Yes!
On 03/16/12 03:19, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 3/13/12 6:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
still concerned about the level of commit activity
being on the low-side but I'm hoping post-release
things will pick up as the project starts to push
towards 4.0.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Yes!
On 03/16/12 03:19, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 3/13/12 6:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Yes it's looking pretty good now Ross. I am
still concerned about the level of commit activity
being on the low-side but I'm
On 03/16/12 10:03, Rob Weir wrote:
FWIW,
I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
that I was planning, including updating the internal
python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
afterwards ;).
Would it help if we branched for
On 3/16/12 4:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 03/16/12 10:03, Rob Weir wrote:
FWIW,
I suspended some rather cool but drastic updates
that I was planning, including updating the internal
python and Apache Commons, to ensure a softer
landing of the release. Expect a lot of chaos
afterwards ;).
On 2012-03-14 1:23 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2012-03-13 10:43 PM Rob Weir wrote:
I disagree entirely. Simon was the one apply the blunt instrument
here. He started the day by posting on Google+:
Since there is no currently maintained version of OpenOffice.org
following Oracle disbanding the
Hi,
Le 14 mars 12 à 00:45, Joe Schaefer a écrit :
No silly games were played, unless you mean the line about trying
LO as an interim solution (by Simon). I personally think such a
suggestion is rather offensive with the developers that have been
putting a huge effort for this release.
Yeah
OpenOffice is alive, will deliver and our
users are waiting on our new release.
Juergen
- Original Message -
From: Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012
Seems I spoke a little to early on some of the points below (see Joe's
observations later in this thread)
The project is generally doing very well, but learning to play nice with
those not fully aligned to the one true vision is Spongebob that needs
work.
Sent from my mobile device, please
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Mar 14, 2012 7:50 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I would very much prefer if we can simply concentrate on our project
where we
have enough to do at the moment.
+1
Public squabbles help nobody
, March 13, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Joe
Schaeferjoe_schaefer@yahoo.**comjoe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
snip
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
On 14 March 2012 08:02, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Seems I spoke a little to early on some of the points below (see Joe's
observations later in this thread)
The project is generally doing very well, but learning to play nice with
those not fully aligned to the one true
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have
been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache
OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to
maintain an objective status summary the Apache OpenOffice
After really looking into the project thus far, everything seems
acurate to me. I hope I haven't overlooked something.
On 3/13/12, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I
have been getting an increasing number
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I
have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of
Apache OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith,
to
Hi Simon,
On 3/13/12 5:25 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I have
been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of Apache
OpenOffice from a variety of sources. I'm attempting, in good faith, to
You still say it in a way that I can't support and I think you simply don't
want to accept the reality. Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice. If you don't
accept this fact I am really asking what your intention is?
+1
--
Pavel Janík
Thanks for the comments so far.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 16:36, drew wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 16:25 +, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I
have been getting an increasing number of enquiries about the status of
Apache
Hi Simon,
These are all facts - however they do have a certain negative spin. You
need to be informed.
On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Hi all,
Probably because of all the progress being made towards a v3.4 release, I
have been getting an increasing number of enquiries
On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
...
The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet
requested graduation to a TLP.
A release is a prerequisite to graduation. Once a release has been made
graduation is next on the agenda. Our mentors
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On 13 March 2012 17:17, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
...
The Apache OpenOffice project is still in incubation and has not yet
requested graduation to a TLP.
A release
Thanks, Dave, very helpful.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:17, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Simon,
These are all facts - however they do have a certain negative spin. You
need to be informed.
:-) No better place to come. I'm sorry you found them spun; I felt they were
concise answers to the questions
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
snip
The AOO project team includes a large number of the original
developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new
developers.
The original population was much much larger so large seems
hyperbolic
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:45, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
snip
The AOO project team includes a large number of the original
developers, Symphony developers, community developers and new
developers.
The original
Pavel:
I don't think anybody is arguing that apache open office is, in fact,
open office. Is it really worth splitting hairs over? Just asking.
On 3/13/12, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:45, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:42:01 +
Simon Phipps
On 03/13/12 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote:
Thanks, Dave, very helpful.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 17:17, Dave Fisher wrote:
Hi Simon,
These are all facts - however they do have a certain negative spin. You need to be
informed.
:-) No better place to come. I'm sorry you found them spun; I felt they
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:02:59 -0500
Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/13/12 12:42, Simon Phipps wrote:
No downloads of OpenOffice.org containing bug fixes or
security updates have been made available for end users
since Oracle stopped development.
It needs to be said that AOO 3.4
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I really think this posting is very valuable though.
I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
openoffice.org website.
The public Wiki is probably a better
On 03/13/12 14:45, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I really think this posting is very valuable though.
I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
openoffice.org website.
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
it according to the consensus in this list we publish it in the
openoffice.org website.
OK, I've pulled a first alpha draft together just from this thread at:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:45:19 +
Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:02, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I really think this posting is very valuable though.
I propose that you write them into a FAQ and that after fixing
it according to the consensus in this list we
If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in the original
post (shown below if you really need to see it), please be specific
about which statement and how you would fix the statement. As an
example, some clarification was provided that left me less confused with
respect to the
--- Mar 13/3/12, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org ha scritto:
...
If YOU (the reader) disagree with a specific statement in
the original post (shown below if you really need to see
it), please be specific about which statement and how you
would fix the statement. As an example,
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the derivated software) ?
( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status
+FAQ )
Such link should not appear on the first line : I remember NeoOffice
who derivated the Mac
--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr ha scritto:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
(e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
+1
Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed my line explaining that
Oracle had chosen to given the
: Clarifying facts
--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr ha scritto:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
(e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
+1
Simon added the mention to libreoffice, and he removed my line explaining that
Oracle had chosen
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr ha scritto:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
(e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
+1
Simon added the mention to libreoffice,
I felt it was
Hi *,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the derivated software) ?
(
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Current+Status+FAQ
)
Such link should not appear on
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Mar 13/3/12, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr ha scritto:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ?
(e.g. just put the name of the derivated software) ?
+1
Simon added the mention to libreoffice,
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 21:42 +, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:38, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hi *,
all the 6th point Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
that I am running? sounds like FUD.
... there will be no patches to those earlier binary
On 13 Mar 2012, at 21:46, drew jensen wrote:
Thanks Simon,
I took up your offer and removed the line completely.
I'll not put it back, but I still believe it is appropriate to include the
reference to LibreOffice if not the link. I'd welcome another contributor
editing an appropriate
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
discretion about adoption to the public. Please keep
that in mind, and stick to providing resources
, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
snip
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
discretion about adoption to the public
Hi Joe;
Iwas confused about Simon and his relationship to this project so now
that it's clear he is not a committer or PPMC member, I do respect that
he is entitled to his opinion and he is indeed welcome to express it
here.
That said ...
On 03/13/12 17:36, Joe Schaefer wrote:
At Apache
On 03/13/12 18:00, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
...
On 03/13/12 17:36, Joe Schaefer wrote:
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
discretion about adoption to the public. Please keep
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 23:53 +0100, RGB ES wrote:
El día 13 de marzo de 2012 23:36, Joe Schaefer
joe_schae...@yahoo.com escribió:
You're entitled to a dissenting opinion as an individual,
but shaping the marketplace is not part of what we do
as a public charity. Just look at how the
- Original Message -
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On 03/13/12 18:00, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
...
On 03/13/12 17
On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the derivated software) ?
(
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:53 -0600, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the derivated software) ?
On 03/13/12 18:45, Joe Schaefer wrote:
No, It's really very simple: we have developer snapshots and we
want people to test them. At this precise time we need testers and
people reporting bugs in the release. Bug reports from someone
running LibreOffice are not useful to us.
The question isn't
13, 2012 6:28 PM
Subject: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
snip
At Apache we aren't in competition with other projects,
we provide our work for the public benefit and leave
discretion about adoption
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:07, drew wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:53 -0600, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
all the 6th point Where can I get updates to the copy of OpenOffice.org
that I am running? sounds like FUD.
That is a very common question on
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-03-13 3:38 PM Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:29PM +0100, eric b wrote:
Hi,
Could we remove the LibreOffice link from the main page ? (e.g. just
put the name of the
- Original Message -
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On 03/13/12 18:45, Joe Schaefer wrote:
No, It's really very simple: we have developer snapshots
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
on the responses.
Actually, it's looking pretty good already. My experience of FAQs is that a
good FAQ starts
- Original Message -
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You're entitled
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve consensus
on the responses.
Actually, it's
On 03/13/12 19:30, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
Still arguing from the what's best for the developers instead of what's
best for the general public at this particular point in time. No I'm
not saying that LO advocacy is essential in the interim, but denying
their existence
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a useful
lifetime of much more than the time it will take to achieve
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: Competition (was: Clarifying facts)
On 03/13/12 19:30, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message -
Still arguing from the what's
On 2012-03-13 6:25 PM Rob Weir wrote:
Of course, I'm pretty sure this FAQ thing is all just a berserker
tactic, intending to distract us from productive work. We've seen it
before; we'll see it again. Some of us will even learn.
If you want to do productive work, quit making these insulting
--- Mar 13/3/12, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com ha scritto:
...
If you are volunteering to mentor such a project just go
ahead.
Outside the scope of my interest level, but if you think the
subversion devs punted on svnrdump you really haven't
understood their mindset nor the scope
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
snip
still I don't see why I should consider pointing people
that want to update OOo to LO. I do think now that we
should point more people to Lotus Symphony ... after
all it will be very similar to AOO 4.0 and it's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a
I've updated the FAQ, a bit.
- I made some of the answers more prominent by using bold italic. This adds to
the more wait to answers. I am thinking the questions should be italic and not
bold.
- I added a couple of points.
Larry, I've seen you on the user lists answering questions. Are there
On Mar 13, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
I've updated the FAQ, a bit.
- I made some of the answers more prominent by using bold italic. This adds
to the more wait to answers. I am thinking the questions should be italic and
not bold.
s/the more wait/more weight/
Sorry.
- I
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be better to emphasize the questions that will have a
On 14 Mar 2012, at 01:35, Rob Weir wrote:
Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea.
You've made quite a few edits I see - thanks.
With respect, I think you are making it rather verbose and losing the
easy-to-read bulleted approach.
You are also introducing a style that
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:08, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:54, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 00:25, Rob Weir wrote:
It may be
On 2012-03-13 7:37 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
Larry, I've seen you on the user lists answering questions. Are there any that
you think should be added to this FAQ?
Where can I get support?
forum – http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
mailing list – ooo-us...@incubator.apache.org
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 01:35, Rob Weir wrote:
Allowing a few more brushes in there is a great idea.
You've made quite a few edits I see - thanks.
6 to be exact.
With respect, I think you are making it rather verbose and
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
specific questions.
Since you have essentially
Sorry Simon. Thanks for trying, better luck in the future.
- Original Message -
From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
Typically they are things we we link to and
...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose
everything else, and you are missing that by a country
mile again.
Simon hasn't gone anywhere, Joe. He'll be back in the morning.
- Original Message -
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying
read some Ralph Waldo Emerson some time, you'll be better for it.
So will the rest of us if you can ever learn to relax.
- Original Message -
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On 2012-03-13 8:53 PM Simon Phipps wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's
are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
specific
@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember,
FAQ's
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
which is a shame for both yourself and the project. This
document wasn't 24 hours old before you completely wrote
off Simon's contributions to it. No person
@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You are still not learning anything from what I am saying
which is a shame for both yourself and the project
at collaboration. It was just a tirade
from Simon, spread over three sites/lists. I'm sorry if you can't see
that.
-Rob
- Original Message -
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
On Tue
brought this list to ooo-dev,posted them and demanded
answers and was kindly told that no one was interested in debating
this. No one took the bait.
Do you mean his post starting the thread Clarifying facts? If so, none
of the points he listed are false. He did not demand answers.
So he
82 matches
Mail list logo
