incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mathias Bauer <>
Subject Re: [code][repo] Integration of CWSs
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:43:20 GMT
Am 07.09.2011 18:47, schrieb Marcus (OOo):

> Am 09/07/2011 03:43 PM, schrieb Eike Rathke:
>> On Wednesday, 2011-09-07 00:28:29 +0200, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>> | So, we can choose:
>>>> |
>>>> | x) first identify and remove license incompatible code to be pointed to
>>>> |    clashes when the CWSs will be integrated, additionally lookout for
>>>> |    new license incompatible code when integrating CWSs thereafter, or
>>>> |
>>>> | y) first integrate all CWSs, note down new license incompatible code the
>>>> |    CWS introduces, and after all CWSs are integrated start the clean-up
>>>> |    of the entire tree. CWSs rarely introduce new external code, so new
>>>> |    code that would be covered by an incompatible license should be an
>>>> |    exemption.
>>>> |
>>>> | I'd favour y) because we wouldn't have to deal with additional merge
>>>> | conflicts as would be the case with x).
>>> I agree with you in that point - OTOH we shouldn't integrate cws into
>>> the 3.4 code line that don't belong there. I hope you are talking only
>>> about cws that should become a part of 3.4.
>> Of course, yes. And after that create a 3.4.0 branch and have ongoing
>> development on trunk then.
>> Going to
>> Child workspaces Search and filtering for available 3.4 relevant CWSs
>> reveals:
>> Master OOO340, Status nominated:
>> calc68
>> native373
> OK, next step would be the physical integration of these CWSs.
>> Master OOO340, Status approved by QA: none
>> Master OOO340, Status ready for QA:
>> tkr41
>> sw34bf06
> Hm, what to do with CWSs in this state?

Integrate them. Testing has to happen on master anyway and they probably
only contain bugfixes.

>> Master DEV300, Release 3.4, Status nominated:
>> ooo34gsl02  DEV300m106
>> ooo34gsl01  DEV300m106
>> jl167       DEV300m104
>> impress212  DEV300m104
>> calc67      DEV300m106
> This can be (easily, if no merge conflicts) integrated, too. Maybe with 
> a little rebase of the m104 CWSs.


>> Master DEV300, Release 3.4, Status approved by QA:
>> jsc341      DEV300m106
> Next status would be to nominate this CWS; so, just integrate.


>> Master DEV300, Release 3.4, Status ready for QA:
>> mingwport35 DEV300m106
> What to do with this?

These should be fixes for mingw port only. Integrate it.

>> mh8tz       DEV300m73   (this seems to have been abandoned in 2010)
> Can be skipped IMHO.

I agree.

>> Unfortunately parts of the underlying EIS database seem to be accessible
>> only through an ISDN line or some such.. trying to obtain details for
>> a CWS one ends up waiting for about 1-2 minutes.
>> IIRC, OOO340 was branched off from DEV300m102, but I'm not sure at the
>> moment, insights anyone?
> It was m106:

Indeed. We can expect that no cws from dev300 brings in anything that is
not in ooo340 already (except the relevant bits of course). IIRC there
might be some conflicts due to some master fixes that have been applied
on both code lines.

For all other CWS I woudl recommend to actually review them. EIS is not
really helpful.


View raw message