I think AOO has a problem. I think that a bad upgrade experience is a problem. I think that poor and uncivil treatment of members of the community is also a problem.
On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> 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". >>> >>> In any case your questions suggests a simple misunderstanding. The >>> issue with the extensions in 3.4 is not that the 3.4 install is >>> overwriting a profile or anything like that. It is not, as you say. >>> that we are "deleting all installed extensions". The issue is that >>> the extensions info in OOo 3.3 was stored locally in Berkeley Db >>> database file. We had to remove berkeleydb because of its >>> incompatible license. So the database file is there, but, even after >>> an upgrade, but we're not able to read it. That is why the extensions >>> need to be reinstalled. >> >> Rob, I think you are the one who has a "simple" misunderstanding. This issue >> is being re-raised now. Are we sure that there is no way that Berkeley DB >> can be used? >> > > Actually, there are grve misunderstandings here, both procedural and > technical., Some have taken the fact that the extensions need to be > reinstalled and extrapolated that as evidence that the profiles are > overwritten. > > The procedural error is to think that raising or "re-raising" an issue > magically makes code happen. > >> Subversion seems to allow it - >> http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#divining-bdb-version >> >> Even if it can't be used should it be possible to hack the file to get the >> strings? The data can't be too difficult to understand. >> > > Patches are welcome. > >> While not a functional blocker I firmly believe that this is a significant >> problem for AOO and this should be addressed constructively. >> > > Patches are welcome. > >> Please don't give me a "where is the code" response. >> > > Patches are welcome. I explicitly asked that you not give a "where's the code" repsonse, but you are uncivil enough to instead use the passive aggressive "patches are welcome" 3x. If you cannot be constructive then please - you don't have to respond. Please stop damaging our good work with these type of threads. Best REgards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Best Regards, >> Dave >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Those >>>>> are the only changes we're making right now. Release blocking issues >>>>> are issues in BZ that have the 3.4 release blocking issue flag set. >>>>> You are welcome to add such an issue if you think one is lacking. You >>>>> can suggest things until you turn blue in the face and it will not >>>>> accomplish as much as the simple act of entering an issue once in BZ. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is this not an issue for discussion? Having AOO overwrite, or not >>>> overwrite, >>>> OOo is a policy decision that needs discussion. Or, as the grand poobah, >>>> are >>>> you saying it doesn't? Where has this decision been made? >>>> >>> >>> This was decided last December when we discussed how to deal with the >>> removal of berkeleydb. I think we're all open to better ideas and >>> better proposals if you have them. But please also have some respect >>> for those who looked into this issue in detail previously. >>> >>>> >>>>> But I remind you that the fact that extensions will need to be >>>>> reinstalled in 3.4 is something that has been well-known in this >>>>> project for nearly 6 months now. But no one has cared to do anything >>>>> about it. And no one has raised it as release blocking issue, not >>>>> even as of today. >>>> >>>> >>>> And now the decision has to be made about how to deal with the problem. >>>> Overwriting OOo and eliminating the extensions will create a huge howl from >>>> tons of users and create unnecessary extra work for the people providing >>>> user support. >>>> >>> >>> Again, I recommend you learn the facts, read the list archives, and >>> then if at that time you have additional insights, I'm sure we'd all >>> love to hear them. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> _________________________________ >>>> >>>> Larry I. Gusaas >>>> Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada >>>> Website: http://larry-gusaas.com >>>> "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind >>>> theirs." - Edgard Varese >>>> >>>> >>
