Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of liushenf@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
References: <1339767075.79131.YahooMailClassic@web113511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
From: Shenfeng Liu <liushenf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=GB2312
In-Reply-To: <1339767075.79131.YahooMailClassic@web113511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-Id: <AAC1F300-39FA-444B-8E23-129A2B715ED4@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:32:29 +0200
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)

And I'd like to repeat what Rob mentioned in his previous mail, behind optio=
n I & option II is in fact an open question: how can we quickly integrate th=
e most value in current AOO and Symphony together to deliver the next genera=
tion of AOO 4.0? We made a lot of technical study, and either option has som=
e advantage and disadvantage for short term as well as long term of AOO deve=
lopment, and will face different issues and risks on the way. But is there a=
ny other innovative way that can be even better and even faster? That's the q=
uestion for brainstorming.

=B7=A2=D7=D4=CE=D2=B5=C4 iPhone

=D4=DA 2012-6-15=A3=AC15:31=A3=ACPedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> =D0=B4=B5=C0=
=A3=BA

>=20
> --- Ven 15/6/12, J=A8=B9rgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com> ha scrit=
to:
> ...
>=20
>>=20
>> we should be careful with spreading numbers based on wild
>> guessing. It requires some deeper analysis.
>>=20
>=20
> Yes, you are right. The estimates for bringing the
> accessibility stuff are rather discouraging for
> option I though.
>=20
>>> Personally, I think I will work on both options
>>> at the same time: I do want to have an early
>>> Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start
>>> merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :).
>>=20
>> you are free in the work you are doing but I think it would
>> be wrong. We should find an agreement on the direction we
>> want to move forward. Our goal is to take the best of both
>> and build the best free office suite ever. We shouldn't
>> split further resources by working on 2 code bases.
>> It will be the completely wrong signal.
>=20
> Well, I won't be doing any main development just merge
> some of what has already been done in AOO, mostly the
> BSD port.
>=20
>> I am of course against releasing 2 source releases based on
>> 2 different source trees.
>>=20
>=20
> There are unofficial "demo" releases of Symphony already,
> I am not forking, I only want to do the BSD port.
>=20
>> I am surprised about such an idea
>>=20
>=20
> Surprises can be good :).
>=20
> Pedro.