openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
Subject Re: Extensions
Date Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:07:00 GMT
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:50:40 -0700
Andrew Rist <andrew.rist@oracle.com> wrote:

> 
> On 10/25/2013 12:48 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > On 10/25/13 1:25 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> Vladislav Stevanovic wrote:
> >>> We had in Serbia simmilar problem with one of the most-frequently-used
> >>> extension in Serbian. Thanks for Jörg Schmidt he made version for AOO
> >>> 4.0,
> >>> but we have still some problems here, because old version of this
> >>> extension
> >>> is still visible on AOO Extension site! It is silent message for all:
> >>> this
> >>> is not working on AOO, but here is on our site.
> >> Indeed, we must do something about this. PDF Import is another excellent
> >> example: people do not read that the 4.0-compatible version is available
> >> as a different extension and keep complaining and believing that a
> >> 4.0-compatible version does not exist... this creates confusion,
> >> misunderstandings and a huge waste of time for support.
> > we can simply define a rule that unmaintained extension will be removed
> > when the owner doesn't reply on mail requests.
> >
> > That means we can send a mail to the owner and if he doesn't reply at
> > all or is not willing to add these information, we remove the extensions
> > completely.
> It would be better to create a separate area - like the attic - to hold 
> these.  It would be less offending than just removing them.
> I understand that the proposal is to reach out and only remove those 
> that are unresponsive, but I think that this will be seen as heavy handed.
> 
> Is it possible to create a status of 'In the attic', such that the page 
> template gets a big 'old and not maintained' banner?
> Or move them to an attic section, leaving behind a forwarding message 
> ('this extension has been moved to the attic due to lack of maintenance').
> 
> A.
> 
> >
> > It can be quite simple
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> >>> 1) Administrators must have create the rule: extensions on AOO site
> >>> "Extension" must declared as appropriate or non-appropriate for AOO4.0.
> >> This is already there. There's compatibility information for all
> >> releases. And we even have a wiki page
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0
> >>
> >> with examples and information.
> >>
> >>> 2) In future we must made restriction for those extensions on our site
> >> I don't get what you would restrict. Do you mean that you would "hide"
> >> all extensions that are not compatible with 4.0? I think they can
> >> stay... Maybe it is possible to add a warning to the extensions that do
> >> not have releases explicitly compatible with 4.0?
> >>
> >>> 3) There is some the most frequently used extensions. What we can do to
> >>> ensure that this extension works in AOO 4.0? Can we invited authors of
> >>> this
> >>> extensions to made version for AOO4.0? Can we create some fork, if it is
> >>> totaly legal (for example, for extensions where authors of extensions do
> >>> not want to make corrections for AOO 4.0 and when licence permit forks?
> >> This is complex and I don't know what is best to do. For sure PDF
> >> Import, the most popular extension, the source code for which is in the
> >> OpenOffice sources, is unmaintained and "forked" (meaning: Ariel
> >> provided a working replacement that is compatible with 4.0), but the
> >> replacement is shadowed by the original extension. Same for the MySQL
> >> Connector. For those two extensions I would suggest to plug in Ariel's
> >> replacements as updates to the original extension, to give them proper
> >> visibility.
> >>
> >> But these two extensions are very special cases. In general, "forking"
> >> will be a mess since it will duplicate extensions and the original one
> >> will still be more visible and outdated. "Transfer of ownership"
> >> (meaning: the author has no interest or time to update the extension,
> >> but at least he is available to transfer the ownership of the extension
> >> on the Extensions site to another user who is volunteering to create a
> >> 4.0-compatible version) would work best.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>    Andrea.
> >>

I urge the preservation of old "unloved" extensions; users with computer skills could often
extract the code and modify it to their requirements, as I have recently done myself. Clear
marking of an extension as 4 compatible would be helpful.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message