On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent. I also don't think > the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant. > > I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being an > attractive nuisance. If it is not going to be morphed into something that > can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I > recommend that it be gone. >
Feel free to make a proposal in a new thread, seek lazy consensus and act on it after 72 hours. You have karma. -Rob > (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I shall > do that in switching to the new repository location.) > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> "Remember, we wrote it." >> Well, I suppose the notion of "work for hire" might provide some nuance to >> "we". >> > > And the CCLA covers that side of it. > >> I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make >> ALv2-covered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that >> is the provenance there is. That should safeguard the interests of the ASF. >> >> So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree? >> > > Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it > in. We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with > the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and > merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO > trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk. > The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the "slow > merge". Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not > undergone development. Its main value (in retrospect) was to support > that decision making process. Of course, if we had decided to take > the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the > usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing > that trunk. > > Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers. It is a > longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base. Once a > code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other > kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a > responsible PMC does for its releases. But I see zero volunteers > stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project. > So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never > going to release. > >> I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion about >> this. I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbed. >> > > We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd. It has an > eclectic set of licenses on its files. In some cases it includes > files where we cannot clearly identify the license. Instead of > hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to > reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to > the license terms. We don't even have an SGA for these files. So > should we delete this directory as well? Of course, I speak of our > website in /ooo-site. IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't > include it in a release. > > -Rob > >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org >> Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 >> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> Is this to be based on the Symphony code? >>> >> >> Dennis, we have Symphony code within IBM. Remember, we wrote it. >> Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's. >> That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the >> provenance of the code. >> >> -Rob >> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin....@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07 >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0 >>> >>> Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided later. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt >>> <jogischm...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for AOO >>>> > 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here: >>>> > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessible2 >>>> > Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a >>>> branch >>>> > for development? >>>> > >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do >>>> you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a >>>> bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or so. >>>> Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure >>>> and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of work. >>>> >>>> Good to see progress on this important integration. >>>> >>>> Juergen >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Steve Yin >>> >> >
