I would think
your comment is not (dis)regarding the FreeBSD port, but
just concerning the general issue of adding new code.
Now, I understand IBM has some replacements for
For (3) If we do check-ins of changes against compatibly-licensed source, we
are potentially doing check-ins under that license. So we need to be careful
there too. There is more ceremony required to embrace compatibly-licensed code
than the simple procedure for the SGA code (1 and
Hi Rob,
On Wednesday, 2011-08-31 09:22:46 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
It is a trade-off. Right now I think the most important task is to
review the IP of the code and get that fixed where needed. Right now
all code in the repository is in one of these categories:
1) Files that are in the
Hi Mathias,
Is it the time to push FreeBSD patches?
Now I'm at Dener to attend a conference, and just now my talk has finished.
I'll work when I go back to Japan. Maybe next Monday or so.
Best regards,
Nakata Maho
2011/8/30 Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.net:
Am 29.08.2011 17:30, schrieb Eike
On 29.08.2011 15:27, Rob Weir wrote:
I sent this note out a week ago. We discussed and generally agreed to
this proposal. I certainly did not see any objections. But this plan
appears to have been generally ignored.
In particular, we now have unrelated changes intermingled with the
Am 29.08.2011 17:13, schrieb Michael Stahl:
On 29.08.2011 15:27, Rob Weir wrote:
I sent this note out a week ago. We discussed and generally agreed to
this proposal. I certainly did not see any objections. But this plan
appears to have been generally ignored.
In particular, we now have
Am 29.08.2011 17:30, schrieb Eike Rathke:
Hi Rob,
On Monday, 2011-08-29 09:27:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
In particular, we now have unrelated changes intermingled with the
addition of missing files from Hg. This means that there is no
revision in SVN that is identical to the Hg tip. This
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 29.08.2011 17:30, schrieb Eike Rathke:
Hi Rob,
On Monday, 2011-08-29 09:27:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
In particular, we now have unrelated changes intermingled with the
addition of missing files from Hg. This
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
1) Initially, only changes are made to make SVN to more perfectly
match the Hg tip. We know there are 10 or so files that need to be
checked in, with attention to EOL style. And there was a suggestion
to update the memo of the initial checkin.
Am 23.08.2011 13:07, schrieb Stephan Bergmann:
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
...
Two more steps that we might want to phase in somewhere are:
(a) Replace the Oracle/LGPLv3 license headers in all the relevant files with
Apache/AL2 ones. Is this maybe legally important to do
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
1) Initially, only changes are made to make SVN to more perfectly
match the Hg tip. We know there are 10 or so files that need to be
checked in, with attention to EOL style. And there was a suggestion
to update the memo of
Am 08/21/2011 06:48 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
Soon, I hope, the OOo code will be checked into SVN. After that
happens I think we need to coordinate on the next steps. I know that
several of us have code they'd like to check-in, CWS's to integrate,
LGPL code to remove, etc. But let's stage this
On 21.08.2011 19:43, Mathias Bauer wrote:
As there is a lot to do, we need to coordinate. If we had an issue
tracker, we could submit tasks an let people assign themselves to the
tasks. But for the time being we have to do it differently.
we could use the OOo bugzilla, the ooo-dev list or the
Hi;
--- On Sun, 8/21/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Soon, I hope, the OOo code will be checked into SVN.
After that happens I think we need to coordinate on
the next steps. I know that several of us have code
they'd like to check-in, CWS's to integrate, LGPL code
to remove, etc.
On 21.08.2011 20:07, Michael Stahl wrote:
when to branch for 3.4 release is a very good question.
one thing i really don't want to do with SVN is to merge that release
branch back into the trunk (we used to do that with our OOO330 HG
repository, but that was HG... sigh...).
so this would
Am 08/21/2011 08:47 PM, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
On 21.08.2011 20:07, Michael Stahl wrote:
when to branch for 3.4 release is a very good question.
one thing i really don't want to do with SVN is to merge that release
branch back into the trunk (we used to do that with our OOO330 HG
repository,
On 21.08.2011 21:04, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
The golden question is:
When is the right time to branch off for a 3.4 release code line.
Time will tell. :-)
Regards,
Mathias
18 matches
Mail list logo
