On 28 November 2012 14:28, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:07 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks to an e-mail from Andrew, I have become aware that LO has > finalized > > a new tool set: > > > > http://libreoffice.hu/2012/11/27/featurekillsdf-branch-merged/ > > > > I have had a look, and the tool does with a few exceptions, what genLang > > was supposed to do. There are no reason to make parallel developments so > > the l10n development has been stopped. > > > > This is great new. One less piece of code we need to write and maintain. > > Remember, our license restriction is for code that we publish, the > mandatory *runtime* dependencies that we include in our source > packages when we release. These need to be Apache License. But we > have almost unrestricted ability to have other *build-time* > dependencies. Consider: on Windows we require Visual C++ to build. > This is not even open source. On Linux we use many GNU text > utilities, and gcc. >
> So I'd recommend this: Ignore for the moment that some LO > *individuals* are antagonistic. Assume good will. Send a note to > their public mailing list saying that you see the great work they've > done with these conversion tools and are looking to adopt them for > AOO. Say that you might have some patches to contribute back. Say > that preserving these utilities as independently buildable parts of LO > would be very useful for others who might want to reuse them and help > maintain them. > Thanks for your recommendation I agree with what you say, and then we are back to my other theme...I could easily join the LO mailing list, even be a committer. But please understand my openSource life is about producing/maintaining code for the infrastructure (build/translate etc), so that other developers can implement fantastic programs, not thinking too much about multiple dev mailing lists etc. At this point l10n is not a development project, but is more a task for the gbuild project to integrate the existing tools. > > If you get a favorable response, then great. We're collaborating. If > not, then we can fork the utilities and put them on Google Code (a > section we call ApacheExtras). We'd let them know about that and > welcome them to check that repository occasionally to grab our > enhancements, which we encourage. > Put things on Google code is really something I would never do, that is to me a factor too political, in that case I would submit the changes to LO directly. But I have a feeling (putting in politely) that the collaborating issue belongs at quite a higher level than where I am. In other words, start with an optimistic, pro-collaboration, "yes we > can" attitude. Work openly and publicly. If we're disappointed it > will be clear that it was not AOO that was frustrating collaboration. > > -Rob > > > It would be nice to add the missing features to the LO tool and give it > to > > both LO and AOO, but that requires skills where development is the least > > part. > > > > When finishing a project I like to look back and see which lessons can be > > learned...in my case there are many, but one is standing out: > > > > Can it really be true that we all need to keep an eye on both the LO > > developer activities as well as the AOO activities. At the moment we > waste > > the very limited resources: > > - We solve a lot of the same bugs (I hope some developers, solve the bug > > once, and post it on both LO/AOO) > > - We test a lot the same > > - We translate to a high degree the same text (we call for volunteer > > translators, but why not use the texts already translated). > > > > Would it not be a wonderful world, if openSource was truly open and we > > could share instead of discussing whether the header (license) in the > files > > is blue or red. > > > > Our common user base does in general not care, or maybe even understand > the > > differences between a red or blue license, they care about a well > > functioning product that are steadily getting new features, so why are we > > as volunteers not trying harder to reach that goal. > > > > If I were PMC I would have one high priority on my list: > > - How to get a common code base between LO and AOO, with possibility to > > differentiate, so resources can be shared instead of effort duplicated. > > - How to share bug fixes, information about new developments etc. > > > > It is soon Christmas so it allowed to wish....my wish this year will be > > that some of our funding is spent on, getting key people for LO and AOO > > together. Lock them up in a room with a big pizza, tell them the door > will > > be unlocked when they have agreed on how to slice the pizza, instead of > > make two mini pizzas. > > > > Jan. >
