openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re:
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:09:43 GMT
Am 07/05/2011 10:48 PM, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
> On 05.07.2011 22:20, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> Am 07/05/2011 09:33 PM, schrieb Mathias Bauer:
>>> On 05.07.2011 18:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>> It seems that my memory had fooled me: so if anybody can create an svn
>>>> dump file, I will try to recap what we have agreed to so far and have a
>>>> look into the conversion. In case anyone else is already at this, please
>>>> let me know.
>>> Having said that, there's a thought that makes me wonder: we have 117
>>> cws with more or less unfinished work. I doubt that we will integrate
>>> them all anytime soon, as integration also comprises developing the
>>> merged code further until it has sufficient quality for becoming part of
>>> the trunk. [Wat is "sufficient" is still undefined - we surely won't
>>> continue the overdone QA approval process from the "old" OOo project,
>>> but OTOH also shouldn't throw code at the repository at will.]
>>> Some of the 117 cws are anbandoned work, others are work in an early
>>> state that most probably doesn't make sense to be continued without the
>>> developers starting it.
>>> Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that will never be used?
>>> The alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review.
>> IMHO you should say "Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that
>> will /maybe/ never be used?". Then I would say "yes, until it's really
>> clear that the work in the specific CWS is not continued resp. will be
>> finished.
>> Maybe the developers will come to us at a later point in time? Or other
>> dev's would like to go on with the started work?
>> I don't know but maybe it's relatively easy to investigate how far the
>> CWS is in its development? If just started then it could be really
>> dropped. But when a lot is already done, then we should keep it for x
>> months (x = tdbd).
>> When we define to throw it away now (or better said we won't transfer to
>> the files from the Orcale server) then there is no chance at all for this.
> I don't opt for throwing anything away, my thoughts went into the same
> direction as Rob's. Keeping all cws in a read-only git repository until
> someone actually cares for working on one of them makes a lot of sense
> to me.

OK, after a second read I've now understood your last sentence ("The 
alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review."). ;-)

> Of course there are some cws that will be worked on soon or that are
> already finished. We can move them to svn now, but others may follow later.

Great, then our thinking goes into the same direction.


View raw message