2013/10/30 Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic < > stevanovicvladis...@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 <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> >> >> > 2013/10/29 Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>: >> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic < >> > > stevanovicvladis...@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 <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> > >> > 2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic <stevanovicvladis...@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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@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-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
