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 <ofarr...@iol.ie>
> 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
>
>
