On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 05:46, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jean Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> > > I'm not aware of "other customizations" being overwritten in this > case. Can you say more? > > -Rob > >> Jean
Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I might not be aware. --Jean
