openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From janI <>
Subject Re: L10n tools is no longer needed.
Date Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:02:41 GMT
On 1 December 2012 18:01, Andrea Pescetti <> wrote:

> On 28/11/2012 janI wrote:
>> I have had a look, and the tool does with a few exceptions, what genLang
>> was supposed to do. There are no reason to make parallel developments so
>> the l10n development has been stopped.
> Reading the description it seems it can be used as a basis to improve the
> Apache OpenOffice localization process too. As others already pointed out
> in this discussion, there are some good arguments for making a stand-alone
> project out of this tool, and this seems a reasonable solution.
>  Would it not be a wonderful world, if openSource was truly open and we
>> could share ... why are we
>> as volunteers not trying harder to reach that goal.
> How much harder? I think it's hard to try harder. Three recent examples,
> all coming from the official Apache blog or consensus on mailing lists:
> - our FOSDEM offer to share a devroom:
> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-**
> dev/201210.mbox/%3C50904023.**<>
> - my ApacheCon presentation
> - code contributions Apache OpenOffice is making to LibreOffice
> is_integrating<>
> So the Apache OpenOffice side did show willingness to cooperate. But
> cooperation needs willingness on both sides.

When you say FOSDEM...did anyone actually talk with LO, or did we just
offer it to FOSDEM ?

Your presentation was very nice and open but it is far to easy, to sit down
and say "we have said we are willing to cooperate", actually you can hear
the same kind of voices from LO.

About contributions,  I must have written something wrong...
- to me it is a problem when we take/deliver code from each other, that is
not sharing, that is copying, and do not help  with bug fixes,
translatations etc.. But I still think that developers developing for both
LO and AOO are one a right track.
- We cannot take anything from LO, due to the license problems. E.g. the
l10ntools. If we could agree on a common codebase we could really share.

>  If I were PMC I would have one high priority on my list
> I quite disagree on two points here:
> 1) You seem to believe Apache OpenOffice is not seeing this as high
> priority, while I believe Apache OpenOffice is really the only active party
> in this discussion.
you might be right, but to me it seems we are discussing more with
ourselves than with LO. I might be completely wrong here, but until now I
have not heard about any contact directly with LO about cooperation, code
base etc.

There might be some historical perspectives I do not know about at least it
was implied to me.

> 2) You imply that only PMC members can make a change. This is not true.
> Not being a committer may prevent a contributor from getting things done,
> but not being a PMC member does not prevent anyone from being heard or
> influential.

I agree with you on little contribution to the discussion has for
sure got response and not only here.

I try to move things on my scale...but let me put my PMC "imply" more
directly...does any of the key persons (to me PMC) have a contact with LO,
and if not has it been tried to make contact directly ? or are we just
assuming LO do not want to cooperate, because they do not react.

Please see my mail as a positive word to help move OpenOffice (with A or L)
in a direction beneficial for our users. Of course I am irritated over
having wasted a little month work because I did not follow LO dev list, but
that is my problem and already forgotten.

If this discussion is seen as wrongly placed on the dev list, I will gladly
take it somewhere directly.

>   Andrea.

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