fdo#41572 Making it possible to add custom animation to master slides

[Janit Anjaria]

Hey Tor!

It is good to know that even you have been taking interest in this pretty
"important" task which i have been working on.

-- Regarding the compiling of the code , i bet i did compile it on my
machine as well,but as you said you have been getting some errors i would
be happy to look back into it. :D

--Regarding the use of ULONG , i actually did not  get into "some random
googling that found old OpenOffice.org code" .But rather i had used it in
some university project in my freshmen year and hence i thought of just
experimenting here too(i actually wanted to know the advantages and
disadvantages of using it here,and that is why i used it) . But yeah i dont
mind getting it off :)

-- I think picking up was a big task here as i had to dig into quite a lot
of code and hence figure out what to use and "where" ...because i am still
figuring out things regarding the UI (as i had mentioned in my last email)
, and i am sure i will make a better impact on the codebase there :)

-- Yes i think Thorsten would surely be able to feel the code in more
detail ( thanks again for giving me a "strict" guidance on the same) .

And yes regarding the easy hack thing...I dont think the name of the easy
hack does make a difference here.I have named it such , just because the
task revolves around this basic bug . Me and Thorsten have been discussing
the exact work we are planning to implement with ,also taking help from the
UI team ( on IRC as well as emails)  and i keep Thorsten informed about the
proceedings.

---And regarding the submission of the work in small pieces , i had talked
to Thorsten on IRC and i think as a mentor he wanted me to show him my
"work in progress" patch , and clear a few doubts in code i had and hence i
have mentioned that in my comments in the code as well as in my last email.
( and clearing up the misunderstanding , i am sure i havent been bad at
language errors except when i was a newbee in the beginning.But i am sure i
am  working on it , but my experience on the codebase and familiarity is
pretty important here while working on a bigger project and not on small
hacks ;-) :D .

Hope this finds you in good health.

Regards,
Janit


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Tor Lillqvist <tml at iki.fi> wrote:

> If you just would have made it so in your patches from the start that your
> code is at least compiled (and thus by necessity free from syntax and
> language errors), it would have been easier to understand that it is a work
> in progress. Sure, of course it should be OK to submit work on a bigger
> task in pieces. So maybe we are being too harsh...
>
> - You still don't do anything to make this code be compiled and linked
> into some library
>
> - Clearly you haven't even compiled it yourself (using some temporary
> local scaffolding) as there are syntax errors (most obviously, no
> corresponding #endif to the #ifndef __SD_TOOLS__
>
> - Isn't "sdtools" a bit odd name for these headers?
>
> - You don't suggest adding anything to any class, just a couple of
> freestanding functions?
>
> - Even if it would be syntactically correct and linked into a library,
> there is of course nothing added anywhere that would invoke any of this code
>
> - Why do you use the type ULONG in a couple of places in the code, how did
> you even find that type which has been obsolete in most LibreOffice code
> for a long time?  suspect the ULONG came from some random googling that
> found old OpenOffice.org code
>
> - Much of the code in your C++ file seems to be picked from here and there
> in the sd tree, with slight spacing changes. Sure, this might be because it
> actually makes sense (and there is nothing wrong as such with that, copying
> small code snippets around is what coders do all the time, there are not
> many ways to write a for loop that iterates over a specific data structure
> etc).
>
> Note that I did not try to figure out what your code actually does, as I
> am not an Impress expert anyway. Maybe Thorsten could...
>
> I wonder if the root of all this horrible misunderstanding of what a
> proper implementation of that "Easy Hack" should include is the "Making it
> possible" part of the Easy Hack title, and the "Please make it possible"
> part of the fdo#41572 title? Maybe that makes it sound as if an actual
> implementation is not desired for the Easy Hack, just a start?
>
> --tml
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20130514/7990227c/attachment.html>