openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From janI <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: L10n tools is no longer needed.
Date Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:12:58 GMT
thanks rob for clarifying it.

It just shows how wrong my thought were, but I have been searching to find
documentation on the split, reasons why, person conflicts etc...that seems
buried quite deep (maybe for good reasons), and the IBM approach to LO also
seems quite hard to find, so please understand why  I had the impression
that we are more talking than doing.

Being new, it is really hard to understand, and asking people from LO, just
gives the answer that they want to be independent of companies.

I just want to do my job, and make it available to as many as possible...so
now I will continue with a little AOO project that I have defined.

Jan.



On 2 December 2012 16:03, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:02 PM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 1 December 2012 18:01, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> 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.**6050502@apache.org%3E<
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201210.mbox/%3C50904023.6050502@apache.org%3E
> >
> >>
> >> - my ApacheCon presentation
> >> http://s.apache.org/**openoffice-aceu2012-day-1<
> http://s.apache.org/openoffice-aceu2012-day-1>
> >>
> >> - code contributions Apache OpenOffice is making to LibreOffice
> >> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/**entry/good_news_libreoffice_**
> >> is_integrating<
> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/good_news_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 that...my 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.
> >
>
> Yes.  I can say for example that we (IBM) have contacted the company
> that employees two TDF Directors, and in discussions that included
> their LibreOffice lead, offered to discuss ways of collaborating on
> code between LO and AOO.   Specifically we discussed ways of
> collaborating on interoperability and accessibility.  At first they
> said this could not be discussed, for political reasons, until AOO
> graduated.  I then pushed for us to graduate the very next day.  But
> now we're told that this collaboration is not possible until they have
> completed rebasing their code on AOO.  We're been pushing these
> discussions for over a year now, but have met with nothing but excuses
> and delay.
>
> -Rob
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >>   Andrea.
> >>
>

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