On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:35:16 -0500 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'm reading FUD, from the usual misinformed suspects, saying that the > >> "IBM donation to AOO is pure marketing fluff" and "IBM faked the > >> donation of the Symphony code" and "IBM did not donate anything". > > > > Did they explain how one fakes a donation to ASF? > > > > I assume he is confusing two different things: > > 1) The donation of Symphony, which was done via an SGA (Software Grant > Agreement). This occurred last year. This was recorded by the ASF > Secretary and the PMC was notified when this occurred. So there > should be no doubts here. Symphony was donated to the ASF. > > 2) Publication of Symphony as a code base via an ASF release. After > discussion the PMC decided not to go down that path. The preference > was to do a slower merge of Symphony enhancements rather than to > rebase AOO on Symphony. If we had done the rebase path this would > have required additional work from the project, including IP > Clearance, modifying file headers, etc. > > Maybe the belief was that the "slow merge" was not for real? It > certainly is not very flashy. The fixes are very practical, mundane > things, the nuts and bolts of what users most care about, > interoperability, stability, etc. So we have not boasted loudly about > these improvements. But maybe it is worth a blog post? > Certainly worth a blog (and elsewhere) mention that "forthcoming AOO 4.0 will incorporate many features and fixes from IBM Symphony code donation; this process will continue throughout further AOO releases" or words to that effect. Would it be premature to mention timescale for AOO 4.0 release? -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
