On 06/03/2012, at 4:30, Larry Gusaas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-03-05 12:08 PM Rob Weir wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If there is no solution for extensions, Apache OpenOffice 3.4 early >>> incubator releases should not overload prior versions of OO.o. I recommend >>> that AOO 3.4 install in its own locations and not do anything that would >>> prevent side-by-side functioning. (My recommendation would be that it do >>> that anyhow. But with known breaking of an important down-level feature, >>> that becomes imperative.) >>> >> In general, it is important for OOo 3.3 and earlier installs on >> desktops to go away. Old releases increasingly become security >> hazards, especially if they are no longer being actively maintained. >> We do a great service to the community in general if we overwrite them >> with the AOO 3.4. This is true even given the inconvenience the user >> experiences from the need to reinstall extensions. > > Users need to be informed that they will need to reinstall extensions if AOO > 3.4 overwrites OOo3.x.x > > One option would be to not use the same user profile as OOo 3.x.x and create > a new profile for AOO 3.4. Or do as LibreOffice did when it came out and > import the data that can be used from the OOo user profile into a new profile. > >> In any case, I think the overwrite is fine. It is what OOo 3.3 and >> OOo 3.2 did as well by default. We can document in the install >> intructions how this can be overridden. > > The warning would have to be on the download page before the download link. > How many current users of OOo actually read the install instructions before > installing a new version? > >>> I think there should be OOo-dev releases only until this is handled as >>> well. It is now clear that integration has problems and there is no reason >>> to provoke more of it. > Agree >
Rob, When an installation wipes out some or all of the user's extensions or other customisations of a previous version, that is a sure way to alienate a LOT of people and create a lot of very bad publicity, in addition to the inconvenience to users. I agree with Dennis and Larry that this is unacceptable. Indeed, I am very dismayed that anyone would seriously consider doing that. And documenting the issue, while necessary, is far from sufficient. Most people don't read the instructions, as you should know. Jean
