incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Weber <>
Subject Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:37:51 GMT
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
> 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 version?
>>> 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


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. 

View raw message