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<m...@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.
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
