Re: MacOSX porting cvs repo. 1.9m119

Pavel JanĂ­k wrote:

>   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.
>  
>
Pavel:

I agree with you on this.  However, searching though the patches needed 
to make a build can be very frustrating.  Maho has made this much 
easier.  And I agree that the child workspaces need to be worked back 
into the master work space.  However, the proposed patches also need to 
be tested against the other build platforms so that we don't break the 
other builds while trying to fix problems only encountered with MacOSX.  
If I get my other system back, I will have a Linux build area so that I 
can just copy from my PB to it and then run a build for test.

>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.
>  
>
Thank you.  Is this issue incorporated into a child workspace in the 
macosx series so that it can be worked back into the master?  (This is a 
question for Eric B. who owns the latest macosx child workspace.)

James McKenzie