| |||||||||||||
Some Factual ErrorsSome Factual ErrorsPosted Sep 22, 2011 17:05 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888)Parent article: LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice.org one year later
I'm a committer on the Apache OOo project and wanted to bring to the reader's attention several errors in the article.
First, we do have an issue tracker for the project. It is linked to from the project's homepage under "Bug Tracking". Not a very obscure name, IMHO. But I'm open to suggestions that would make it easier to find.
You can get to it directly here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
Also, the article claims that the Apache project has added no committers since the project started. This is incorrect. We've added 16. This can be confirmed by looking at our monthly status reports:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2011
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/July2011
The September report, in particular, also talks about the successful migration of the OOo Bugzilla instance to Apache, as well as the transfer of the OpenOffice.org domain name and trademarks.
Regards,
-Rob
(Log in to post comments)
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 18:53 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Apache Incubators are tracked on the clutch page http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html and as the article mentions that page at least doesn't know about any new committers, or that the project has a tracker.
And if you go to http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/ it says:
So it would certainly help if you fixed those project information pages.
Also you might have a different definition of committer. Although you say you added 16 committers, there seem to have been only 5 hackers who did 71 code commits if you look at the svn repository after it got imported last month. Which at least looks a bit less than LibreOffice which had 69 committers who made 1392 commits in the last 30 days.
You might want to setup something like http://cia.vc/stats/project/libreoffice to track commits per day for people wanting to easily keep track of the project code commit activity.
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 19:27 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888) [Link]
I don't rebut the your assertion that the author's erroneous claims are based on poor research. I'm just pointing out the facts, and substantiating them with evidence.
-Rob
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 20:15 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] I don't rebut the your assertion that the author's erroneous claims are based on poor research.That wasn't my assertion. The author showed where he did research and found his facts. Doing a little research at least gives the impression the Apache Office project hasn't really be started yet because of a lack of resources and committers to take up where openoffice.org left. Even the original draft of the September status report says that: The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding.The article doesn't imply nothing is being done, just that the project still has to start delivering. And it seems at least some participants agree with that assessment. It is good that you recently did setup a tracker, but that was probably done after the article was written, and as you can see it isn't easily discoverable through at least two standard pages about the project. My point simply was that you could fix those pages if you think the conclusions drawn from them is incorrect. It is appreciated that you are still searching how to setup the project and to find the resources needed to push forward. But you could certainly try to make the facts more easily discoverable. Maybe in year a whole different article will be written, but I do believe the current facts and evidence support what the author writes about the current state of the Apache Office project.
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 21:05 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888) [Link]
"I do believe the current facts and evidence support what the author writes about the current state of the Apache Office project."
The issue tracker is here: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
I invite you to click it. I assure you it is there. It has been there for weeks, announced on the Apache list on August 3oth, over two weeks before this article is posted:
http://markmail.org/message/n4ptdcj26io6npk2
If you say that you had difficulties finding this, even though it is linked to from the project's Apache home page, then I am prepared to believe you. But facts are facts. And the fact is the issue tracker is there.
Ditto for the committers since the project started. I accept the you may have been confused. But I've shown you the facts, in the official reports of the project. Facts are facts. And the fact is the article is wrong.
-Rob
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 20:09 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> if you look at the svn repository after it got imported last month.
One thing I'm wondering what the process of converting a distributed VCS repo into a centralized repo was. Were these steps published anywhere? I can't imagine that the process was lossless, but I'm interested in it nonetheless.
Some Factual Errors Posted Sep 22, 2011 20:33 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
All history from the previous DVCS repo was thrown away when the code was imported. There were some tries to keep the history, but nothing worked: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/svn-import-experience.html
|
|||||||||||||