--- Ven 13/7/12, Greg Madden ha scritto:
...
I have been testing the Symphony deb packages. The 'properties' area
is a nice feature, not compelling enough to re-base AOO on Symphony.
AOO has progressed, new feaures that I use more than the 'properties
area'.
thanks for the feedback.
Andrea,
Thanks for your comments!
Please see my comments below.
- Simon
2012/7/12 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
On 05/07/2012 Shenfeng Liu wrote:
While per my reading from the discussion, we generally agreed that the
favorite way of integrating the values is to continuously
Hi Simon and everyone;
--- Gio 12/7/12, Shenfeng Liu ha scritto:
...
What hasn't been discussed in detail, and the key issue
to me, is how much OpenOffice plus Symphony would
differ from Symphony plus OpenOffice.
Ideally, finally there will be little difference between
OpenOffice
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Ideally, finally there will be little difference between
OpenOffice plus Symphonyand Symphony plus OpenOffice
when we totally integrated the values from both side.
But I can see in 2 years or even longer time, we can
not
--- Gio 12/7/12, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
I think we all agree two years is a lot of time.
We can always start with option I and re-evaluate
later on.
I would propose the following:
For 3.x Release (x4) we go option I merging only
the things that
On 05/07/2012 Shenfeng Liu wrote:
While per my reading from the discussion, we generally agreed that the
favorite way of integrating the values is to continuously merging Symphony
into AOO, feature by feature. ...
I also noticed that this thread is no longer as active as 2 weeks before.
So I
Hi, all,
It was 4 weeks since Rob raised the topic, and there were a lot of
discussions.
I'm so glad to see that people got more familiar with the values in the
code contributed from Symphony, tried it out, and liked to see those values
to be integrated into AOO future releases. I treat it as a
OK with what seems to be the choice of the majority,
just thought I'd share the experience :).
best regards,
Pedro.
--- Gio 5/7/12, Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Da: Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com
Oggetto: Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
A: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Hi Pedro,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I know rebasing from Symphony option was never very
popular here.
Just for the record, I ran a small experiment in
the Symphony SVN: I used svn merge to bring some
changes from AOO. The process was rather easy
:
Da: Shenfeng Liu liush...@gmail.com
Oggetto: Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
A: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Data: Giovedì 5 luglio 2012, 01:28
Hi, all,
It was 4 weeks since Rob raised the topic, and there were a
lot of
discussions.
I'm so glad to see that people got more familiar
--- Gio 5/7/12, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
Hi Pedro,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
wrote:
I know rebasing from Symphony option was never very
popular here.
Just for the record, I ran a small experiment in
the Symphony
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
It's really disappointing to see uninformed people give
opinions about things they evidently don't understand.
I can't resist :-)
Top posting as a comment on the entire post, and what it is and what it isn't.
In a recent article [1], later quoted in in LinuxToday [2], a
LibreOffice board member was interviewed and made some erroneous
statements regarding Apache OpenOffice and Symphony:
[W]e are looking forward the
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Top posting as a comment on the entire post, and what it is and what it
isn't.
In a recent article [1], later quoted in in LinuxToday [2], a
LibreOffice board member was interviewed and made some erroneous
statements
--- Mer 27/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
Top posting as a comment on the
entire post, and what it is and what it isn't.
In a recent article [1], later quoted in in LinuxToday [2],
a LibreOffice board member was interviewed and made some
erroneous statements regarding
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
It's really disappointing to see uninformed people give
opinions about things they evidently don't understand.
I can't resist :-)
http://xkcd.com/386/
- Sam Ruby
Now I've got Bobby Weir singing One More Saturday Night in my head.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
It's really disappointing to see uninformed people give
opinions
Hello All,
Sorry for top post.
Where are we at? Have we summarized the discussion? Have all expressed
their views?
How might we crystallized our position and move forward?
Regards,
Kevin
On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Rob Weir wrote:
Top posting as a comment on the entire post, and what it
Hi Kevin;
--- Mer 27/6/12, Kevin Grignon kevingrignon...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hello All,
Sorry for top post.
Where are we at? Have we summarized the discussion? Have all
expressed their views?
How might we crystallized our position and move forward?
There is indeed a big problem.
For option I, it is a easy path. Quitely like we will keep going with
it. As we see recently, a lot of patches from Symphony were submitted.
The problem with Option I is some features may never be migrated into
AOO, like Async document loading, property sidebar and some
improvements don't look
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Yong Lin Ma mayo...@apache.org wrote:
Symphony get a java wrapper. That needs more memory footprint.
Symphony also needs more disk space due the java plug-ins and new
templates, clip arts.
There is no java wrapper for the build we are discussing here.
Thank
On 6/14/12 10:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de ha scritto:
...
And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
enhanced A. You won't probably
remove features from A but take
And I'd like to repeat what Rob mentioned in his previous mail, behind option I
option II is in fact an open question: how can we quickly integrate the most
value in current AOO and Symphony together to deliver the next generation of
AOO 4.0? We made a lot of technical study, and either option
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
I. Merge code, from Symphony, feature by feature, into AOO, in a
prioritized order. This is the slow approach, since it would take
(by the estimates I've seen) a couple of years to bring all of the
Symphony enhancements
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
I. Merge code, from Symphony, feature by feature, into AOO, in a
prioritized order. This is the slow approach, since it would take
(by the
Symphony get a java wrapper. That needs more memory footprint.
Symphony also needs more disk space due the java plug-ins and new
templates, clip arts.
There is no java wrapper for the build we are discussing here. The
memory it needs should in the same level of AOO or may be less due to
some
Hello Ma Yong Lin,
2012/6/14 Ma Yong Lin mayo...@apache.org
Yes. Please see FAQ in
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphonyfor more details.
I've tried to install the binary build on Windows 7 after suppressing AOO
3.4 and Symphony 3.01.
Installation : OK
No problem up to now when
Am 06/12/2012 10:53 PM, schrieb Christoph Jopp:
Am 12.06.2012 21:46, schrieb Regina Henschel:
[...]
I do not like version II. It is not about objective reasons, but about
emotions. I'm involved in OpenOffice.org more then ten years. After
Oracle shuts it down, being at Apache gives more the
--- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de ha scritto:
...
And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
enhanced A. You won't probably
remove features from A but take only some of B.
So the decision between
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:19 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de ha scritto:
...
And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
enhanced A. You won't probably
remove
Hi Rob,
Hi all,
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
Our challenge is to find the best way to bring these two code bases
together, to make the best product.
I think there are two main approaches to this problem:
I. Merge code, from Symphony, feature by feature, into AOO, in a
On 6/13/12 11:03 AM, Guy Waterval wrote:
Hi Rob,
Hi all,
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
Our challenge is to find the best way to bring these two code bases
together, to make the best product.
I think there are two main approaches to this problem:
I. Merge code, from Symphony,
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO (and
OOo) enhancements and bug fixes into the new trunk. This approach
quickly gives a new UI, something we could fairly call Apache
OpenOffice 4.0.
Apologies if I missed this, but what
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO (and
OOo) enhancements and bug fixes into the new trunk. This approach
quickly gives a new UI, something we could
On 13 Jun 2012, at 21:02, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO (and
OOo) enhancements and bug fixes into the new trunk. This approach
Sent from iPad
在 2012-6-14，上午4:14，Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 写道：
On 13 Jun 2012, at 21:02, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
II. Use Symphony as the the new base, and merge (over time) AOO
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really not have the java components from Symphony?
Why? Java is an asset rather than a problem.
FC
On 13 Jun 2012, at 23:56, Ma Yong Lin wrote:
在 2012-6-14，上午4:14，Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 写道：
OK, understood. But what was the base version of the fork you've been
porting to? 3.1?
Yes. Please see FAQ in http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony for
more details.
Great,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 13 Jun 2012, at 23:56, Ma Yong Lin wrote:
在 2012-6-14，上午4:14，Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 写道：
OK, understood. But what was the base version of the fork you've been
porting to? 3.1?
Yes. Please see FAQ in
KG01 - See comments inline.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Jürgen Schmidt
jogischm...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 6/13/12 11:03 AM, Guy Waterval wrote:
Hi Rob,
Hi all,
2012/6/12 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
Our challenge is to find the best way to bring these two code bases
--- Mer 13/6/12, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really not have the java components from
Symphony?
Why? Java is an asset rather than a problem.
Oh, you misunderstood .. I *want* them. I even updated
most of our Java
2012/6/12 Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org:
Predictably, I prefer approach I on first principles:
Never derail the train that's running.
I think this is fundamental: big changes on short times will give
enormous problems to the current user base, not only because the
obvious need to learn
that beyond wondering
what it is and if there is an impact if rebasing on Symphony were attempted.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: RGB ES [mailto:rgb.m...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 01:36
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for Symphony
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
(That is the essentially lie of copyleft,
IMHO. The GPL just forces one to disclose the code. It does not
force anyone to actively share, integrate, work through issues, etc.).
1/ Are you publishing this under GPL ? if
Am 12.06.2012 21:46, schrieb Regina Henschel:
[...]
I do not like version II. It is not about objective reasons, but about
emotions. I'm involved in OpenOffice.org more then ten years. After
Oracle shuts it down, being at Apache gives more the feeling of a
translation than of a new
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 14:38 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org
wrote:
Predictably, I prefer approach I on first principles:
Never derail the train that's running.
From that perspective, there's all of this:
- All of the
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 21:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on the wiki
[2], install one of the binaries [3] , or
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on the wiki
[2], install one of the binaries [3] , or
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Graham Lauder g.a.lau...@gmail.com wrote:
I always liked those two choices! My gut goes for revolution, however do I
remember a comment from way back that OOo extensions don't work with Symphony?
That might be a disruption too far perhaps.
Cheers
GL
That's
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:03 AM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 21:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on the wiki
[2], install one of the binaries [3] , or maybe
On 06/11/12 20:08, Rob Weir wrote:
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Hopefully you've had time to review the list of features on the wiki
[2],
First of all let me ask one question:
Can we really not have the java components from Symphony?
We do have Java stuff already and even if it may not seem so,
Eclipse is not really a problem since we can ship Category B
binaries.
I'm curious about this as well. Was IBM's rationale for not
and maintaining both forks.
- Then there's the localizations, etc. that would crash against the
forked support, etc.
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 18:08
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Next steps for Symphony
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/11/12 20:08, Rob Weir wrote:
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make best use of this contribution.
Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org javascript:;]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 18:08
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org javascript:;
Subject: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next
: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 18:08
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
As we wait [0] for the Symphony [1] code to be loaded into Subversion
I think it would be good to start a discussion on next steps of how
we can make
59 matches
Mail list logo
