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.