Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4DFB4EBB.5050302@web.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:55:23 +0200
From: Jens-Heiner Rechtien <jhrechtien@web.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subversion history (was: Wiki, SVN, other resources)
References: <BANLkTin++dbGRmkjA5gm2G-oN-XTEb59+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DF7979E.4080106@gmx.net>
	<BANLkTinAshGUpUZmVN4x_K07shWfO7=WJg@mail.gmail.com>	<4DF9E686.20209@gmx.net>
	<BANLkTimrAOhJTroMR=c2g-8CYXExQ4iS5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DFAFBDF.5050606@gmx.net>
 <BANLkTimEzWppD+s=JhokiWqPGd75aPATBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DFB138A.5080501@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DFB138A.5080501@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: jhrechtien@web.de

On 06/17/2011 10:42 AM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 17.06.2011 10:01, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Mathias
>> Bauer<Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net>wrote:
>>
>>> If we did it this way, my recommendation would be not to use the
>>> DEV300m103
>>> milestone (that was used in the grant) but the most recent OOO340m1
>>> milestone. This would force me to check my list for any new files,
>>> but that
>>> isn't a big problem.
>>>
>>
>> FYI, from looking at the changesets in OOO340 (tip rev c904c1944462) that
>> are not in DEV300_m103 (rev 1bdfec44e7ce), it appears there are 144 new
>> files (it "appears," because sometimes it is a bit hard to tell moved or
>> split files from genuinely new ones):
>
> (snip)
>
> Most files are "business as usual", so I don't expect problems with them.
>
> Maybe these two files need investigation:
>
>> xmlsecurity/test_docs/CAs/Root_11/demoCA/newcerts/1022.pem
>> xmlsecurity/test_docs/certs/end_certs/User_35_Root_11.crt
>
> And we will probably remove parts of the new package stuff later, as it
> contains AES encryption based on nss code (IIRC).
>
>> The other way around, DEV300 (tip rev 6b24005a31b8) past DEV300_m103 (why
>> was such an old version chosen, anyway?) contains changesets not in
>> OOO340
>> (tip rev c904c1944462), but for new files, this appears to only amount to
>> three harmless ones:
>> offapi/com/sun/star/awt/grid/SelectionEventType.idl
>> toolkit/qa/complex/toolkit/makefile.mk
>> toolkit/qa/unoapi/makefile.mk
>
> That's interesting. AFAIR OOO340m0 was branched from DEV300m106 - I
> wonder why something was integrated into DEV300 past the branch-off date.

The OOO340 codeline contains the DEV300_m106 tag so OOO340 is definitely 
branched of DEV300_m106, which is incidentally also the very last 
milestone we did on DEV300. Using m103 does not make sense at all. But 
if the grant includes all the "work in progress" in the CWSs we can 
easily use OOO340m1 as staring point, as it just contains a few more 
recent CWS integrations. It's almost equivalent as to using DEV300 m103 
and redoing the latest integrations.

Regards,
    Heiner

-- 
Jens-Heiner Rechtien