On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:50:40 -0700 Andrew Rist <andrew.r...@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 <ofarr...@iol.ie> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org