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 Tue, 06 Mar 2012 02:17:28 GMT
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Larry Gusaas <> wrote:
> On 2012-03-05 7:17 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Larry Gusaas<>
>>  wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-05 4:38 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4
>>>> plan.
>>>> We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if you have new
>>>> information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new code, then I'm
>>>> new
>>>> we all would love to know about it. But if you are just noticing this
>>>> for
>>>> the first time, you might want to check the list archives to catch up on
>>>> the
>>>> previous discussion first. Search for "berkeleydb".
>>> The problem with the database was known. The fact that you were planning
>>> to
>>> release a version that overwrote OOo and erased the extensions in the
>>> user
>>> profile was not clear until you asked for testing. And now you are
>>> complaining about us reporting the problems found.
>> Maybe not clear to you, but the information was provided in early
>> December when the code change was made.  This was not hidden.  The
>> implications of this were plainly stated, for example on the wiki page
>> that explained the user-facing ramifications of removing the Berkeley
>> DB:
>> "The impact is that extensions installed for older versions of
>> OpenOffice have to be re-installed."
> Once again you are missing the point.  The issue is overwriting 3.4 on the
> previous OOo installation and using the old user profile, which causes the
> deletion of all extensions from the user profile.

As we said back in December, 3.4 users will need to reinstall
extensions.   I am not missing the point.  I am the one who wrote that
in the wiki back in December.

> If the user then decides to return to a earlier version, the user profiled
> is fucked and they have to reinstall all extensions. That would not make for
> a happy user.

If a user wants to run both 3.3 and 3.4 then they can do that today.
We can certainly make it clear in the install doc how a user can do
this, if they wish.   But I see no reason why this would or should be
the default installation choice.

> It would be better to release as AOO 3.4 and create a totally new profile
> rather than overwrite the program and mess up the old user profile.

Once the user has reinstalled the extensions, in what way is the old
user profile messed up?

Remember, not all users have extensions installed. I doubt the
majority do.  Why would we want all users to lose all settings just
because a fraction of users need to reinstall their extensions, users
who if they did reinstall the extensions would have all of there
settings intact? I don't see your recommendation as optimal for users
who are upgrading to AOO 3.4.

> As for precedent, when Sun released OOo 3.0 it created a new profile and did
> not use the profile from OOo 2.xx, at least on Mac installs.
> As for you references to Microsoft updates, that is a bunch of crap. Do you
> really want to use Microsoft as an example? Or is that typical of IBM as
> well?

As I said before, the point was that requiring users to reinstall
extensions is not unreasonable.   It is certainly better than what you
are recommending, that users must reinstall extensions but then they
also lose every other setting and preference they had in their profile
as well,


> --
> _________________________________
> Larry I. Gusaas
> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
> Website:
> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
> theirs." - Edgard Varese

View raw message