Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1320855125.3971.YahooMailClassic@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:12:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Do recent bugs filed against Libre 3.4 need to be refiled with
 apache tracker?
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org,
  "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohioiyL6N2_5OFWssAsrFqihg6FnTy2mJckdo_q_VjmUw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello David;=0A=0AIf you find a bug in OpenOffice.org file it directly=0Aon=
 Apache's bugzilla. Duplicate bug reports are fine,=0Athey really are.=0A=
=0ASo far I am the only one in the business of actually=0Acommitting fixes =
to issues, so trust me and ignore=0Acompletely what Rob suggested. I will a=
ct with extreme=0Aprejudice ignoring any bug report linked to libreoffice=
=0Aon the principle that such contributions or the resulting=0Afollowups ar=
e not made under a compatible license. I won't=0Aeven look at them. =0A=0Ab=
est regards,=0A=0APedro.=0A=0A--- On Wed, 11/9/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache=
.org> wrote:=0A...=0A> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM,=0A> David C. Rankin=
=0A> <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com>=0A> wrote:=0A> > Guys,=0A> >=0A> > =
=A0I apologize if this has been asked and answered, but=0A> over the past y=
ear I=0A> > have filed several bugs against Libre which would also=0A> appl=
y to OO 3.4. How=0A> > do you want to handle these types of issues? Do you=
=0A> review the Libre tracker=0A> > at freedesktop.org or do duplicates bug=
s need to be=0A> opened in the apache=0A> > tracker?=0A> >=0A> =0A> Hi Davi=
d, thanks for the great question.=A0 I don't=0A> think I've seen this=0A> q=
uestion come up before.=0A> =0A> Currently there is no automatic exchange o=
f bug reports=0A> between the=0A> two projects.=A0 I don't think that would=
 make sense in=0A> general.=A0 From=0A> what I've seen there are many bugs =
in LO that do not exist=0A> in OOo, and=0A> presumably when we put out Apac=
he releases we'll have bugs=0A> that don't=0A> exist in LO.=A0 But certainl=
y there will be defects that=0A> exist in both=0A> products.=A0 And where w=
e know that it will make sense=0A> to share the=0A> reports.=0A> =0A> Proba=
bly the easiest solution is, when you believe the=0A> defect exists=0A> in =
OOo as well, to enter a new defect in the AOOo Bugzilla,=0A> with a=0A> lin=
k to the LO defect. And then add a comment to the LO=0A> defect=0A> pointin=
g to the AOOo defect report.=A0 No need to=0A> duplicate the content,=0A> b=
ut it would be useful to cross-link the defect reports.=0A> That way it=0A>=
 will be easier for LO to find and grab our patches when we=0A> fix an=0A> =
issue.=0A> =0A> > =A0I presume you won't want duplicates filed, but is=0A> =
there some mechanism in=0A> > place to make sure those bugs don't slip thro=
ugh the=0A> cracks and plague OO=0A> > 3.4 the way they have Libre 3.4? May=
 also be worth a=0A> note on the=0A> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects=
/openofficeorg.html=0A> page or the=0A> > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ pa=
ge. Thanks.=0A> >=0A> =0A> Let's see if there are any better ideas for how =
to track=0A> these=0A> cross-product defects, and then we can document the=
=0A> consensus=0A> recommendations, on the website (hopefully also at the L=
O=0A> website as=0A> well).=0A> =0A> Regards,=0A> =0A> -Rob=0A> =0A> > --=
=0A> > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.=0A> >=0A>