Hi Steve,
Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
[...]
The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just
"vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend
to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The
turnover/year may be the same,
Hi Steve,
Am 07.06.2011 15:27, schrieb Steve Loughran:
[...]
The issue with corporate reassignments is that everyone just
"vanishes". They get reassigned, and go away. In OSS, individuals tend
to drift off, go onto what else interests them, or whatever. The
turnover/year may be the same,
Steve,
In the interest of completeness, please point out that folks from IBM
did join and work on Axis2 which was a complete rewrite from scratch,
got that integrated into other Apache projects like Geronimo.
thanks,
dims
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 03:
On 06/03/2011 03:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, wrote:
Corporate assignments are notorious at the ASF for disappearing
communities. Sometimes, there is momentum to keep going, often
times there is not. Communities are based on individuals.
And individuals are oft
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM, wrote:
>> Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
>>
>>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
>>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
>>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:25 PM, wrote:
> Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
>
>> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
>> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
> happen.
>>
>
> I would like to see this as well, everyone workin
Cor Nouws wrote on 06/03/2011 06:14:56 PM:
> I would love to see all work in one big project - read all my pleas in
> the OpenOffice.org time. But reality tells me that is not going to
happen.
>
I would like to see this as well, everyone working on a single code base.
The is the ideal. But
Reality is what matters. So let's make the best reality possible :-)
On 3 Jun 2011 23:15, "Cor Nouws" wrote:
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
> If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
> then I suspect this is with a very low level...
I know several people
Hi Rob, all,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (02-06-11 21:34)
If you claim to have 200 developers working on LO
then I suspect this is with a very low level of engagement.
I know several people that started with really tiny contributions for
LibreOffice in the past months but just evolved to pe
I join the chorus of people trying to stop this chorus before it gets
from 49 bottles of beer on the wall to 48.
There is a meta-question here: what are the criteria by which the IPMC
should evaluate a proposal?
1. "Are there enough people on the proposal to plausibly start out?"
I think everyon
Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:13:43 AM:
>
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those
numbers
> are too small."
>
I agree, especially if the numbers are not relevant to the question at
hand.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
> are too small."
>
> Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
>
Agreed.
+1
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
> divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
> are too small."
>
> Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
>
> -
I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
are too small."
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07 PM, wrote:
> Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
>>
>> - $scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
>> + $scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>>$outdir/all-lo.log
>>
>> Show 'active' contributors by affiliati
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/02/2011 08:57:27 PM:
>
> -$scripts_dir/merge-log -p LIBREOFFICE_CREATE.. >$outdir/all-lo.log
> +$scripts_dir/merge-log --all --since='2011-01-03'
>$outdir/all-lo.log
>
>Show 'active' contributors by affiliation - ie. at least one patch
> contributed in the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:24 PM, wrote:
> "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
> PM:
>
>> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> >> i
"William A. Rowe Jr." wrote on 06/02/2011 03:22:24
PM:
> > On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>
> >> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
> >> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
> >> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now tha
So,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:55 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Questionable? If only 54 people have checked in code in the last 6
> months, then no amount of magic with source code indentation is going to
> get you to 400 developers. If you disagree, I'd like to see the magic you
> ca
Excellent Rob! FYI Celix [1] entered the inucbator with just one
single initial committer and thus I'd say there's was no point at any
time requiring hundreds of developers backing the proposal.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/celix.html
Cheers
Daniel
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:12 AM,
Greg Stein wrote on 06/02/2011 05:45:57 PM:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> > dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> >> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even
think
> >> it'
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
>> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> a
Sorry no tab keys involved ... I'd like to indent with spaces :D :D
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM, wrote:
> dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
> analytics at this point in time. There is a say
Rob,
IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
analytics at this point in time. There is a saying in this regards "I
only believe in stati
On 02/06/2011 21:16, dsh wrote:
Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
Indeed, I inadvertently found what I believe to be the best approach.
Commit an svn:props change to a template that is an svn:external in 30+
of ASF
dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:05:38 PM:
>
> IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
> respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
> the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
I disagree. The question was raised on the list w
Oh, totally agree. It is useful as a rough measure, but completely
ignores many other forms of contribution.
*shrug*
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:16, dsh wrote:
> Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
> would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
>
> Seriously: I doubt
Of course I now some more magic than just re-indent a codebase... that
would be to easy to spot wouldn't it ;)
Seriously: I doubt some code analysis or commit log analysis practices
especially if the goal would be to make an assertion about someones
"performance". IMHO that leaves a bad taste in a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh wrote:
>...
> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
> make me look more active if I'd ever like
Rob,
IMHO you should not discuss or question the LO community size
respective its vitality in any way at this place. That's certainly not
the scope of the OpenOffice Apache incubation proposal anyway. The
goal of the proposal as I understand it is to build a vital community
around it at the ASF an
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:48, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
>...
> Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
> alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
> facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond.
I certainly would agree
Rob,
2011/6/2
> charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
>
> > No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
> never
> > done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
> us
> > have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
> No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
> done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
> have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
> quest
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
>> until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
>> impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
>> do know about
> One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
> "guts" of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
> that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
> a particular set of end-users... or something like that.
+1
Best,
Jomar
-
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
>
> I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody
> wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
> than pretending the elephant in the room (LibreOffice, the Document
> Foundation) do
Hello Rob,
2011/6/2
> charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
>
> > I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> > project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
> and
> > Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
> contrib
On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
...
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engin
Hello Eric,
2011/6/2 eric b
> Hi,
>
> Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
>
>
>> I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
>> project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
>> and
>> Rob, who I know to be a distinguished enginee
Hi,
Le 2 juin 11 à 17:57, Greg Stein a écrit :
Whether one group has more committers than the other doesn't matter
either. There are Apache projects with just a half-dozen people
working on them. That is sufficient for the Foundation, so we can
just ignore number comparisons.
I fully a
I don't think these statistics have any real relevance to the goal of
evaluating the Proposal and whether it makes sense.
Whether somebody has committed or not, the only question is "do they
have an interest in being part of the community?"
Whether one group has more committers than the other doe
Hi,
Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one
developer and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
contributed cod
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 11:06:54 AM:
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> > antagonistic. If
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>
> To answer Jim's email, I think that while OOo and LibreOffice don't have to
> be competitors, I would not necessarily want to decide why we should split
> development efforts. I 'm sure the Apache Foundation has experience in
> dealing wi
Hello Jim,
2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> > they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> > antagonistic. If truly 100% of the Lib
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
> they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
> antagonistic. If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to
> Apache, then
48 matches
Mail list logo
