openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From chengjh <>
Subject Re: Request to Create a Branch for the "Implement the Loading of TOC and Improve TOC Fidelity with MS Word Binary Document"
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:06:37 GMT
Oliver, Very good suggestion.That's also one of my goals.Let's take it as a
pilot to practise the way of branch development in community. After the TOC
improvement done,the actual usage of this branch will pop up to focus on
the Study and POC of Writer's Track Changes..Thanks.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 29.06.2012 10:37, chengjh wrote:
>> Thanks to Juergen and Oliver's comments..I got points as followed:
>> a)If the code changes of an improvement are too many,effort is also big
>> and
>> development has to be went on for long,moreover,special testing work will
>> be taken to cover the given function areas and impacted areas, that's ok
>> to
>> create a branch for the improvement..It is better to do so.
>> b)If the risk and impact areas are under control,and we are confident to
>> ensure the quality along with that the finished scenarios are clear and
>> expected, it is better for us to deliver the code changes to main
>> stream( trunk )
>> directly even the deliverable is not complete.Thus QE volunteers can help
>> us to find out regression defects as early as possible,and also,better
>> feedback can be got in time.
>> So,the selection can be decided according to the actual project's
>> situation
>> and evaluation.To the TOC Loading,we are able to deliver the code changes
>> to main and finish the development work stage by stage in main
>> directly..Any misunderstanding,please correct me.
> Yes.
> The team that is working on a feature can decide what is better - working
> on trunk or working on a branch.
> May be we can use the "TOC enhancements" as an opportunity to figure out a
> good and accepted way to work on branches.
> Thus, I am fine with both ways for the "TOC enhancements".
> Best regards, Oliver.
> P.S.: I have just finished my review on the recent patch for issue 119963
>  On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
>>> wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>> On 29.06.2012 03:59, chengjh wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>> We have proposed to implement the loading of TOC and improve TOC
>>>> fidelity
>>>> with MS Word binary document..And now,we have finished the loading
>>>> implementation part and delivered patch for review in
>>>> <https**://**bug.cgi?id=119963<>
>>>> >.
>>>> Because this is just
>>>> the stage I code implementation, and more improvements within stage
>>>> II/III/
>>>> code implementation will be followed,moreover,special qe efforts are
>>>> needed
>>>> to cover the whole TOC function area and the impact areas,in order to
>>>> decrease the negative impacts on the main stream,we request to create a
>>>> branch and deliver our code implementation to the branch first, and then
>>>> integrate the final qualified code to main..How about your
>>>> comments?Thanks.
>>>> Reference:
>>>> [1]Candidate Proposal:
>>>> AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning<https**://**
>>>> confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning<>
>>>> >
>>>> [2]Wiki with FS and SDD:****openoff**
>>>> <**Writer/<>
>>>> >
>>>> TOC <**openof**<>
>>>> <http:**//**org/wiki/Writer/TOC<>
>>>> >
>>>> **>
>>>>  In general I think it makes completely sense to work on a branch for a
>>> certain feature which takes more implementation, testing etc. efforts.
>>> In this special case I am not sure, if it is needed.
>>> I am currently reviewing the patch for issue 119963. It works fine from
>>> my
>>> point of view. There are no open ends, it is complete and does not cause
>>> any problems as far as I can see. Thus, I am planning to apply this patch
>>> to trunk today or on Monday.
>>> Thus, from my point of view this feature milestone and the following ones
>>> are still small enough to handle them without an additional branch.
>>> Best regards, Oliver.


Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message