On 4/15/13 3:36 PM, janI wrote: > On 15 April 2013 15:31, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/15/13 2:12 PM, janI wrote: >>> On 15 April 2013 11:22, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/15/13 9:42 AM, janI wrote: >>>>> On 15 April 2013 00:23, Carl Marcum <cmar...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/14/2013 02:58 PM, janI wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 April 2013 20:25, Carl Marcum <cmar...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Juergen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/14/2013 01:32 PM, Juergen Schmidt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Carl, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 14. April 2013 um 19:23 schrieb Carl Marcum: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 02/10/2013 04:11 PM, Carl Marcum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 02/10/2013 02:50 PM, Juergen Schmidt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013 um 19:04 schrieb Carl Marcum: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to branch NB integration plugin for 3.0 and start >>>>>>>>>>>>> modifying >>>>>>>>>>>>> trunk for AOO 4.0 compatibility. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to also tag current version as 3.0.1 at the same >>>> time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trunk would become version 4.0 to maintain major version number >>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>>>> as AOO. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are no objections to the above proposal within >> 72-hours >>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> will invoke Lazy Consensus and proceed to implement the above >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can if course create a branch but I don't see the demand >> for >>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>> You can continue the development towards 4.0 on trunk. I don't >> see >>>>>>>>>>>> many activity here and a branch is not really necessary from my >>>> pov. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juergen >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. we can always create a branch based on a revision >> number >>>>>>>>>>> later if needed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I thought about it more and since the next changes will be >>>> incompatible >>>>>>>>>> with AOO 3.4 I tagged a 3.0.2 version and created a 3.0 branch to >>>> make >>>>>>>>>> it easier if someone needs to make changes for 3.4 compatible >>>> plugins. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree now and with my upcoming 3layer removal there will be >> some >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> to do in the plugin. It mainly that places of jars, tools, libs >> have >>>>>>>>> changed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Juergen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this something that will be implemented in AOO 4 release? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How come it is a 3.0 branch ?? that sounds old to me, shouldnt it be >>>>>>> 3.4.1x branch ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The Netbeans plugin versions didn't historically coincide with the OOo >>>>>> version numbers (that I know of). >>>>>> >>>>>> When the code came to Apache it was version 2.0.7 and I tagged that >>>>>> version and started work to make it run on Netbeans 6.9 which was >>>> Netbeans >>>>>> 7.0 api changes. That's when I changed it to 3.0. Some additional >>>>>> localization work took it to 3.0.2. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what the best solution to version numbering other than to >>>> do >>>>>> a major number change when it's not compatible with AOO or NB and >> keep a >>>>>> compatibility table somewhere. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for clarifying it for me, I am still learning a lot, however I >> do >>>>> have some opinion on the version numbering. >>>>> >>>>> Netbeans is part of main, and released as an integrated part of AOO. As >>>> far >>>>> as I can see it is not available (for download) independent of AOO. If >> I >>>>> install AOO 4.0, have a problem and see netbeans is 3.0 I would assume >>>> that >>>>> I missed an upgrade. Therefore I will strongly suggest that all modules >>>> in >>>>> main get version 4.0. >>>>> >>>>> If I am wrong and netbeans are available independent, it should not be >> in >>>>> main. Because we will (as we did with 3.4.1) vote about releasing 4.0, >>>> and >>>>> then it would not be correct to silently release a new version of >>>> netbeans, >>>>> just because it is included. >>>>> >>>>> Please do not read my comments as I am against the work. I solely think >>>>> about the version number logistic, which I want to make as simple as >>>>> possible. >>>> >>>> The NetBeans plugin is a developer tool that uses OpenOffice and SDK and >>>> depends on a specific version in the future but it can be seen as >>>> independent and ideally we would bring it back in the plugin center of >>>> Netbeans directly. >>>> >>>> The plugin don't comes with the office and is not part of the source >>>> release. >>>> >>> >>> I thought the source release was the full main ?? >> >> yes, it is but the NetBeans plugin is not in main ;-) >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/netbeansintegration/ >> > hmmm, what is > > main/scripting/java/org/openoffice/netbeans > > then, I thought that was the plugin, that contains both an editor and > modules. > > or do we have some kind of unwanted mixture ?
no everything is as expected. What you have found in main is the beanshell scripting stuff that make use of a NetBeans editor when I remember correctly. Juergen > > rgds > jan I. > > >> >>> >>> Where can I find the script that generates the source release ? >> >> solenv/bin/srcrelease.xml triggered in instset_native/util on demand, no >> default target >> >> Juergen >> >> >>> >>> rgds >>> jan i. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Juergen >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I do agree with the principle in having a branch. We have however to >>>> make >>>>>>> it clear to developers, that when using that branch their code will >> not >>>>>>> avalible with 4.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree, that's why I hope everyone continues to do work on trunk and >> we >>>>>> only merge changes if needed for some reason. But we have a well >>>>>> established break point. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me, branches should be used for work that goes across many modules >>>> (like >>>>> gbuild and l10n), or work that takes a long time (months) to complete. >>>> But >>>>> I have no strong opinion if somebody wants to use a branch, and have >> the >>>>> pain of merging it later. >>>>> >>>>> rgds >>>>> Jan I. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> rgds >>>>>>> jan I. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org< >>>> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
