broken filters in words

[Sebastian Sauer]

On 12/03/2011 04:15 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Saturday 03 December 2011 16:10:06 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> On 3 December 2011 15:51, Sebastian Sauer<mail at dipe.org>  wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2011 05:31 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
>>>> On Friday 02 December 2011 09:32:56 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>>>>> 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;ap
>>>>> plic
>>>>>
>>>>> ation/x-mswrite;application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordproce
>>>>> ssin
>>>>>
>>>>> gml.document;application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessi
>>>>> ngml .template;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Calligra-DefaultMimeTypes=application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text,app
>>>>> lica
>>>>>
>>>>> tion/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-template,application/msword,applicatio
>>>>> n/rt
>>>>>
>>>>> f,text/plain,application/x-mswrite,application/vnd.openxmlformats-offic
>>>>> edoc
>>>>>
>>>>> ument.wordprocessingml.document,application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedo
>>>>> cume nt.wordprocessingml.template
>>>> Yes I vote we remove them from the repository
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> I don't have that big a problem keeping them around except I really question
> if they are ever going to be useful. And if so then it's just noise
> How about we remove, but tag as jaroslaw suggests, and then add a READM
> docment to filters instead describing to how to checkout that tag ?

I don't think they are just noice. The WordPerfect filter for example is 
of high quality and it would be a shame to remove it from our repository 
and lose all the time that was invested to come up with that solution.

Removing it from our repository means we will lose it. Nobody will 
pick-up or care if the code is hidden in some revision making it hard to 
view+port. I think all that code is far from "just noice" and they are 
very useful if you actually work on filters.

We could also create an external repository for all kind of plugins and 
move them there.