You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com> on 2013/10/25 00:47:30 UTC
Extensions
I translating Help for AOO. I found in one line this:
Have a look at <link href="http://www.dmaths.org">www.dmaths.org</link> for
a set of additional %PRODUCTNAME Math icons and macros.
I looked this site and look what I found there:
"Dmaths will NOT work in Apache-OpenOffice 4.0 presently. Please get and
install the up-to-date version of LibreOffice instead."
This is not good message for AOO.
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. What conclusion will create
most of visitors whe they see this? So, I have some propositions:
1) Administrators must have create the rule: extensions on AOO site
"Extension" must declared as appropriate or non-appropriate for AOO4.0.
2) In future we must made restriction for those extensions on our site
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?
Regarsd,
Wlada
Re: Extensions
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 25 October 2013 01:59, Vladislav Stevanovic <
stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>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?
>
> Warnings, at least, would be good idea.
> Also, "Filter option" on site "Extension" need to has option for what
> version of AOO you want to find extension.
>
A filter option is a real good idea.
rgds
jan I.
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
>
> 2013/10/25 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > 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<
> 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.
> >
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
>
> >>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?
Warnings, at least, would be good idea.
Also, "Filter option" on site "Extension" need to has option for what
version of AOO you want to find extension.
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/25 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> 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.
>
>
> 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<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.
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
>if an author of an extension is not interested to support AOO anymore we
>can't change it.
If extension is under some open source licence AND if author has no
interest to maintain his extension, what is problem that we made
corrections?
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/28 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> On 10/25/13 4:59 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic wrote:
> > I wrote: "(...) live AOO because nothing works there."
> > It should be:"(...) leave AOO because nothing works there."
>
> if an author of an extension is not interested to support AOO anymore we
> can't change it.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > Wlada
> >
> >
> > 2013/10/25 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, we can do this. It must be marked in anyway. But the situation is
> >> more complex. AOO now suffer because users can not get functionality as
> >> they had before. If this extension is important for users work, why
> should
> >> someone think that user will stay on AOO? Next, there is also a bad
> >> marketnig for AOO, see
> >> http://www.dmaths.org/documentation/doku.php?id=presentation:en The
> >> message is clear: live AOO because nothing works there.
> >> To be honest, we create this situation, not users. At list, we must try
> to
> >> somehow fix this by pushing authors of extensions to make necessery
> >> changes, or, if it is possible, that we made some improvement in our
> code
> >> and fix this problem.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Wlada
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> On 10/25/13 11:30 AM, janI wrote:
> >>>> On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> >>>> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
> >>>>> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people.
> >>> Maybe we
> >>>>> can do this in a few stages:
> >>>>> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In
> the
> >>> same
> >>>>> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with
> request
> >>> to
> >>>>> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After
> >>> that
> >>>>> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
> >>>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>
> >>> why should we make more noise than necessary, we should mark only
> >>> extensions where we know that they don't work
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
> >>>>> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be
> >>> notice
> >>>>> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
> >>>>> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like
> >>> backstage;
> >>>>> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
> >>>> compatible packages ?
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an
> idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the
> >>> name
> >>>> changed (like pdf).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension
> again
> >>> that
> >>>>> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will
> remove
> >>> (or
> >>>>> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also
> say
> >>> that
> >>>>> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in
> >>> live.
> >>>>> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new
> >>> version
> >>>>> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability
> >>> of all
> >>>>> existing features.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
> >>>>
> >>>> rgds
> >>>> jan I.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comment, please?
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Wlada
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 10/25/13 4:59 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic wrote:
> I wrote: "(...) live AOO because nothing works there."
> It should be:"(...) leave AOO because nothing works there."
if an author of an extension is not interested to support AOO anymore we
can't change it.
Juergen
>
> Wlada
>
>
> 2013/10/25 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> Yes, we can do this. It must be marked in anyway. But the situation is
>> more complex. AOO now suffer because users can not get functionality as
>> they had before. If this extension is important for users work, why should
>> someone think that user will stay on AOO? Next, there is also a bad
>> marketnig for AOO, see
>> http://www.dmaths.org/documentation/doku.php?id=presentation:en The
>> message is clear: live AOO because nothing works there.
>> To be honest, we create this situation, not users. At list, we must try to
>> somehow fix this by pushing authors of extensions to make necessery
>> changes, or, if it is possible, that we made some improvement in our code
>> and fix this problem.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wlada
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> On 10/25/13 11:30 AM, janI wrote:
>>>> On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>>>> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
>>>>> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people.
>>> Maybe we
>>>>> can do this in a few stages:
>>>>> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the
>>> same
>>>>> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request
>>> to
>>>>> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After
>>> that
>>>>> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> why should we make more noise than necessary, we should mark only
>>> extensions where we know that they don't work
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
>>>>> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be
>>> notice
>>>>> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
>>>>> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like
>>> backstage;
>>>>> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
>>>> compatible packages ?
>>>>
>>>> maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an idea.
>>>>
>>>> If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the
>>> name
>>>> changed (like pdf).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again
>>> that
>>>>> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove
>>> (or
>>>>> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say
>>> that
>>>>> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in
>>> live.
>>>>> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new
>>> version
>>>>> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability
>>> of all
>>>>> existing features.
>>>>>
>>>> I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
>>>>
>>>> rgds
>>>> jan I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment, please?
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Wlada
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
I wrote: "(...) live AOO because nothing works there."
It should be:"(...) leave AOO because nothing works there."
Wlada
2013/10/25 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>
>
> Yes, we can do this. It must be marked in anyway. But the situation is
> more complex. AOO now suffer because users can not get functionality as
> they had before. If this extension is important for users work, why should
> someone think that user will stay on AOO? Next, there is also a bad
> marketnig for AOO, see
> http://www.dmaths.org/documentation/doku.php?id=presentation:en The
> message is clear: live AOO because nothing works there.
> To be honest, we create this situation, not users. At list, we must try to
> somehow fix this by pushing authors of extensions to make necessery
> changes, or, if it is possible, that we made some improvement in our code
> and fix this problem.
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
>
> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>
>> On 10/25/13 11:30 AM, janI wrote:
>> > On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>> > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
>> >> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people.
>> Maybe we
>> >> can do this in a few stages:
>> >> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the
>> same
>> >> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request
>> to
>> >> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After
>> that
>> >> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
>> >>
>> > +1
>>
>> why should we make more noise than necessary, we should mark only
>> extensions where we know that they don't work
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> >
>> >> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
>> >> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be
>> notice
>> >> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
>> >> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like
>> backstage;
>> >> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
>> > compatible packages ?
>> >
>> > maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an idea.
>> >
>> > If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the
>> name
>> > changed (like pdf).
>> >
>> >
>> >> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again
>> that
>> >> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove
>> (or
>> >> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say
>> that
>> >> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in
>> live.
>> >> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new
>> version
>> >> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability
>> of all
>> >> existing features.
>> >>
>> > I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
>> >
>> > rgds
>> > jan I.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Comment, please?
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Wlada
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
Yes, we can do this. It must be marked in anyway. But the situation is more
complex. AOO now suffer because users can not get functionality as they had
before. If this extension is important for users work, why should someone
think that user will stay on AOO? Next, there is also a bad marketnig for
AOO, see http://www.dmaths.org/documentation/doku.php?id=presentation:enThe
message is clear: live AOO because nothing works there.
To be honest, we create this situation, not users. At list, we must try to
somehow fix this by pushing authors of extensions to make necessery
changes, or, if it is possible, that we made some improvement in our code
and fix this problem.
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> On 10/25/13 11:30 AM, janI wrote:
> > On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
> >> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people.
> Maybe we
> >> can do this in a few stages:
> >> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the
> same
> >> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request
> to
> >> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After that
> >> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
> >>
> > +1
>
> why should we make more noise than necessary, we should mark only
> extensions where we know that they don't work
>
> Juergen
>
> >
> >> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
> >> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be
> notice
> >> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
> >> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like
> backstage;
> >> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
> >>
> >
> > Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
> > compatible packages ?
> >
> > maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an idea.
> >
> > If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the name
> > changed (like pdf).
> >
> >
> >> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again
> that
> >> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove
> (or
> >> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say
> that
> >> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in
> live.
> >> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new
> version
> >> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability of
> all
> >> existing features.
> >>
> > I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Comment, please?
> >> Regards,
> >> Wlada
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 10/25/13 11:30 AM, janI wrote:
> On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
>> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people. Maybe we
>> can do this in a few stages:
>> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the same
>> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request to
>> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After that
>> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
>>
> +1
why should we make more noise than necessary, we should mark only
extensions where we know that they don't work
Juergen
>
>> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
>> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be notice
>> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
>> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like backstage;
>> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
>>
>
> Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
> compatible packages ?
>
> maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an idea.
>
> If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the name
> changed (like pdf).
>
>
>> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again that
>> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove (or
>> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say that
>> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in live.
>> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new version
>> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability of all
>> existing features.
>>
> I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>> Comment, please?
>> Regards,
>> Wlada
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 25 October 2013 11:15, Vladislav Stevanovic <
stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
> version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people. Maybe we
> can do this in a few stages:
> 1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the same
> time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request to
> make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After that
> period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
>
+1
> 2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
> searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be notice
> that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
> (second option will be: removed in other place, something like backstage;
> it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
>
Can we not do something so that user will normally only "see" 4.0
compatible packages ?
maybe put non-compatible extensions in a archive section, just an idea.
If we just filter people searching might not see an extension if the name
changed (like pdf).
> 3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again that
> we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove (or
> move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say that
> we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in live.
> But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new version
> for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability of all
> existing features.
>
I would do the move (not remove) without any further delay.
rgds
jan I.
>
> Comment, please?
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>
> 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.
>
That is my opinion too, but you have people who still using previous
version of AOO or Ooo. We must have solution and for those people. Maybe we
can do this in a few stages:
1) We can marked all old extensions as incompatible for AOO4.0. In the same
time, we will sent meil to the authors of this extensions with request to
make changes for compatibility for AOO 4.0. in next 6 months. After that
period, if job is not done, we will remove this extensions.
2) Inside this period of 6 months, we will improved filter option for
searching by version of Oo. On every page on this site there will be notice
that old extension will be completely removed in the end of 6 month.
(second option will be: removed in other place, something like backstage;
it will not be visible in the regular pages like it is now).
3) After 6 months, we will sent mail to the authors of extension again that
we can offer another 7 days to do this changes, if not, we will remove (or
move in some other place) this extension. In the mail, we can also say that
we will be happy to see this changes, to keep this known extension in live.
But, if that not happens, we will calling our community to make new version
for AOO4.0. because it is our obligations to ensure the availability of all
existing features.
Comment, please?
Regards,
Wlada
Re: Extensions
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/10/30 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
>>> site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
>>> find extension."
>>> I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Wlada
>>>
>>
>> Ok -- yeah I see that now in the thread but not in the "proposals" -- it
>> was somehow missed and it really is the easiest solution to this dilemma.
>> Well, at least with Roberto's help, we can move forward with this idea.
>
> As promised I've investigated further into this issue, here my findings.
>
> A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained'
> and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. In fact
> developers when they create an extension they can set a minimum and a
> maximum release version. Most of the times only a minimum release
> version is indicated.
>
> B) Extensions' authors can also use Extensions website to indicate
> release compatibility.
>
> Having said that if we want to figure out if a given extension is or
> is not AOO 4.0 compatible we need to test it ourselves.
>
> I believe the best way to go is to get a team of people committed to
> test few extensions and report findings. Based on those findings we
> could send a message to those extensions' authors to inform them about
> the compatibility check. We could add that we'll take care of updating
> the Extension website accordingly, so that end-users will know if a
> given extension works or not on AOO 4.x.
>
> I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
> we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
> that we can target at least the top 100/200.
>
> Does it sound like a plan?
>
Just brainstorming, since I don't know how hard this would be. Have
you seen what Apple does in their App Store? They allow ratings of
apps per iOS version. If we did something similar, "I rate this 5
stars on AOO 4.0", then we can crowdsource this evaluation. Of
course, we can also pro-actively test and enter ratings into the same
system.
-Rob
> Roberto
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>>> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>>> > > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> This is update of proposal:
>>> > >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate
>>> mark,
>>> > and
>>> > >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version
>>> > of
>>> > >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
>>> > >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
>>> > >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
>>> > >> changes (in some short period)
>>> > >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
>>> > >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
>>> > >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
>>> > >> new version.
>>> > >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
>>> > >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
>>> > >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
>>> > >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
>>> > >> the 3.x compatible extension.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> It is now this proposal good?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Regards,
>>> > >> Wlada
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier,
>>> by
>>> > > here's my take on some of this.
>>> > >
>>> > > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
>>> > anyway)
>>> > > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
>>> > > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
>>> > >
>>> > > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
>>> > > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions.
>>> Users
>>> > > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without
>>> > much
>>> > > trouble.
>>> > >
>>> > > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm
>>> > just
>>> > > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might
>>> be
>>> > > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
>>> >
>>> > Great idea Kay!
>>> > +1
>>> > I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay
>>> tuned!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>>> > >> > >>Why should we mark them?
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
>>> > >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can
>>> even
>>> > >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
>>> > >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks,
>>> buttons?Before
>>> > >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where
>>> > is
>>> > >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that
>>> > this
>>> > >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page
>>> of
>>> > >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
>>> > helpful
>>> > >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user
>>> > when
>>> > >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss
>>> to
>>> > >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
>>> > >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
>>> > >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
>>> > solver
>>> > >> > > system for end-users.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > You got the gist, right.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about
>>> > this
>>> > >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is
>>> > to
>>> > >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have
>>> skills,
>>> > >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who
>>> > want
>>> > >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
>>> > permit
>>> > >> > > that).
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we
>>> need
>>> > >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to
>>> run
>>> > >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Roberto
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > Regards,
>>> > >> > > Wlada
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > MzK
>>> > >
>>> > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
>>> > > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
>>> > > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
>> Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
>> -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/31 jonathon <to...@gmail.com>:
> On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>
>> A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained' and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell.
>
> Let's take "Extension 6318" as an example.
> http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/extension-6318
> Μaintainer: Unmaintained
> Extension ID: com.readability.ReadabilityIndices
> Release Date: 07/04/2013
> Compatiblity: 3.4
>
> Questions:
> Where is that "unmaintained" datapoint coming from?
At migration time, from OSUOSL to the actual platform, for very few
extensions authorship was missing, so you might want to read
'anonymous' if you prefer.
>
> Why are extensions that have a non-descriptive name, and no explanation
> of what they are supposed to do, publicly available?
Because someone created them and we didn't feel like erasing them. If
we want - after some testing - take a different decision we could take
a different course of action.
Roberto
>
> ###
>
> On the LibreOffice extension page, when one goes to download an
> extension that hasn't been updated in the last year, there is a great
> big warning notice that it might be unmaintained. Surely something along
> those lines could be added to the download page of the AOO extension.
>
> jonathon
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by jonathon <to...@gmail.com>.
On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained' and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell.
Let's take "Extension 6318" as an example.
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/extension-6318
Μaintainer: Unmaintained
Extension ID: com.readability.ReadabilityIndices
Release Date: 07/04/2013
Compatiblity: 3.4
Questions:
Where is that "unmaintained" datapoint coming from?
Why are extensions that have a non-descriptive name, and no explanation
of what they are supposed to do, publicly available?
###
On the LibreOffice extension page, when one goes to download an
extension that hasn't been updated in the last year, there is a great
big warning notice that it might be unmaintained. Surely something along
those lines could be added to the download page of the AOO extension.
jonathon
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/31 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Roberto Galoppini <
> roberto.galoppini@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2013/10/30 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>> > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
>> >> site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
>> >> find extension."
>> >> I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Wlada
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ok -- yeah I see that now in the thread but not in the "proposals" -- it
>> > was somehow missed and it really is the easiest solution to this dilemma.
>> > Well, at least with Roberto's help, we can move forward with this idea.
>>
>> As promised I've investigated further into this issue, here my findings.
>>
>> A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained'
>> and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. In fact
>> developers when they create an extension they can set a minimum and a
>> maximum release version. Most of the times only a minimum release
>> version is indicated.
>>
>> B) Extensions' authors can also use Extensions website to indicate
>> release compatibility.
>>
>
> ok, this B) is what I was referring to (and probably Wlada as well).
>
> I don't know how easy it would be for SF to "get at" this information, at
> least, and use it in a filter. If it could be done, we could at least start
> there.
Pretty easy, I'd say it's ready to go. Until we start testing those
extensions we won't be able to provide valuable info for the above
mentioned reasons, though.
Roberto
>
>>
>> Having said that if we want to figure out if a given extension is or
>> is not AOO 4.0 compatible we need to test it ourselves.
>>
>> I believe the best way to go is to get a team of people committed to
>> test few extensions and report findings. Based on those findings we
>> could send a message to those extensions' authors to inform them about
>> the compatibility check. We could add that we'll take care of updating
>> the Extension website accordingly, so that end-users will know if a
>> given extension works or not on AOO 4.x.
>>
>
> This is a good way to get going on this for sure!
>
>
>>
>> I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
>> we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
>> that we can target at least the top 100/200.
>>
>> Does it sound like a plan?
>>
>
> yes, and a good one.
>
>
>>
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>> >> > > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> This is update of proposal:
>> >> > >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate
>> >> mark,
>> >> > and
>> >> > >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble
>> version
>> >> > of
>> >> > >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks
>> and
>> >> > >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
>> >> > >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make
>> appropriate
>> >> > >> changes (in some short period)
>> >> > >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
>> >> > >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence
>> of
>> >> > >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for
>> this
>> >> > >> new version.
>> >> > >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
>> >> > >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an
>> extension
>> >> > >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
>> >> > >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll
>> get
>> >> > >> the 3.x compatible extension.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> It is now this proposal good?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Regards,
>> >> > >> Wlada
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation
>> earlier,
>> >> by
>> >> > > here's my take on some of this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
>> >> > anyway)
>> >> > > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a
>> search
>> >> > > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
>> >> > > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions.
>> >> Users
>> >> > > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using
>> without
>> >> > much
>> >> > > trouble.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner.
>> I'm
>> >> > just
>> >> > > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves
>> might
>> >> be
>> >> > > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Great idea Kay!
>> >> > +1
>> >> > I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay
>> >> tuned!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > >> > >>Why should we mark them?
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier
>> way to
>> >> > >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can
>> >> even
>> >> > >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the
>> version
>> >> > >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks,
>> >> buttons?Before
>> >> > >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page
>> where
>> >> > is
>> >> > >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think
>> that
>> >> > this
>> >> > >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not
>> page
>> >> of
>> >> > >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
>> >> > helpful
>> >> > >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for
>> end-user
>> >> > when
>> >> > >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody
>> miss
>> >> to
>> >> > >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
>> >> > >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
>> >> > >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
>> >> > solver
>> >> > >> > > system for end-users.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > You got the gist, right.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus
>> about
>> >> > this
>> >> > >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next
>> step is
>> >> > to
>> >> > >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have
>> >> skills,
>> >> > >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and
>> who
>> >> > want
>> >> > >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
>> >> > permit
>> >> > >> > > that).
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we
>> >> need
>> >> > >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want
>> to
>> >> run
>> >> > >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Roberto
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Regards,
>> >> > >> > > Wlada
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > MzK
>> >> > >
>> >> > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
>> >> > > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
>> >> > > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
>> > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
>> > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Roberto Galoppini <
roberto.galoppini@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/10/30 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
> >> site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
> >> find extension."
> >> I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Wlada
> >>
> >
> > Ok -- yeah I see that now in the thread but not in the "proposals" -- it
> > was somehow missed and it really is the easiest solution to this dilemma.
> > Well, at least with Roberto's help, we can move forward with this idea.
>
> As promised I've investigated further into this issue, here my findings.
>
> A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained'
> and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. In fact
> developers when they create an extension they can set a minimum and a
> maximum release version. Most of the times only a minimum release
> version is indicated.
>
> B) Extensions' authors can also use Extensions website to indicate
> release compatibility.
>
ok, this B) is what I was referring to (and probably Wlada as well).
I don't know how easy it would be for SF to "get at" this information, at
least, and use it in a filter. If it could be done, we could at least start
there.
>
> Having said that if we want to figure out if a given extension is or
> is not AOO 4.0 compatible we need to test it ourselves.
>
> I believe the best way to go is to get a team of people committed to
> test few extensions and report findings. Based on those findings we
> could send a message to those extensions' authors to inform them about
> the compatibility check. We could add that we'll take care of updating
> the Extension website accordingly, so that end-users will know if a
> given extension works or not on AOO 4.x.
>
This is a good way to get going on this for sure!
>
> I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
> we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
> that we can target at least the top 100/200.
>
> Does it sound like a plan?
>
yes, and a good one.
>
> Roberto
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> >> > > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> This is update of proposal:
> >> > >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate
> >> mark,
> >> > and
> >> > >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble
> version
> >> > of
> >> > >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks
> and
> >> > >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
> >> > >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make
> appropriate
> >> > >> changes (in some short period)
> >> > >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
> >> > >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence
> of
> >> > >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for
> this
> >> > >> new version.
> >> > >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
> >> > >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an
> extension
> >> > >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
> >> > >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll
> get
> >> > >> the 3.x compatible extension.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It is now this proposal good?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Regards,
> >> > >> Wlada
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation
> earlier,
> >> by
> >> > > here's my take on some of this.
> >> > >
> >> > > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
> >> > anyway)
> >> > > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a
> search
> >> > > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
> >> > >
> >> > > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
> >> > > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions.
> >> Users
> >> > > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using
> without
> >> > much
> >> > > trouble.
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner.
> I'm
> >> > just
> >> > > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves
> might
> >> be
> >> > > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
> >> >
> >> > Great idea Kay!
> >> > +1
> >> > I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay
> >> tuned!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >> > >>Why should we mark them?
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier
> way to
> >> > >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can
> >> even
> >> > >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the
> version
> >> > >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks,
> >> buttons?Before
> >> > >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page
> where
> >> > is
> >> > >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think
> that
> >> > this
> >> > >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not
> page
> >> of
> >> > >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
> >> > helpful
> >> > >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for
> end-user
> >> > when
> >> > >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody
> miss
> >> to
> >> > >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> >> > >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> >> > >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
> >> > solver
> >> > >> > > system for end-users.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > You got the gist, right.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus
> about
> >> > this
> >> > >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next
> step is
> >> > to
> >> > >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have
> >> skills,
> >> > >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and
> who
> >> > want
> >> > >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
> >> > permit
> >> > >> > > that).
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we
> >> need
> >> > >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want
> to
> >> run
> >> > >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Roberto
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Regards,
> >> > >> > > Wlada
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > MzK
> >> > >
> >> > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> >> > > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> >> > > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Re: [ABCD/02][2013/10/30] Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/31 jonathon <to...@gmail.com>:
> On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>
>> I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
>> we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
>> that we can target at least the top 100/200.
>
> I don't if you mean:
> * Each individual is to test 100 - 200 extensions;
> * Only 100 - 200 extensions are to be tested;
>
> Regardless, each extension needs to be tested on each platform that AOO
> is available for. Ideally, BSD & Linux testing would be for several
> different distros, and versions of those distros.
I'm with you about testing them on different platforms, and ideally
I'd love us to be able to test all extensions. Still I believe
targeting top extensions is a viable way to go if we want to achieve
results in a reasonable time frame, everything else will require a lot
more time.
>
> If you want people to test more than five or six extensions, write a
> tool that will automatically install all of the extensions in a file
> directory.
Your help would be precious with that, at this time I can commit to
keep deploying a better website both for Extensions and templates,
releasing a new version every six months or so.
Roberto
> jonathon
>
> * English - detected
> * English
>
> * English
>
> <javascript:void(0);>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
[ABCD/02][2013/10/30] Re: Extensions
Posted by jonathon <to...@gmail.com>.
On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
> I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
> we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
> that we can target at least the top 100/200.
I don't if you mean:
* Each individual is to test 100 - 200 extensions;
* Only 100 - 200 extensions are to be tested;
Regardless, each extension needs to be tested on each platform that AOO
is available for. Ideally, BSD & Linux testing would be for several
different distros, and versions of those distros.
If you want people to test more than five or six extensions, write a
tool that will automatically install all of the extensions in a file
directory.
jonathon
* English - detected
* English
* English
<javascript:void(0);>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/30 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
>> site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
>> find extension."
>> I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wlada
>>
>
> Ok -- yeah I see that now in the thread but not in the "proposals" -- it
> was somehow missed and it really is the easiest solution to this dilemma.
> Well, at least with Roberto's help, we can move forward with this idea.
As promised I've investigated further into this issue, here my findings.
A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained'
and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. In fact
developers when they create an extension they can set a minimum and a
maximum release version. Most of the times only a minimum release
version is indicated.
B) Extensions' authors can also use Extensions website to indicate
release compatibility.
Having said that if we want to figure out if a given extension is or
is not AOO 4.0 compatible we need to test it ourselves.
I believe the best way to go is to get a team of people committed to
test few extensions and report findings. Based on those findings we
could send a message to those extensions' authors to inform them about
the compatibility check. We could add that we'll take care of updating
the Extension website accordingly, so that end-users will know if a
given extension works or not on AOO 4.x.
I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past,
we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so
that we can target at least the top 100/200.
Does it sound like a plan?
Roberto
>
>
>>
>> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
>> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
>> > > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> This is update of proposal:
>> > >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate
>> mark,
>> > and
>> > >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version
>> > of
>> > >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
>> > >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
>> > >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
>> > >> changes (in some short period)
>> > >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
>> > >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
>> > >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
>> > >> new version.
>> > >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
>> > >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
>> > >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
>> > >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
>> > >> the 3.x compatible extension.
>> > >>
>> > >> It is now this proposal good?
>> > >>
>> > >> Regards,
>> > >> Wlada
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier,
>> by
>> > > here's my take on some of this.
>> > >
>> > > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
>> > anyway)
>> > > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
>> > > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
>> > >
>> > > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
>> > > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions.
>> Users
>> > > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without
>> > much
>> > > trouble.
>> > >
>> > > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm
>> > just
>> > > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might
>> be
>> > > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
>> >
>> > Great idea Kay!
>> > +1
>> > I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay
>> tuned!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>> > >>
>> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>> > >> > >>Why should we mark them?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
>> > >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can
>> even
>> > >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
>> > >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks,
>> buttons?Before
>> > >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where
>> > is
>> > >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that
>> > this
>> > >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page
>> of
>> > >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
>> > helpful
>> > >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user
>> > when
>> > >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss
>> to
>> > >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
>> > >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
>> > >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
>> > solver
>> > >> > > system for end-users.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > You got the gist, right.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about
>> > this
>> > >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is
>> > to
>> > >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have
>> skills,
>> > >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who
>> > want
>> > >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
>> > permit
>> > >> > > that).
>> > >> >
>> > >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we
>> need
>> > >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to
>> run
>> > >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Roberto
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Regards,
>> > >> > > Wlada
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > MzK
>> > >
>> > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
>> > > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
>> > > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
> site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
> find extension."
> I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
>
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
Ok -- yeah I see that now in the thread but not in the "proposals" -- it
was somehow missed and it really is the easiest solution to this dilemma.
Well, at least with Roberto's help, we can move forward with this idea.
>
> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>
> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> > > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is update of proposal:
> > >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate
> mark,
> > and
> > >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version
> > of
> > >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
> > >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
> > >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
> > >> changes (in some short period)
> > >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
> > >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
> > >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
> > >> new version.
> > >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
> > >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
> > >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
> > >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
> > >> the 3.x compatible extension.
> > >>
> > >> It is now this proposal good?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Wlada
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier,
> by
> > > here's my take on some of this.
> > >
> > > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
> > anyway)
> > > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
> > > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
> > >
> > > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
> > > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions.
> Users
> > > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without
> > much
> > > trouble.
> > >
> > > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm
> > just
> > > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might
> be
> > > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
> >
> > Great idea Kay!
> > +1
> > I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay
> tuned!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
> > >> > >>Why should we mark them?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
> > >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can
> even
> > >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
> > >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks,
> buttons?Before
> > >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where
> > is
> > >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that
> > this
> > >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page
> of
> > >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
> > helpful
> > >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user
> > when
> > >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss
> to
> > >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> > >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> > >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
> > solver
> > >> > > system for end-users.
> > >> >
> > >> > You got the gist, right.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about
> > this
> > >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is
> > to
> > >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have
> skills,
> > >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who
> > want
> > >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
> > permit
> > >> > > that).
> > >> >
> > >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we
> need
> > >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to
> run
> > >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
> > >> >
> > >> > Roberto
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > > Wlada
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > MzK
> > >
> > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> > > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> > > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
@Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: "Also, "Filter option" on
site "Extension" need to has option for what version of AOO you want to
find extension."
I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals.
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> > stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is update of proposal:
> >> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark,
> and
> >> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version
> of
> >> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
> >> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
> >> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
> >> changes (in some short period)
> >> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
> >> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
> >> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
> >> new version.
> >> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
> >> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
> >> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
> >> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
> >> the 3.x compatible extension.
> >>
> >> It is now this proposal good?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Wlada
> >>
> >
> > Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier, by
> > here's my take on some of this.
> >
> > * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked
> anyway)
> > have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
> > filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
> >
> > * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
> > contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions. Users
> > would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without
> much
> > trouble.
> >
> > Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm
> just
> > thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might be
> > easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
>
> Great idea Kay!
> +1
> I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay tuned!
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >>Why should we mark them?
> >> > >
> >> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
> >> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
> >> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
> >> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
> >> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where
> is
> >> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that
> this
> >> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
> >> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this
> helpful
> >> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user
> when
> >> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
> >> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> >> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> >> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and
> solver
> >> > > system for end-users.
> >> >
> >> > You got the gist, right.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
> >> > >
> >> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about
> this
> >> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is
> to
> >> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
> >> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who
> want
> >> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions
> permit
> >> > > that).
> >> >
> >> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we need
> >> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to run
> >> > in parallel those two processes, though.
> >> >
> >> > Roberto
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Wlada
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
> stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is update of proposal:
>> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and
>> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version of
>> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
>> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
>> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
>> changes (in some short period)
>> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
>> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
>> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
>> new version.
>> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
>> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
>> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
>> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
>> the 3.x compatible extension.
>>
>> It is now this proposal good?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wlada
>>
>
> Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier, by
> here's my take on some of this.
>
> * @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked anyway)
> have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
> filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
>
> * If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
> contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions. Users
> would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without much
> trouble.
>
> Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm just
> thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might be
> easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
Great idea Kay!
+1
I'll look into what it takes to make it in the very next days, stay tuned!
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>> > >>Why should we mark them?
>> > >
>> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
>> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
>> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
>> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
>> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where is
>> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that this
>> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
>> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this helpful
>> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user when
>> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
>> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
>> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
>> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and solver
>> > > system for end-users.
>> >
>> > You got the gist, right.
>> >
>> >
>> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
>> > >
>> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about this
>> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is to
>> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
>> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who want
>> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions permit
>> > > that).
>> >
>> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we need
>> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to run
>> > in parallel those two processes, though.
>> >
>> > Roberto
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Wlada
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is update of proposal:
> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and
> with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version of
> extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
> buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
> changes (in some short period)
> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
> new version.
> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
> the 3.x compatible extension.
>
> It is now this proposal good?
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
Well...I apologize for not keeping up with this conversation earlier, by
here's my take on some of this.
* @Roberto -- it looks like MANY extensions (the ones I've checked anyway)
have version compatibility information. Can this be set-up as a search
filter like OS, etc.? And, perhpas make it the FIRST filter group?
* If this could be done, we wouldn't need to do anything much with
contacting authors, much less changing any code in the extensions. Users
would be able to find extensions for the version they're using without much
trouble.
Again, I apologize for not partaking in this conversations sooner. I'm just
thinking letting users find the appropriate extension themselves might be
easier than taking a more aggressive approach with this.
>
> 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
>
> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
> > >>Why should we mark them?
> > >
> > > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
> > > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
> > > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
> > > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
> > > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where is
> > > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that this
> > > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
> > > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this helpful
> > > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user when
> > > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
> > > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> > > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> > > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and solver
> > > system for end-users.
> >
> > You got the gist, right.
> >
> >
> > >>Who's going to do those changes?
> > >
> > > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about this
> > > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is to
> > > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
> > > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who want
> > > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions permit
> > > that).
> >
> > In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we need
> > people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to run
> > in parallel those two processes, though.
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Wlada
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
This is update of proposal:
1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and
with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version of
extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and
buttons will be on "preview" page, as result of search engeen)
2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
changes (in some short period)
3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
new version.
4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
the 3.x compatible extension.
It is now this proposal good?
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>
> 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
> >>Why should we mark them?
> >
> > If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
> > know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
> > more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
> > which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
> > you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where is
> > some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that this
> > page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
> > authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this helpful
> > marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user when
> > he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
> > see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> > extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> > problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and solver
> > system for end-users.
>
> You got the gist, right.
>
>
> >>Who's going to do those changes?
> >
> > That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about this
> > basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is to
> > see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
> > time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who want
> > to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions permit
> > that).
>
> In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we need
> people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to run
> in parallel those two processes, though.
>
> Roberto
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wlada
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>>Why should we mark them?
>
> If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
> know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
> more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
> which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
> you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where is
> some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that this
> page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
> authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this helpful
> marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user when
> he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
> see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
> extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
> problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and solver
> system for end-users.
You got the gist, right.
>>Who's going to do those changes?
>
> That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about this
> basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is to
> see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
> time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who want
> to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions permit
> that).
In other words we can provide a platform doing the magic, but we need
people to take care of updating those Extensions. We might want to run
in parallel those two processes, though.
Roberto
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
>Why should we mark them?
If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to
know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even
more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version
which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before
you actual go inside some of extension's page, you have page where is
some kind list of extensions, what serve as preview. I think that this
page with list of extensions, given by search engine, is not page of
authors of extensions, so I think that we can freely add this helpful
marks, buttons etc. Purpose of this is to save time for end-user when
he/she want to find appropriate extension. But, if somebody miss to
see marks or he/she using direct link to the author's page of
extension, your idea to having pop-ups will solve the potential
problem. With this pop-up dialog we will get good warnings and solver
system for end-users.
>Who's going to do those changes?
That is next step of this discussion. If we have consensus about this
basic steps (how we want to manage this problem) than next step is to
see who want to take responsibility for that area. Who have skills,
time and good will to make changes on site "Extensions", and who want
to made corrections inside extensions (if licence of extensions permit
that).
Regards,
Wlada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>>If you wish I might do the same for
>>oootranslit, or if you're already in touch with the original author
>>please make sure he/she does the update or ask him/her to send me a note.
>
> I sent a mail to the author of OooTranslit, also on forum, but he
> never answered.
> If you can, please try.
I'll give it a try, sure.
>> Our plan A will be like 2), but if we do not get any answer this is
>> what I suggest as plan B.
>> Enhance the Extensions website and if an end-user try to download an
>> extension that has not been updated a pop-up might ask him/her if
>> they're looking for an extension compatible with AOO 4.x or older
>> version. If they ask for AOO 4.x they'll be redirected to the new
>> extension page, otherwise they'll get the 3.x compatible extension.
>
> If I understood you correctly, we can not making any changes on some
> web page of site "Extension" where is stored some extension, because
> we are not authors for this page.
>
> Ok.
> So, here is new proposal:
> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site
Why should we mark them?
> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
> changes (in some short period)
Ok
> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
> extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
> extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
> new version.
Who's going to do those changes?
> 4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
> updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
> compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
> they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
> the 3.x compatible extension.
> 5) Maybe is cleaver next: therms and conditions for web site
> "Extension" we must look carefully, and, if it is possible, make
> changes in that manner that this problems we can manage in future much
> more easily.
ToS can't tell a legitimate author he/she is not owning his/her
content page. We might invite them to consider to have a co-maintainer
- a new feature we're working on - but I wouldn't go any further,
though.
Roberto
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
>If you wish I might do the same for
>oootranslit, or if you're already in touch with the original author
>please make sure he/she does the update or ask him/her to send me a note.
I sent a mail to the author of OooTranslit, also on forum, but he
never answered.
If you can, please try.
> Our plan A will be like 2), but if we do not get any answer this is
> what I suggest as plan B.
> Enhance the Extensions website and if an end-user try to download an
> extension that has not been updated a pop-up might ask him/her if
> they're looking for an extension compatible with AOO 4.x or older
> version. If they ask for AOO 4.x they'll be redirected to the new
> extension page, otherwise they'll get the 3.x compatible extension.
If I understood you correctly, we can not making any changes on some
web page of site "Extension" where is stored some extension, because
we are not authors for this page.
Ok.
So, here is new proposal:
1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site
2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make appropriate
changes (in some short period)
3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his
extension, we will make this changes inside extension (if licence of
extension permit) and make new web page on site "Extensions" for this
new version.
4) If an end-user try to download an extension that has not been
updated a pop-up might ask him/her if they're looking for an extension
compatible with AOO 4.x or older version. If they ask for AOO 4.x
they'll be redirected to the new extension page, otherwise they'll get
the 3.x compatible extension.
5) Maybe is cleaver next: therms and conditions for web site
"Extension" we must look carefully, and, if it is possible, make
changes in that manner that this problems we can manage in future much
more easily.
Regards,
Wlada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <ro...@gmail.com>.
2013/10/27 Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> Solution: rather than deleting/moving the extension, we should work on the
>> maintainer side and have an "unresponsive maintainer" policy like many
>> other projects do. An extension can be reassigned if the maintainer is not
>> responsive. The new maintainer can add new releases or edit the description
>> (for example, to include information about 4.0 compatibility). It may not
>> be very nice, but surely it's better than removing an extension altogether.
>> And it preserves all older releases.
>>
>
> +1 Good idea.
> So, here is proposal:
> 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site
> 2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make propriate
> changes (in some short period)
> 3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his extension,
> we will make this changes
Extensions pages' copyright holders might not like the idea of someone
else editing their pages without their consent. Extensions do not
belong to the community, but only to the original authors.
Our plan A will be like 2), but if we do not get any answer this is
what I suggest as plan B.
Enhance the Extensions website and if an end-user try to download an
extension that has not been updated a pop-up might ask him/her if
they're looking for an extension compatible with AOO 4.x or older
version. If they ask for AOO 4.x they'll be redirected to the new
extension page, otherwise they'll get the 3.x compatible extension.
> As I wrote, mr. Jorg was made this changes on one Serbian unmaintained
> extension, and now it working on AOO 4.0. Question: how can we put this
> extension on our site (there is still only old version)?
> Old version of this extension you can find here:
> http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/oootranslit
I'm actually managing a similar issue with Oracle PDF Import
extension. I've asked the original author and get approval for
updating the extension. If you wish I might do the same for
oootranslit, or if you're already in touch with the original author
please make sure he/she does the update or ask him/her to send me a
note.
Roberto
>
> Regards,
> Wlada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
>
>
> Solution: rather than deleting/moving the extension, we should work on the
> maintainer side and have an "unresponsive maintainer" policy like many
> other projects do. An extension can be reassigned if the maintainer is not
> responsive. The new maintainer can add new releases or edit the description
> (for example, to include information about 4.0 compatibility). It may not
> be very nice, but surely it's better than removing an extension altogether.
> And it preserves all older releases.
>
+1 Good idea.
So, here is proposal:
1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site
2) Send mail to authors of extensions with request to make propriate
changes (in some short period)
3) If author does not answer on our mail, or does not update his extension,
we will make this changes
As I wrote, mr. Jorg was made this changes on one Serbian unmaintained
extension, and now it working on AOO 4.0. Question: how can we put this
extension on our site (there is still only old version)?
Old version of this extension you can find here:
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/oootranslit
Regards,
Wlada
Re: Extensions
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 25/10/2013 Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> 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.
Indeed the idea of deleting extensions creates more problems than it
solves (actually, it doesn't solve problems) and I would definitely
avoid it.
The real problem comes from unresponsive maintainers. Compatibility
information is already available for all releases, but when a user
downloads an extension, unless the maintainer hasn't marked it as
compatible with 4.0, he cannot know: it may or may not work with 4.0.
Solution: rather than deleting/moving the extension, we should work on
the maintainer side and have an "unresponsive maintainer" policy like
many other projects do. An extension can be reassigned if the maintainer
is not responsive. The new maintainer can add new releases or edit the
description (for example, to include information about 4.0
compatibility). It may not be very nice, but surely it's better than
removing an extension altogether. And it preserves all older releases.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Vladislav Stevanovic <st...@gmail.com>.
Ok, as I can see we have consensus about marking all uncompatible
extensions.
Also, I think taht we need to improve search filter for versions AOO or
Ooo.
Now, how goes practical action? Who maintain this site "Extension"? Is
there some procedure what we must respect?
Regards,
Wlada
2013/10/25 Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:50:40 -0700
> Andrew Rist <an...@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 <of...@iol.ie>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Extensions
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:50:40 -0700
Andrew Rist <an...@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 <of...@iol.ie>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
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.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 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.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
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.
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Extensions
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.
Please check the documentation to update your extension for 4.0
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0#API_changes_between_3.4_and_4.0
Changes can be as simple as just add the few new tags on the XML from the
xcu.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic <
stevanovicvladislav@gmail.com> wrote:
> I translating Help for AOO. I found in one line this:
> Have a look at <link href="http://www.dmaths.org">www.dmaths.org</link>
> for
> a set of additional %PRODUCTNAME Math icons and macros.
> I looked this site and look what I found there:
> "Dmaths will NOT work in Apache-OpenOffice 4.0 presently. Please get and
> install the up-to-date version of LibreOffice instead."
> This is not good message for AOO.
> 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. What conclusion will create
> most of visitors whe they see this? So, I have some propositions:
> 1) Administrators must have create the rule: extensions on AOO site
> "Extension" must declared as appropriate or non-appropriate for AOO4.0.
> 2) In future we must made restriction for those extensions on our site
> 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?
>
> Regarsd,
> Wlada
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://www.openoffice.org
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614