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: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de designates
 213.209.103.3 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E63A872.1030809@wtnet.de>
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:33:54 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice most annoying bugs
References: <1315150304.48939.YahooMailClassic@web113516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1315150304.48939.YahooMailClassic@web113516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 not clever to
>> through in all the new code from the 24 issues, build again
>> and get surprised what is now not working.
>>
>
> "stable" is such a relative concept. I don't think we are stable
> yet (neither is LO), and we have a long way to go before a
> release.
>
> Furthermore I am NOT suggesting we apply blindly 24 patches
> today and cross fingers to see if works tomorrow.

Hm, I got the impression in your first postings that you wanted this. 
Good when it is not. Then we are both looking into the same direction.

>> We have to select very carfully what to integrate.
>>
>
> I think that instead of complaining so much about a
> list of bugs with fixes that I looked up (and that I will
> likely never update again), you could spend time more
> constructively criticizing the bugs at a technical level,

I'm not a developer. I'm not familar with the deep technology in the 
source code.

> or at least pointing out those that you *do* consider
> showstoppers.

IMHO it's not the time to discuss show stopper.

> Personally, being a new guy to this code base, I did the list
> just to have an idea of what there is to be found in there. I
> do think this can wait after the CWS' are integrated. I also
> thought one of the general objectives was bringing the LO-OO
> codebases nearer together but it seems that is not really a
> priority anymore.

I don't know if one of our top goals is to bring/keep LO and OOo close 
together. IMHO it's also up to the others not to run so much in front.

> Drawing such a list is not exactly fun and I am, in no position
> to *force* anything to be fixed so take the list just as a point
> of reference and nothing more.

Which I did.

> Also, fwiw, it is not my plan (and never was) to make this a
> periodic posting (the heading is actually a pun to a similar
> posting at some other list): committers will have to learn
> to work as effectively as they can with Bugzilla.

Right. And to find the real stoppers we have to work in Bugzilla and to 
find the still open issues that fulfills the stopper criteria.

Marcus