On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 2:59 AM Damjan Jovanovic <dam...@apache.org> wrote:
> BUT I JUST REMEMBERED SOMETHING IMPORTANT: > Some time ago, I found an earlier attempt to implement "configuration" in > gbuild on our bugzilla: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118397 > It was from 2011, but the contributor said "patches are based on CWS > gnumake4 and licensed under Apache License 2." > :-O > CAN WE USE IT??? > > To answer my own very important question: As per https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=97173, the email address mst.ooo at arcor.de is Michael Stahl. In June 2011, Michael Stahl was selected as an individual committer to OpenOffice Incubating: > ||Michael Stahl ||mst at openoffice dot org ||Individual !OpenOffice.org || In the openoffice-pmc repository, CommitterStatus/PPMCStatus.ods confirms he was a committer, and signed an iCLA, but did not join the PPMC. On https://home.apache.org/phonebook.html?unix=openoffice we see he is still a committer. As per Git: git log --author="Michael Stahl" shows he committed 72 patches, from 1 July 2011 to 17 September 2011. The Bugzilla issues in question: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118386 - created on 7 August 2011, and patches were attached to it on the same date. https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118397 - created on 11 August 2011, and patches were attached to it as late as 27 August 2011. Judging by his email addresses, he later joined CIB, then Red Hat. However both patches say: "patches are based on CWS gnumake4 and licensed under Apache License 2." That, and the fact he signed an iCLA and committed other patches to SVN in the same timeframe he attached those to Bugzilla, means they're in Bugzilla instead of committed because they were developed on a different branch, needed review, etc. So I am going ahead and using those patches :-). Regards Damjan
