openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: extensions and translations.
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:02:33 GMT
On 02.11.2012 12:09, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 11/01/2012 10:07 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
>> Can "standard" loosely be defined as an extension:
>> - is developed by people who have signed ICLA
>> - uses the apache license header in the source files
>
> It's indeed important but IMHO this shouldn't be part of the decision 
> to draw the standard as it's about formal and general things.
>
>> - is of interest to the general public in different countries
>
> Absolute.
>
>> - is willing to let the source be controlled/reviewed by committer.
>
> With the possibility to become a committer later-on.
>
>> - accept a vote by the committers to be accepted
>
> If a code grant is necessary depends maybe a bit on the amount of the 
> extension source code.
>
>> If those points are fuillfilled we could add the project to "swext", and
>> then it would automatically be integrated in the build and l10n process.

I think that is up to the author of an extension to put it in the AOO 
source repository.
It is up to the community to decide whether to include it in a release.

>
> Is "swext" only for extension around AOO Writer or general? If for 
> Writer then it should be located in a different, own directory within 
> the source code.

Only for Writer.

I know of at least three directories for extensions:

swext/
sdext/
extensions/

I created sdext myself, back in the days.
I think we should join the three directories, with extensions/ being the 
natural candidate to remain.

By the way, there is no either or for extensions regarding their 
presence in the extension repository or in the SVN repository.  Many are 
present in both.

-Andre

>
>> Please help me out here, I am not sure if that is enough for the "apache
>> way".
>
> I would suggest to define the standard around some factors. Some 
> thoughts:
>
> - What is the benefit for AOO?
> - Is this helful for the general public or only for specific users?
> - Does it exchange existing functionality with something own?
> - What are the usage numbers / review comments look like?
> - How big is the extension (keep in mind we shouldn't blow-up our 
> software too excessive).
> - Don't install the extension by default but let the user decide what 
> they want, then make 1-3 wizard pages in the installer only for 
> installing extensions
>
> Of course this can only work if the extension developer is willing to 
> come into the AOO project with all the things needed (source grant, 
> signed ICLA, header change, voting for releases, etc.).
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>> On 1 November 2012 21:24, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>>
>>> Am 11/01/2012 01:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, J├╝rgen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time
ago I
>>>>>>> believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache
>>>>>>> project).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> never mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it be to our advantage if we offered third party developers
>>>>>>> (that is
>>>>>>> how I see extension developers) the possibility to register a

>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>> and get it translated as part of the language packs ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it would be to our advantage; or let's say for the 
>>>>>> project and
>>>>>> software. A lot of extensions would be available in many languages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I don't know where we should draw the line to set a 
>>>>>> limit. When
>>>>>> we select here and there some extensions, then the other 
>>>>>> developers will
>>>>>> ask why not their extensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite simple I would say, if people want develop extensions 
>>>>> under
>>>>> ALv2 and want to contribute the code to the project. We can easy 
>>>>> create
>>>>> a special section in our repo where we can host them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this means they have to be handled in the same way as all other
>>>>> stuff here. Means a new release have to be voted...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> I think the important thing is this:  We don't just want code.  We
>>>> want communities.  So if an extension author thinks that their
>>>> extension is generally useful and he/she wants to join the AOO
>>>> community and work on the extension here, and allow others to work on
>>>> it as well, then this is good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, +1.
>>>
>>>
>>>   We can have a set of "standard extensions".
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, we just need to define the standard.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   And IMHO it's not possible to translate all strings for all 
>>> extensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe others here have a great idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> we can't probably provide it and I think we have to do enough ;-). 
>>>>> But I
>>>>> can think of an alternative service hosted somewhere else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   Or should we just say extension developers does not concern us

>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>> help
>>>>>>> AOO get more used) so we just look the other way ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the right way is somewhere in the middle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, maybe. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 27 October 2012 00:58, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
   
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Am 10/27/2012 12:36 AM, schrieb jan iversen:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I
found 
>>>>>>>> a slight
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend
our UI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes
it on
>>>>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/****extensions/<http://www.openoffice.org/**extensions/>

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.**openoffice.org/extensions/<http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/>

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> does that get integrated into the
>>>>>>>>> translation process ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply, not at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     As far as I can see the sources are not integrated into
our 
>>>>>>>> "build
>>>>>>>> --all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --with-lang".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     If I am right that they are not part of the general 
>>>>>>>> translation,
>>>>>>>> then is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that per design so or should it be different ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, this is by design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Extensions are offered to extent your AOO install at any
point of
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>> These are developed by people that do not have to belong
to our
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>> (when we put aside some exceptions). They can act 
>>>>>>>> independently. And
>>>>>>>> therefore they are allowed to (or have to ;-) ) do all on
their 
>>>>>>>> own;
>>>>>>>> incl.
>>>>>>>> translation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That applies for all extensions and templates available on:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> http://extensions.services.**o**penoffice.org<http://openoffice.org>

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://**extensions.services.**openoffice.org<http://extensions.services.openoffice.org>

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> http://templates.services.**op**enoffice.org<http://openoffice.org><

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://templates.**services.openoffice.org<http://templates.services.openoffice.org>

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I might be following a wrong track here, but please forgive

>>>>>>>> me for
>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to make the l10n process as complete as I can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't panic. That's a great goal and everybody is thankful
to 
>>>>>>>> you for
>>>>>>>> doing this task.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcus


Mime
View raw message