Re: MacOSX porting cvs repo. 1.9m119

   From: James McKenzie <[email protected]>
   Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:14:09 -0700

   > Maho and myself have build several versions of OOo 1.9, and I would
   > expect by now that these patches have worked back into the master
   > workspace, most notably IZ 42998, which has been open for quite some
   > time now.

Sorry? I do not understand what you wrote. Especially, what does "have
worked back into the master workspace" mean?

   > I think that Maho is trying to make public what he is doing to show
   > what he did to build OOo 1.9 milestones successfully.  Instead of
   > placing a bunch of files in an obscure location, he is using CVS to
   > make his work available and this is easier than downloading the same
   > files over and over again.

You do not understand me. I really appreciate what Maho, you, Eric B. and
other MacOS X builders do. But building is not enough! You should think in
the long run and bring your changes/patches/whatever *back* to the
project. Instead of "placing a bunch of files in an obscure location" or
"using CVS repository in an obscure location" you can and *SHOULD* use
child workspace in the right location (OOo CVS server) and ask others to
verify the changes in it and together get it *integrated* back.

As you said, issue #i42998# is very good example:

http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=42998

The issue was filed on "Feb 17 2005". This is 6 months ago! 6 months! No
other porting team has a bug that is "must have" opened for such a long
time. Only MacOS X builders are using the patch from it for such a long
time *without* an idea when it can come back to the source.

This is at least non effective! I'm again pointing at this. In the past
I sent one kick-off mail. This is another one.
-- 
Pavel JanĂ­k

printk("Illegal format on cdrom.  Pester manufacturer.\n");
                  -- 2.2.16 fs/isofs/inode.c