OpenOffice in a nut-shell ...

Posted Jan 18, 2010 22:07 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: OpenOffice in a nut-shell ... by AlexHudson
Parent article: LCA: How to destroy your community

That's... truly remarkable. Why has no other project emulated this
stunning decision, I wonder?

(in a past job, I worked on a proprietary system that had a homebrewed
bugtracker for which the bug description had to be typed into a single
Windows input line. Not a text editing canvas: an input line. The
resulting bug descriptions left something to be desired. SugarCRM's
decision strikes me as being of the same degree of jawdropping
craziness...)

OpenOffice in a nut-shell ...

Posted Jan 19, 2010 17:21 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link] (1 responses)

Hehe, look : still it lives!

I don't know if it has changed at all, but the process appears to be improved further from my original understanding. You first create a bug entry covering the issue (sane, aside from login required), then you submit the web form to alert them to the submission (er...?) and they have a lovely set of guidelines to follow (gems like "The proposed change must support all baseline-certified versions of PHP, and must be able to support all databases, etc.").

Beat them hoops. Also, by my reading, they want the description of the improvement in the bug tracker, but the actual code submission via the web - what?

OpenOffice in a nut-shell ...

Posted Jan 19, 2010 21:15 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Stunning. Nothing screams 'we don't expect contributions, go away' like
constraints like that. The 'no 3rd-party software' rule alone is an
excellent way of forcing wheel-reinvention for no good reason whatever.