openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mathias Bauer <>
Subject Re: OOO and LibreOffice.
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:17:42 GMT
On 07.07.2011 13:25, Ian Lynch wrote:

> On 7 July 2011 12:09, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>> On 6 July 2011 23:51, Andrew Rist <> wrote:
>> >
>> > To date the LibreOffice crew has taken the effort to merge in changes
>> from
>> > the OOo code line, for each release.
>> > The most obvious and best way to collaborate in the future is to write
>> good
>> > code, and make it worth their while to integrate it into LO.
>> > The more compelling the development effort at Apache, the more likely it
>> is
>> > reused by LO.
>> > This also leads to the situation where they have an interest in pushing
>> > changes into the AOOo code line, to simplify their future merges.
>> I agree 100% with this.
>> My question, as someone who does not know the OOo code, is are there
>> any obvious places in the code where this is likely to happen?
>> A strong Apache project has the broadest possible community of users.
>> Some of these users become contributors and some of those become
>> committers.
>> I wonder if there are any units of code that can be separately
>> packaged in order to allow them to be included in downstream projects
>> without "merging cnhanges" into a separate code tree?
>> I'm a Java weenie, so I think in terms of JARs that can be reused
>> easily. Is there any scope in the OOo project for similar library
>> reuse? If so where is the low hanging fruit?
> One thing would be to collaborate to remove any redundant code. I have heard
> that the LibO people have already worked on this so removing code should be
> something that is not too controversial license-wise and could filter up
> stream from LibO to OOo. (hi guys we removed this this and this, you might
> like to do the same as it hasn't broken anything) Same with identifying
> inefficient stuff that is more a matter of reorganisation or replacing
> existing code with something better. Such revisions could be less of a
> license problem even if not completely resolving the issue.

This would at least require that someone having done that at LO would
contribute a patch for OOo. Having a patch could help to do the removal
in the same way as in LO. That could make sure that afterwards the code
bases became more similar and merging of code changes could become
easier in the future. Perhaps that's something you should suggest on the
LO dev list.

(I hope this suggestion isn't seen as an offense - really, if you are
asking for patches you have to ask those who did the work, not those who
might receive it.)


View raw message