openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "F C. Costero" <fjcc.apa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:14:26 GMT
On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea Pescetti<pescetti@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK.  Here is a draft:
>>>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo<https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=merging_symphony_allegro_non_troppo>
>>>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>>>> detail.  I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>>>
>>>
>> Highly interesting *and* entertaining!
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
>>> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>>> Improvement_Since_AOO341<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341>
>>> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
>>> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>>>
>>> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
>>> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant. I
>>> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has better
>>> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at the
>>> top.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list.  I
>> understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
>> incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.
>>
>
> OK.  Look now.  I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
> interesting ones first.  I also added a header.  Since an article is
> coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
> absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
> the full list.  We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
> been ongoing.  While some were working on the more publicly visible
> AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk.  We
> haven't really spoken about that work before.  Now is a good time.
>
>>
>>> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is clearly
>>> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but the
>>> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an interesting
>>> twist...
>>>
>>> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>    Andrea.
>>>
>>
>> Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical, I
>> think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
>> licensing here in some way.  Even if a few sentences could be added under:
>>
>> "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
>> enhanced<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony_contribution>  for their
>> customer and corporate use.    Last May IBM contributed the source code for
>> Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "
>>
>> to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code and
>> "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.
>>
>
> I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is.  I also
> corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
> "before&  after" screen shots that he posted.
>
>
> So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
> generally happy with.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> This is  a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
>> appreciate it!
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
>>                                                                           --
>> Aesop
Rob,
   Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple 
of typos in the third movement:
"A a modeless property picker" needs only one "A".
"So we're considering at several" drop the "at"
"and we're bring those into OpenOffice. " should be "and we're bringing 
those into OpenOffice".
I'm also not sure "modeless" will be meaningful to regular users. Would 
"continuously available" be better?
Regards,
Francis

Mime
View raw message