openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:33:22 GMT

On Nov 26, 2011, at 9:38 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Um, perhaps you could have asked Dennis?

Well, I did ask you - and this is now more on point. Thank you.

> Not to appear unduly humorless (since I don't always decode what Simon says very well),
I need to say I was not seeing a Team OO.o 3.3.1 as the same as an 3.3.0 Novell
Edition, since 3.3.1 it is not intended to be a parallel line, but a maintenance edition on
the existing line.  (I see the humor for making an Apache OpenOffice edition of LO 3.x.  It
is not possible of course and Simon did wink.)
> My point was that the Novell approach apparently caused no damage to the brand and another
edition with added functionality was provided.  However, it was clearly an
release with supplemental provisions and never a fork.  

It is worth noting this. There will be packagers of AOO and OOo. It looks like what we allow
as Apache OpenOffice vs. what was allowed as are now two different matters.
A discussion of the Novell Edition gives one more example of a possible approach. Does it
fit the TOOo example well, or is it more the general example of how to define a non-Apache "edition"? Perhaps we can find a policy here that works for the ASF, the PPMC,
and the whole ecosystem.

> So how the Team OO.o could be acknowledged for its significant part in making the 3.3.1
release happen might be done with similar modifications in the appearance of the distribution
and installer along the lines of what Novell did, or even how Sun acknowledged itself for
being the producer of a distribution on the installer and splash screens.  Oracle followed
suit, even though these were Open Source distributions.  (I trust 3.3.1 will not hawk Java,
browser toolbars, or anything like that, however.)  I suspect Apache OpenOffice binary releases
will be clothed in a similar manner.  I do not suggest that 3.3.1 be downloaded from anywhere
but the same place that OO.o 3.3.0 comes from.

Does this differ from the TOOo proposal? How long is this "same place" going to be supported
by Oracle?

> The concluding point was at the end of my message.  I suggest restraints so that 3.3.1
remains locked into 3.3 lineage: 3.3.1 could be presented gently
as a Team contributed update of 3.3.0 but firmly in the OO.o 3.3 stream and distributed
and supported entirely as if the OO.o project is its origin: registration is with,
all live links concerning support, on-line help, downloading, etc., are  The
identification of Team OO.o would not direct users to that site although there would be some
provision for finding out more about Team OO.o including providing its (non-clickable?) URL.

The Team OOo proposal (not necessarily shared here) has registration and other linkage back
to teamopenoffice,org and not You are proposing a modification to their plan.
I tend to agree that most of the linkage needs to remain with

Continued support for legacy downloads and the OOo mirror brain distribution cannot be ported
to the ASF. We've discussed apache-extras for that. If TOOo is willing to migrate and support
the LGPL legacy downloads currently offered through that would be

> There are technical conditions on how OO.o 3.3.1 is developed such that Apache OpenOffice
and the ASF can contemplate accepting it as an update of  That also has to
be worked out.  I have my eye on the end game: how does this reach users and what will it
appear as to them?  I suspect that Team OO.o has their attention on that aspect as well.

There are twists and turns between now and the end game. We need to focus on both the twists
and the end.

> This was also a clumsy effort to move a conversation about this to the broad ooo-dev
forum.  I'm not clear what success there is beside confirming that I and some others are humorless

I choose to take your humor as very subtle. There is so much happening ... let's not be afraid
to make mistakes ... forward progress is being made.

Best Regards,

> - Dennis 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:53
> To:
> Subject: Re: OO.o 3.3.1 Maintenance Release Consideration
> Hi Rob,
> I really didn't know what to think about Dennis's email. It seems peripheral to the issue.
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>>> It's not at all obvious to me why one couldn't just take a LibreOffice release
such as 3.4, created from the same source outside the Apache community, and apply the same
>> No official response has been given to this proposal. Any "logic" you
>> see is individual opinion on a discussion aimed at achieving
>> consensus.
> I think Dennis really jumped ahead with his comments.
>>> to it as is being applied to this 3.3.1 proposal. With the added bonus that no-one
much has to do any work apart from change the splash screen.
>>> S.
>>> [for the humour-impaired, while this is making a serious point, it is not a serious
>> If TDF wishes to make a serious proposal they are welcome to do so.
> Oh, more humor :-)
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>>> On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:56, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>>> I would expect the site to be the user-centered support location,
with the Apache OpenOffice bugzilla used for bug reports just as it continues to be used for
OpenOffice 3.x bug reports.  I would expect registration, if done at all, to be done the same
way as for continuing downloads and installs of OpenOffice 3.3.0, though there is a problem
with where that goes now.
>>>> If the Team contribution of a maintenance release goes forward,
I think there should be strong acknowledgment and a way for individuals to learn more at the
Team OO.o site.  But for it to be in the development line, it needs to operate
as if it was produced in the same manner and produced in the same way as 3.3.0 with adjustment
for the current realities.

View raw message