Am 09/03/2011 02:29 PM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/2/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org
wrote:
Is it worth contacting the authors of these dictionaries to
see if they would consider giving it a license we can use?
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
...
Example 1:
- A posting in LO mailinglist from Sept 2010 says:
Creating a 'bug' saw no action in 3 years
Here is hoping that posting the patch to this
new project will :-)
(There goes one developer that will probably
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
...
As addition:
It's also about code quality and stability.
I have never said the contrary.
Currently we have already a (relative) stable code with the
released OOo 3.4 Beta. So, it would be IMHO not clever to
through in all the new code from
Am 09/04/2011 05:10 PM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
...
Example 1:
- A posting in LO mailinglist from Sept 2010 says:
Creating a 'bug' saw no action in 3 years
Here is hoping that posting the patch to this
new project will :-)
Am 09/04/2011 05:31 PM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Sun, 9/4/11, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
...
As addition:
It's also about code quality and stability.
I have never said the contrary.
Currently we have already a (relative) stable code with the
released OOo 3.4 Beta. So, it would be IMHO
Am 09/03/2011 05:11 AM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Fri, 9/2/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
Is it worth contacting the authors of these dictionaries to
see if they would consider giving it a license we can use?
Simply +1.
Deleting something is easy. However, just asking could
Am 09/03/2011 04:39 AM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
Hi;
I went through the early LibreOffice archives
checking which issues from our database they
considered for inclusion.
I have to say it was a GREAT idea to start
from the tip of the Hg development tree as
most fixes already appear closed
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
--- On Fri, 9/2/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org
wrote:
Is it worth contacting the authors of these dictionaries to
see if they would consider giving it a license we can use?
Simply +1.
No need to vote.. just do it (TM).
Hi Marcus;
The exact flag in bugzilla is 3.4_release_blocker.
Not including *ALL* these 24 bugs for the next release
would be like saying to our contributors that we don't
care about them. We are talking about people that
spent *their* time coding and gave the preference
to contribute to
an issue is definitely in order.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 03:24
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice most annoying bugs
Am 09/03/2011 05:11 AM, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote:
Hi Marcus;
The exact flag in bugzilla is 3.4_release_blocker.
Not including *ALL* these 24 bugs for the next release
would be like saying to our contributors that we don't
care about them. We are talking about
Am 03.09.2011 04:49, schrieb Rob Weir:
Also, someone please close Bugs 96705 and 113874,
they have dictionaries under a copyleft license so
we won't be including them into Apache OpenOffice.
Is it worth contacting the authors of these dictionaries to see if
they would consider giving it a
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
...
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Hi Marcus;
The exact flag in bugzilla is 3.4_release_blocker.
Not including *ALL* these 24 bugs for the next
release
would be like saying to our contributors that we
Am 03.09.11 19:23, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni:
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
...
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Hi Marcus;
The exact flag in bugzilla is 3.4_release_blocker.
Not including *ALL* these 24 bugs for the next
release
would be like
--- On Sat, 9/3/11, Raphael Bircher r.birc...@gmx.ch wrote:
...
Only because a patch it's included in LibO we should not
include it automaticly here. There are many reasons to not
include a pach.
- Lisence Problems
- The Patch is not compatible with other Operating system.
- The patch is
Hi;
I went through the early LibreOffice archives
checking which issues from our database they
considered for inclusion.
I have to say it was a GREAT idea to start
from the tip of the Hg development tree as
most fixes already appear closed (applied
or integrated to a CWS).
The following 24 open
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni giffu...@tutopia.com wrote:
Hi;
I went through the early LibreOffice archives
checking which issues from our database they
considered for inclusion.
I have to say it was a GREAT idea to start
from the tip of the Hg development tree as
most
--- On Fri, 9/2/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Is it worth contacting the authors of these dictionaries to
see if they would consider giving it a license we can use?
My standard boilerplate reply was:
Please note that we will not receive contributions under
copyleft licenses
18 matches
Mail list logo
