incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <>
Subject Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:32:25 GMT

I don't like the patches because I can't really examine well
the code, besides this is something the VCS handles acceptably:
commit the original sourcecode and then apply the patches in a
different commit. If we start with up to date versions there
would not be much trouble.

just my $0.02, not an objection.


--- On Wed, 9/28/11, J├╝rgen Schmidt <> wrote:


> > I wouldn't give up the patches, as they allow to
> handle updates better.
> > This would cause a problem, as direct changes to the
> 3rd party stuff without
> > additional authorization (means: changing the source
> code must not happen
> > accidently, only when the 3rd party code gets an
> update from upstream) must
> > be prevented, while still patch files must be allowed
> to added, removed, or
> > changed, not the original source code. If that wasn't
> possible or too
> > cumbersome, checking in the tarballs in "3rdparty"
> would be better.
> >
> i also wouldn't give up the patches and for that reason i
> would like to move
> forward for now with keeping the tarballs as proposed. But
> i like the name
> "3rdparty" for the directory and we can later on change it
> from the tarballs
> to the unpacked code it we see demand for it. At the moment
> it's just easier
> to keep the tarballs and focus on other work.
> >
> > As svn users never download the complete history as
> DSCM users do, the pain
> > of binary files in the repo isn't that hard. In case
> AOOo moved to a DSCM
> > again later, the tarballs could be moved out again
> easily.
> >
> agree, we don't really loose anything, can change if
> necessary and can
> continue with our work
> Juergen

View raw message