[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Missing ODF features -- bugs or wishes
From:       Thomas Zander <t.zander () nokia ! com>
Date:       2010-03-23 16:20:55
Message-ID: 201003231720.56258.t.zander () nokia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 23. March 2010 15.59.44 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Following a discussion over bug
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231743, it became clear that we need
> to formulate an agreed-upon policy for missing support for ODF features in
> KOffice.

Always a good idea.

> The issue is: are missing features bugs or wishes, and do those
> wishes belong in bugs.kde.org.

The reason for closing this bugreport is not one of a missing feature, its one 
of a missing component[1].
The difference is that a missing feature makes a lot of sense to report in the 
same place where the code for it is hosted (since you have to edit KOffice code 
to add it). On the other hand, a missing component (in this case a plugin for 
flake to show a new content type) can be started by anyone in his mothers  
garage ;)

This ties in with a talk we had a week or two ago on #koffice where a suggestion 
was made to have a community run repository of ideas.
One community member already registred https://launchpad.net/koffice-extensions 
and another idea was to use http://brainstorm.forum.kde.org for this.

> My position is that since ODF is our native file format, missing support
> for an ODF feature is a bug, 

Yes, KOffice uses ODF as its native file format, at the same time its not a 
reference implementation. There will always be features in ODF that KWord 
doesn't support. I bet its the same for other apps.
If people have an ODF feature I want to support loading and saving it. 
Anything else is a bug.
If people have an ODF feature we *might* want to show to implement the feature 
fully.
If people have an ODF feature we *might* want to provide UI for people adding 
this content themselves.
Or, in other words; we might tell users that a certain feature not supported 
by us. They can buy a 3rd party plugin (or write and open source it) if they 
want to. But we never loose data.
Rejecting the issue is perfectly in line with this.

> even if that feature could best be
> implemented as a new plugin for KOffice, and that reports about these
> missing features are valid items in bugs.kde.org, but not everyone agrees
> with me, and I think we need to come to a consensus about this.

Thanks for giving your opinion, I have to admit I think its one that is a bit 
too idealistic; ODF has a million features we are missing. In fact, OOo has a 
lot of them missing too and it is a bit ahead of us in development.
Having all those tasks in KOffice bugzilla distracts us from the more important 
ones; ones only the KOffice core developers can fix.

I suggest working on a community supported repository of ideas and feature 
requests that people can do without adding code to KOffice.

1) to avoid confusion; compare it with bug #231720
-- 
Thomas Zander
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]