Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I really do understand but I think you underestimate the complexity of a
project with more than 10,000,000 lines of code. That being said, I have
no additional feedback and we're not going to be forcing anything on
volunteers so . . . we can agree to disagree and know that this is how
the project works-take it or leave it.


On 10/03/2014 06:19 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
Aww heck that'd be brilliant!  If TDF could take Thunderbird under their
wing instead of leaving it with Mozilla.

Mozilla don't seem to appreciate just how many people rely on Thunderbird.
It's the best OpenSource email client around, in the opinion of a huge
percentage of people apparently.

People, and articles have often said that LibreOffice could never compete
with MSO because it lacks an email client.  Completely missing the point
that so many great email clients integrate so well with LibreOffice.  Maybe
if there was a kinda default one and if that was as great as Thunderbird is
then it'd cut a lot of detractors off at the knees.

Sorry!  I do agree with your main points!
Regards from
Tom :)

On 3 October 2014 13:16, Tanstaafl <> wrote:

Fair enough. I guess that belief was a remnant from the Sun/Openoffice

My apologies for a huge, incorrect assumption.

Also, I just realized there is a distinction that I have been making,
but that may have been missed and so may be causing a disconnect.

That distinction is, code that someone writes and contributes - like,
for example, this new 'Inline editing' feature for Input fields' - vs
pre-existing/old legacy code and/or bugs that is/was already there, long
before any new volunteers come along.

In most of the projects I use and interact with, bugs are taken very
seriously, and fixed as soon as they are verified (after being
reported), with a 'thank you very much for reporting this!' response...

It is *only* enhancements/feature requests that get the *very* valid and
legitimate 'patches welcome!' and/or 'we will happily add that feature
for you for $##### bucks.' responses...

Libreoffice, and Mozilla Thunderbird are the only projects I use and
interact with on a daily basis that seem to act totally contrary to
this, and constantly play the 'fix it yerself/pay someone to fix it for
you' cards. With Thunderbird, it is really only because they simply
don't have enough manpower (2 or 3 devs for the entire project, I
believe), and they are dealing with a ton of pre-existing/old legacy
code/bugs, and I totally get it. I also totally get it with respect to
the same code in Libreoffice, and from what I understand, that it is a
huge monster of a code base.

But all of that is really orthogonal to my main point...

Software developers, whether volunteer or not, should have *some* level
of responsibility and obligation on their part to fix bugs they
themselves introduce into code they write. I know I would if I were one,
and I know I do for anything that I do build.

They write it - they should own it.

I simply don't understand how anyone could believe otherwise.

On 10/2/2014 5:57 PM, Joel Madero <> wrote:
Um - well two points:
1. None of the paid developers are paid by TDF - we have 0 paid
developers on staff.
2. Most commits are still done by volunteers and many are done by paid
developers on their free time (ie. when they are volunteering).
To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.