incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keith N. McKenna" <>
Subject Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test)
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:07:10 GMT
On 3/5/2012 5:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas<>  wrote:
>> On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM  Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I'll put it to you quickly simple.  If you have been paying attention
>>> you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues.
>> I have been paying attention. Have you?
>> In the thread "Calling all volunteers: It is time to test" you wrote
>>    "We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on
>> clean OS installs,
>>    as upgrades to previous versions of OOo."  and
>>    "Please send a short note to the telling us
>> what platform and
>>    scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to
>> LibreOffice, etc.)."
>> I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the
>> extensions in my user profile.
>> Dennis started this thread "[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all
>> volunteers: It is time to test)" to discuss if  releases of AOO should
>> overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions.
>> Does this not require discussion?
> 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".

Many, such as myself, were not aware that extensions were stored in a 
Berkley database
> In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding.  The
> issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is
> overwriting a profile or anything like that.  It is not, as you say.
> that we are "deleting all installed extensions".  The issue is that
> the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db
> database file.  We had to remove berkeleydb because of its
> incompatible license.  So the database file is there, but, even after
> an upgrade, but we're not able to read it.  That is why the extensions
> need to be reinstalled.
	If that is the case it would have behooved you to report that fact when 
you added your "Call for testers" to the Users list. Many people that 
read that list do not subscribe to the Devs' list at all and would not 
have been privy to those discussions around incompatibility of licenses 
and the need to re-install all extensions including dictionaries. I know 
that it surprised me as I only recently subscribed to this list and had 
no idea they had happened.

	Had you added the disclaimer around extensions and the reason for it,I 
believe a significant amount of the resulting acrimonious discussion 
would not have taken place.

>>> Those
>>> are the only changes we're making right now.  Release blocking issues
>>> are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set.
>>> You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking.  You
>>> can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not
>>> accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ.
>> Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not overwrite,
>> OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, are
>> you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made?
> This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the
> removal of berkeleydb.  I think we're all open to better ideas and
> better proposals if you have them.  But please also have some respect
> for those who looked into this issue in detail previously.
	Again, given that it was decided at that time a statement to that 
effect would have been appreciated by those of us in the user community 
when you asked us to participate in the testing instead of having to 
find out about it when we installed the software. One expects problems 
with beta software, but it is just plain curtsey to give a heads-up to 
known problems so that testers do not waste their time reporting 
problems that are already known.

>>> But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be
>>> reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this
>>> project for nearly 6 months now.  But no one has cared to do anything
>>> about it.  And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not
>>> even as of today.

	Again you insist that everyone in the project community has known about 
the problem with extensions for six months. The fact is that not all 
parts of the community where aware of this. As is being shown by the 
discussion that is going on.


>> And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem.
>> Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from
>> tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing
>> user support.
> Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and
> then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all
> love to hear them.

> Regards,
> -Rob
>> --
>> _________________________________
>> 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