Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote:
I was thinking of taking a 2 steps approach: first silent warning in a
conservative way (this is also less risk to introduce bugs) and then to
"down-size" the module just keeping the needed part.

That works for me.

In my opinion, the needed part would be, for the next releases, just the
read capability of (older?) binary format build in within LibO.

If we didn't currently have the capability to write them I definitely
wouldn't be in favour of adding it. But seeing as we already have the
capability of writing them, I wonder if we should retain it, on the
other hand, maybe this is the best route to take :-), drop support for
writing new ones and help prod the format into extinction.

Is there a "technical" steering committee for this kind of decision, where we 
could propose / give reasons for thinking this or that? 

There is alright, a phonecon typically once a week or so. maybe we can
put this topic on the agenda and you could dial in if its at a suitable
time.

C.


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.