incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [Repo][Proposal]After the code is checked in to SVN
Date Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:27:21 GMT
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
addition of missing files from Hg.  This means that there is no
revision in SVN that is identical to the Hg tip. This is unfortunate.
It will make some approaches to merging more difficult.

Let's review this list again, and try better to coordinate going
forward.  If anyone has improvements on the list, please feel free to
comment.  But's let get on the same page.


On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Rob Weir <> 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.  But let's stage this work carefully, so we
> minimize problems.
> Could we do something like this:
> 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.   Let's get that work done,
> and then tag that revision with a memorable label, before we make any
> other changes.  (Should also give a tag to the current Hg tip)
> 2) Registration of any cryptographic code in OOo (required for US
> Export regulations, not sure if this was previously required when OOo
> was hosted in Germany).
> 3) Then do what is necessary to enable anyone who wishes to build to
> do so.  So confirm we can build, add files, etc., if they are missing.
>  Get instructions onto the website, or links to instructions.
> Everything we do after this is easier if we first enable more people
> to work with the code.  Obviously a newbie is not going to be
> productive on their first day, but the sooner we get them working with
> the code, the sooner they will be productive.  I think we should try
> to enable that now, than wait 6 months.
> 4) As part of verifying the build we should be able to confirm what
> additional files, if any we need to request that Oracle add to their
> SGA.
> 5) Identification and removal of any code that does not have a
> compatible license
> 6) Then I think we can open it up to integrating CWS's, fixing bugs, etc.
> Does this make sense?  I'm open to variations on this, but I think we
> need to stage the work somewhat like the above.
> -Rob

View raw message