Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
References: <5079EFB7.507@pitonyak.org>
Message-ID: <1350176844.78635.YahooMailNeo@web113503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Apache OO General Questions
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>,
  "andrew@pitonyak.org" <andrew@pitonyak.org>
In-Reply-To: <5079EFB7.507@pitonyak.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Andrew;=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message -----=0A...=0A> =0A> Couple of qu=
estions:=0A> =0A> (Q) it was stated to me at one time that integrating chan=
ges between AOO and LO =0A> would not be overly complicated (bad memory, bu=
t maybe it was Tom Davis =0A> referencing the fact that Symphony was kept i=
n sync with OOo). Are any changes =0A> integrated between AOO and LO (in ei=
ther direction) at this time? I have been =0A> asked this question specific=
ally (as it related to the code clean-up effort in =0A> LO), and I generall=
y say "I don't know, but I don't think so".=0A>=A0=0A=0ASome of it has happ=
ened in both ways. I won't talk about the LO "relicensing"=0Abecause=A0I si=
mply don't understand how it is supposed to work and ultimately=0AI am not =
a lawyer.=0A=0AIn the case of AOO. I have in my HD some code that authors h=
ave agreed to=0Acontribute. The code will remain uncommitted because:=0A=0A=
- In one case the code is big enough that I need a signed iCLA and while th=
e=0Aauthor has=A0agreed he hasn't really had time lately.=0A- In another ca=
se the code is not big but I have requested the patches be=0Asubmitted thro=
ugh bugzilla to keep a record of the contribution (private=0Aemail is not t=
rustable nowadays).=0A=0AIn both cases I can wait: the code is not critical=
, just nice to have.=0A=0AI wish it were easier to contribute though: we ca=
nnot expect someone to go=0Aover=A0the trouble of porting and testing their=
 patches twice. This said, the=0Alatest=A0versions of LO introduce bugs tha=
t I can't reproduce on AOO. AOO is=0Avery stable and we want to keep it tha=
t way.=0A=0A> =0A> (Q) AOO lists use addresses such as ooo-dev@incubator.ap=
ache.org and =0A> ooo-api@incubator.apache.org. Assuming that AOO is taken =
from incubator status, =0A> will incubator be dropped from the list names a=
nd will current subscribers be =0A> ported to the new list?=0A>=A0=0A=0AI w=
ould think so, yes.=0A=0APedro.