On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 06:07, Jean Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > Generic statement, intended to cover other possibilities of which I > might not be aware.
I note that you have ignored the real issue in my previous note: alienating users. I would like to hear how you expect or intend to deal with that. --Jean
