<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 12/03/2011 04:10 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOj7QQ2-puLAUktAiCUOePPeY3BYz2mR84h8z8WjED-1f7vMUw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 3 December 2011 15:51, Sebastian Sauer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mail@dipe.org"><mail@dipe.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 12/02/2011 05:31 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Friday 02 December 2011 09:32:56 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
In Words, the following filters are broken because they convert to/from
the
old kwd format which was removed. They are still installed, though, and
appear in the file dialog as options (and then don't work...)
palmdocexport
palmdocimport
wmlexport
wmlimport
oowriterexport
oowriterimport
mswriteimport
mswriteexport
docbookexport
wpimport
wpexport
rtfexport
asciiexport
amiproexport
amiproimport
htmlexport
abiwordimport
abiwordexport
lateximport
latexport
starwriterimport
htmlimport
dcmimport
At the very least, we shouldn't install them -- but should we compile
them
at all? Should the code even remain in the repositories? We've seen with
doc, rtf and html that if we want to reinstate support for broken file
formats, that we usually rewrite the complete filter
Some of the broken formats, like ms-write are also listed in Words'
desktop
file:
MimeType=application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text;application/vnd.oasis.open
document.text-template;application/msword;application/rtf;text/plain;applic
ation/x-mswrite;application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessin
gml.document;application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml
.template;
X-Calligra-DefaultMimeTypes=application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text,applica
tion/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-template,application/msword,application/rt
f,text/plain,application/x-mswrite,application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedoc
ument.wordprocessingml.document,application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocume
nt.wordprocessingml.template
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes I vote we remove them from the repository
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I would prefer to keep them + disable compile + add a comment why / what
needs to be done so if someone steps in to add/extend a certain filter
he/she could build up his work on an probably already the existing one.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I wanted to propose that too as this is actually the way what I do
with obsolete but not yet replaced code.
But for others it would be enough to look in git history. If so, let's
create a tag for that revision.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1"><br>
What equals to throwing it in a black hole. Neither will anybody
look at such a specific revision/tag nor will anybody remember and
especially not those who have a look at our code to get into /
look what is there / start contributing.<br>
<br>
Some of those filters may sound esoteric but some are rather basic
or even commonly used things. In any case it would be a shame to
just nullify all the work that was done on them and taking any
possibility others could reuse / build up on / port.<br>
<br>
It is not like that's lot of code that takes away to much free
diskspace. If the problem is that the code is there and visible
without really working I would propose to move it to an e.g.
"not_working" or "unmaintained" or "xyz" sub-directory under
filters/words. That way it's out of our way while still being
visible and direct accessible for those who look or work on our
filters. may that be an idea?<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>