On Wednesday 17 August 2011 07:53:17 Timothy Pearson wrote:

> Second: I was merely thinking out loud.  With trolls on this list
> apparently that is a bad idea; I will save my ideas for the meeting, where
> things have been more civil.
> 
> Third: I do not need to break the existing KDE3.5.10 plugin, but over time
> it WILL break itself.  Good luck keeping it running when Qt3.3.8b won't
> even build anymore.

Instead of accusing me of trolling here you better should recalll that we use your 
patched version of Qt3. They are API-wise backward compatible and there is 
actually no need for rewriting anything that depends on purely Qt3.
 
> Fourth: For now we are keeping the upstream plugin.  My entire train of
> thought here has been an attempt to be PROACTIVE instead of RETROACTIVE in
> fixing major functionality regressions.
> Having no part in the development 
> of the upstream LibreOffice plugin is NOT a good thing, and has the
> potential to cause a MAJOR USER-VISIBLE regression if upstream dumps it or
> breaks it without our knowleged.

OK, if you are talking just about obtaining accounts in their development system
"de bene esse". 

> I will say no more on this topic for now.