> On Nov 21, 2010, at 22:31 , jonathon wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 11/21/2010 09:15 PM, James Wilde wrote: > > > >> ...and? Is LibO going to upgrade the version number every time OOo > does? And only then? > > > > Unless there is a "compatibility tag" for extensions, the way that there > > is for firefox, LibO is stuck with the version numbering that OOo uses, > > if it wants to retain compatibility with those extensions. > > > Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions, > but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going > to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will > not work with the other. Why not accept that from day 1? > > //James
I'm willing to accept that extensions wont work in future if OO and LO grow apart, but I think this shouldn't be done artificially by changing the version number. It could be bad for OO users that want to use LO, but miss some extensions because they are no longer compatible because the version number of LO differs. Whenever there is a release with a changes for version 4.x.x I accept incompatibilities. not to you James: Most people don't take version numbers serious anymore. Look at Chrome for example. The rapid change of major versions is ridiculous. LO is not build from scratch, so for me it can stick to 3.x.x and move onward. Regards, bastik -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
