incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Marcum <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]: hosting of source code that doesn't belong to the office directly
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:26:42 GMT
On 11/30/2011 12:10 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/30/11 1:31 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 2011/11/30 Jürgen Schmidt<>:
>>> Hi,
>>> somebody has already asked for the OOo NetBeans plugin that is a
>>> useful tool
>>> for extensions developers. And it seems that there is interest to
>>> improve
>>> the plugin and make it ready for the latest NetBeans versions. The
>>> source
>>> code is part of the SGA but not yet available in our repo.
>>> I have a general question. Where do we want to host such code or such
>>> sub
>>> projects that are somewhat independent of the office code and should
>>> be kept
>>> separately from my point of view. Means i wouldn't check in these
>>> projects
>>> under trunk.
>>> Instead i would propose a further svn tree where we can host such
>>> projects.
>>> But i am not sure which name would be appropriate.
>> Maybe just call it "extensions" ? This could be the root for
>> "standard extensions" that are produced by this project. Some might
>> be app dev related. But we might have other standard extensions in the
>> future, e.g., a CMIS extension using Apache Chemistry.
> i thought about "extensions" but in this particular case it is not an
> extension in the classical manner. But it is a developer tool for
> extensions and could be of course hosted there as well.
>>> In this specific case it is a development tool for extension
>>> developers and
>>> i can think of a similar tool for Eclipse in the future. How about a
>>> further
>>> svn tree "devtools".
>> Another question is how we think these extensions would be released?
>> As part of (or in sync with) and AOO release? If so, we might want
>> this under the same trunk dir, so they can be easily tagged and
>> branched with the reset of the AOO release. But if we see these
>> extensions as having an independent release cycle, not tied to AOO,
>> then maybe they have an independent SVN tree.
> I think we will not release such a dev tool with the office. We will
> potentially align it if necessary and if changes in the office require
> changes in the NB plugin or other potential extensions as well. But in
> general we should keep this independent. It allows us more flexibility.
> I would prefer a new SVN tree and if nobody raised any concerns i would
> move forward with a further "extensions" tree besides "trunk".
> Juergen

+1 on the additional extensions tree.

Do we have an idea when well see the code?

I would like to help on bringing this up to date. I really miss having 
it in NB 7.0.

Best regards,

View raw message