Robinson Tryon wrote > Here are the different approaches: > > B) We clearly and explicitly inform users about which > Extensions/Templates have official support and which ones have > unofficial support from the developers themselves. > > Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) requiring developers to assume > a maintainer role for the extensions they author, the add-ons sites > would include much more details and use clear symbols like badges to > let users know if an extension has Official Support, or Unofficial/No > support. We make this information VERY prominent on the page, so that > they're fully aware of what kind of support to expect BEFORE they even > install an extension.
I think this option is better. I don't like the idea of a developer of an extension being required to provide their contact information. I am sure many developers voluntarily provide it for support, but I think it would not be a good idea to make it a requirement. I think the badges for which extensions are supported on the extension site is a great idea. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-What-should-we-do-with-bugs-filed-against-Extensions-Templates-tp4046861p4046950.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
