incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:45:07 GMT
I have the additional concern that UOF integration may be disrupted by a rebasing on Symphony
(approach II).  It depends on how close UOF was working against an OO.o base that is essentially
retained by AOO (approach I).

Last year, I did some *very* limited interoperability testing of Symphony support for ODF
package features and I found inexplicable differences in the handling of packages, especially
ones having ODF 1.2 digital signatures.  I have not tested enough to determine how close Symphony
3 is to some version of OO.o in terms of ODF support and have no opinion about that beyond
wondering what it is and if there is an impact if rebasing on Symphony were attempted.   

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: RGB ES [mailto:rgb.mldc@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 01:36
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

2012/6/12 Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>:
> Predictably, I prefer approach I on first principles:
> Never derail the train that's running.

I think this is fundamental: big changes on short times will give
enormous problems to the current user base, not only because the
obvious need to learn something new, but also for the inevitable load
of new bugs. AOO is a user oriented system, so we need to put our
users first by avoiding any regression and limiting the annoyances.

I think we can learn a lot about the "KDE 4.0" experience: even if KDE
4 started to be wonderful after 4.3, even now on the 4.8 era there are
people still protesting because the disastrous experience with 4.0...
Four years have passed!

Option 1 is slow, but as my grandmother used to say "walking slow
you'll arrive far"

Regards
Ricardo


Mime
View raw message