Hi Lubos, Hi Thorsten, On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:59:51 +0200 Lubos Lunak <l.lu...@suse.cz> wrote:
> If the extensions are pushed upstream, the copy is synced to > upstream, and the extensions are not relied upon, I don't see why > there should be a big problem as long as people find it worth it. I see Thorstens point though that this is a slippery slope. From the temptation to have our own make in the tree it is a very short way to become incompatible with the upstream version. 'We' (old project grognards) would not notice the difference, but for new contributors it would be yet another wtf on the way to their first build. I wrote about the strict conditions I consider essential for a make fork above. However historically, we have not been exactly been too successful in this project resisting temptations for strategic reasons if something came along which seemed sexy tactically. So soon we would end up with a build system only building with our fork and nobody would even notice (because all of us use it anyway) and when somebody comes up with "you broke the vanilla make build" he would get told to use the forked make -- instead of doing the right thing and fixing it -- thereby killing the feature in a drive-by. Best, Bjoern -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
