On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect > to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me > until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry > Gusaas. > > My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by > situation being made so clear. > > I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the > "system integration" install versions began last week. As a matter of my > *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed > previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. > But that's a matter of personal principles. >
Your "personal policy" goes against the constant practice of this project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. > I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache > OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects > and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES > and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a > significant policy issue. > Please do. I'd love to see the BZ issues. This would make the question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise read today. > Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It > doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is > time to test) > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention >>> you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. >> >> >> I have been paying attention. Have you? >> In the thread "Calling all volunteers: It is time to test" you wrote >> >> "We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on >> clean OS installs, >> as upgrades to previous versions of OOo." and >> "Please send a short note to the [email protected] telling us >> what platform and >> >> scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to >> LibreOffice, etc.)." >> >> I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the >> extensions in my user profile. >> >> Dennis started this thread "[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all >> volunteers: It is time to test)" to discuss if releases of AOO should >> overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. >> >> Does this not require discussion? >> > > This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 > plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if > you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new > code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are > just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the > list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search > for "berkeleydb". > > [ ... ] >
