incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:27:28 GMT
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Jean Weber <> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber <> wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas <> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>>> <>  wrote:
>>>>>> If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early
incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o.  I recommend that AOO 3.4
install in its own locations and not do anything that would prevent side-by-side functioning.
 (My recommendation would be that it do that anyhow.  But with known breaking of an important
down-level feature, that becomes imperative.)
>>>>> In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on
>>>>> desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security
>>>>> hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained.
>>>>> We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them
>>>>> with the AOO 3.4.  This is true even given the inconvenience the user
>>>>> experiences from the need to reinstall extensions.
>>>> Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if
AOO 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x
>>>> One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create
a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and import the data that
can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile.
>>>>> In any case, I think the overwrite is fine.  It is what OOo 3.3 and
>>>>> OOo 3.2 did as well by default.  We can document in the install
>>>>> intructions how this can be overridden.
>>>> The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link.
How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before installing a new
>>>>>> I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled
as well.  It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason to provoke
more of it.
>>>> Agree
>>> Rob,
>>> When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other
customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create
a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis
and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously
consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most
people don't read the instructions, as you should know.
>> I'm not aware of "other customizations" being overwritten in this
>> case. Can you say more?
>> -Rob
>>> Jean
> Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I
> might not be aware.

OK.  If you come across anything specific, please enter an issue in
BZ.  But for sake of a reasonable debate on the specific install
question in this thread, I'd recommend we not bring up hypothetical
issues that you are not actually aware of.


> --Jean

View raw message