Nii Hao All!
I've switched back from digest mode: i've never had a mailing list in digest mode and i just discovered to hate it :D
Here're some excerpts from the digests:
1. i second the choice of a wiki, it's a great system!
2. if you think a forum+ml is too much, we could go with the list and use the forum justo for public announcements or something like weekly status updates.
3. please, PLEASE!, don't call it AmigaOffice or something alike, don't us do the same error of Amizilla: here we have a great brand we can use for free and it's a big selling point: let's use it! (btw, OpenOffice.org is the real name, not OpenOffice :))
4. SVN vs. CVS: although i'm one of the fans of SVN i believe that if you guys feel more comfortable with CVS and it will let us to start rapidly, then you should use it. In the meanwhile SVN could be a side project (in a SourceForge perspective too...)
5. the fact that at some point we'll have Python (and APR too), really makes me happy (ok, i admit this point isn't much related to project organization :D)
Hello Nibunnoichi
On 08/01/2005, you wrote:
Nii Hao All!
I've switched back from digest mode: i've never had a mailing list in digest mode and i just discovered to hate it :D
Here're some excerpts from the digests:
- i second the choice of a wiki, it's a great system!
All web activities are on hold, we need to decide on where to host it, whom to maintain & what we'll name the project (the project name needn't be the product name)
- if you think a forum+ml is too much, we could go with the list and
use the forum justo for public announcements or something like weekly status updates.
Agreed.
- please, PLEASE!, don't call it AmigaOffice or something alike, don't
us do the same error of Amizilla: here we have a great brand we can use for free and it's a big selling point: let's use it! (btw, OpenOffice.org is the real name, not OpenOffice :))
Agreed, the value of OpenOffice franchise shouldn't be underestimated, it's starting to get name recognision, so we should ride that wave.
- SVN vs. CVS: although i'm one of the fans of SVN i believe that if
you guys feel more comfortable with CVS and it will let us to start rapidly, then you should use it. In the meanwhile SVN could be a side project (in a SourceForge perspective too...)
I still think we should start on a smaller thing before we tackle OOo, but the most important part of it all is getting organised.
- the fact that at some point we'll have Python (and APR too), really
makes me happy (ok, i admit this point isn't much related to project organization :D)
Any good news is welcome news ;)
Regards
Christophe Ochal wrote:
- SVN vs. CVS: although i'm one of the fans of SVN i believe that if
you guys feel more comfortable with CVS and it will let us to start rapidly, then you should use it. In the meanwhile SVN could be a side project (in a SourceForge perspective too...)
I still think we should start on a smaller thing before we tackle OOo, but the most important part of it all is getting organised.
There are many dependancies. Just pick one ;-)
Personal opinion on feasible roadplan: If we go for 1.9, we'll have to work on dependencies and making sure all the portable (everything except the OS/GUI abstraction layers) compile out of the box while following the upstream development. At some point, upstream is going to start freezing parts of the abstraction layers (for all I know this could have happened already, but I doubt it), from there on in we need to focus on those.
Hello Ole-Egil
On 08/01/2005, you wrote:
Christophe Ochal wrote:
- SVN vs. CVS: although i'm one of the fans of SVN i believe that if
you guys feel more comfortable with CVS and it will let us to start rapidly, then you should use it. In the meanwhile SVN could be a side project (in a SourceForge perspective too...)
I still think we should start on a smaller thing before we tackle OOo, but the most important part of it all is getting organised.
There are many dependancies. Just pick one ;-)
Dmake is already done.... Well, there's always neon, seems OOo also uses it ;)
Personal opinion on feasible roadplan: If we go for 1.9, we'll have to work on dependencies and making sure all the portable (everything except the OS/GUI abstraction layers) compile out of the box while following the upstream development. At some point, upstream is going to start freezing parts of the abstraction layers (for all I know this could have happened already, but I doubt it), from there on in we need to focus on those.
Finding this out shouldn't be too hard, it's just a matter of mailing the right people & asking the right questions.
If nobody objects to T_Power's suggestion i'll be setting up the voting booth up monday for head honcho, that person can then form a team arround him to manage things.
Anyone willing to take that role should speak up.
Note that that person will *NOT* be responsible for the project itself, he will still need to form a team to support his function & workload.
Regards
-
Christophe Ochal -
Nibunnoichi -
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren