Re: Integrating cws_macjoin1153

Eric Hoch wrote:

>Hi James, 
>Am Mon, 27 Jun 2005 06:39:02 -0700, schrieb James McKenzie:
>  
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>How about having a contact person within OOo.org that would be willing
>>>>to take in fixes/patches from NO/J people and then going through the
>>>>trouble of CWSing it etc...? Or that Patrick/Ed etc. would just mail
>>>>their patches to the dev@ list? Maybe per NO/J patch/release or
>>>>something... And not the GUI stuff, but the OO X11 -related fixes...
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Is it possible to implement something like this ?
>>>
>>>Not technically, but humanly ?
>>>
>>>Is there the willingness to build bridges on both sides of the "port" ?
>>>      
>>>
>>For the record, Patrick has done this for the 1.1.x tree.  It is 
>>called cws_macjoin1153 and I downloaded it this weekend and will 
>>look through it as time permits (I have a real life which 
>>includes a real job and family) to see if they have been merged 
>>back into the current version of the Master Work Space for 1.1.x.
>>    
>>
>
>Eric Bachard has already done parts of this work. So it would be 
>good if you contact him so that work isn't done twice. 
>  
>
Thank you, Eric.  I don't want to do this a second time and I don't want 
to duplicate efforts that others are working on.

>Much more interesting is the integration of the fixes into 2.0 
>sources. Here we have to take a look and see if Patricks patches, 
>ported to 2.0, are of any help for 2.0 and prevent double work. 
>Here we should take a closer look. But this isn't easy and here any 
>help is welcomed. Here you could do code comparison.  
>  
>
I agree.  We should be focusing on the current build and not a backport 
release that may or may not happen.

>>And I found out about the cws by looking through the cvs mailing 
>>list.  That mailing list needs help to remove the trash (read 
>>spam) from the good messages on changes made to the current 
>>branches.
>>    
>>
>
>I guess it simply lacks a moderator who get's the mails and decides 
>which ones to pass through and which ones to deny.  
>
>  
>
I agree that this is an unmoderated list, but that does not eliminate 
the need for a good cleanup of the list removing the viruses and other 
messages that are not related to changes that are sent to it.

James McKenzie