Re: Extensions website and incorrect e-mail

Dave, To explain with the best, see this screenshot: https://www.cjoint.com/doc/23_07/MGBmkOAjD6i_capture.png - Mail original - > De: "Dave Fisher" > À: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 26 Juillet 2023 23:54:54 > Objet: Re: Extensions website and in

Re: Extensions website and incorrect e-mail

Hi - Where is the incorrect email provided to you? What url do we need to ask SourceForge to change? Best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 26, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Bidouille wrote: > > When you want to publish an extension, you should to write an e-mail to: >

Re: Extensions site on SourceForge

Hi Marcus, Am 07.02.23 um 18:06 schrieb Marcus: > Am 07.02.23 um 12:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel: >> Does anyone have the karma to disable the review section here? >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/aoo-extensions/reviews/ >> >> It is full of SPAM. Alternatively we need someone to clean up. > >

Re: Extensions site on SourceForge

Am 07.02.23 um 12:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Does anyone have the karma to disable the review section here? https://sourceforge.net/projects/aoo-extensions/reviews/ It is full of SPAM. Alternatively we need someone to clean up. I've asked SF.net for request, got it and cleaned up the

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

> > The "/19242/0/ancdef1.0.0..42/0/ancdef1.0.0.oxt" file could not be > > found or is not available. Please select another file. > OK, that's another problem. The database is unreliable. > The only solution I found in such a situation is to store the > extension on an external site and use a

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Hi Pedro, Am 24.05.22 um 12:47 schrieb Pedro Lino: > Hi Matthias, Bidouille > >> On 05/24/2022 11:35 AM Matthias Seidel wrote: >> >> >> Hi Pedro, >> >> Am 24.05.22 um 12:28 schrieb Pedro Lino: >>> Hi Matthias >>> >>> I can handle that. I'm already doing the extensions update notification. >>>

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Hi Matthias, Bidouille > On 05/24/2022 11:35 AM Matthias Seidel wrote: > > > Hi Pedro, > > Am 24.05.22 um 12:28 schrieb Pedro Lino: > > Hi Matthias > > > > I can handle that. I'm already doing the extensions update notification. > > It is a low volume mail. Can you redirect to

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Hi Pedro, Am 24.05.22 um 12:28 schrieb Pedro Lino: > Hi Matthias > > I can handle that. I'm already doing the extensions update notification. > It is a low volume mail. Can you redirect to pl...@apache.org? No, the mail process itself is broken... > > Unfortunately there is also some problem with

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Hi Matthias I can handle that. I'm already doing the extensions update notification. It is a low volume mail. Can you redirect to pl...@apache.org? Unfortunately there is also some problem with Sourceforge for that extension? The "/19242/0/ancdef1.0.0..42/0/ancdef1.0.0.oxt" file could not be

Re: Extensions website: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

Hi, Am 24.05.22 um 11:56 schrieb Bidouille: > Hello, > To publish extension, you must send an e-mail to > noreply[at]extensions.openoffice.org > Is this address correct? > Because I got an "undelivered" message. Normally an administrator must publish an extension if it contains links to

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

> On February 26, 2019 at 6:25 PM Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 26/02/2019 Matthias Seidel wrote: > > For the moment I have created a landing page for this URI: > > http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006 > > This will work, but I confirm what you and others had guesses: this is >

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

On 26/02/2019 Matthias Seidel wrote: For the moment I have created a landing page for this URI: http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006 This will work, but I confirm what you and others had guesses: this is not required to be an URI where some resources will be found. It is just

RE: extensions description xml doesn't exist

> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 11:45 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist > > Hi all, > > For the moment I have created a landing page for this URI:

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

Hi all, For the moment I have created a landing page for this URI: http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006 This should also "fix" the warnings in Netbeans. Regards,    Matthias Am 26.02.19 um 11:16 schrieb Matthias Seidel: > Hi John, > > Am 26.02.19 um 00:12 schrieb John D'Orazio:

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

Hi John, Am 26.02.19 um 00:12 schrieb John D'Orazio: > Not being an expert in xml structures, it does seem to me however that the > url isn't really to be considered an actual url, I guess it's just a string > (called a URI ) to identify the elements in this xml tree as belonging to > this family

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

(1) I am pretty sure that URL has been 404 for about 7 years. (2) You can always ask the Netbeans developers at d...@netbeans.apache.org Regards, Dave > On Feb 25, 2019, at 3:12 PM, John D'Orazio > wrote: > > Not being an expert in xml structures, it does

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

Not being an expert in xml structures, it does seem to me however that the url isn't really to be considered an actual url, I guess it's just a string (called a URI ) to identify the elements in this xml tree as belonging to this family of elements. https://stackoverflow.com/a/11602530 So in that

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

> On February 25, 2019 at 8:38 PM John D'Orazio < > john.dora...@cappellaniauniroma3.org > mailto:john.dora...@cappellaniauniroma3.org > wrote: > > > I don't see an XML descriptor at extensions.openoffice.org ? Should it be > at a URL such as

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

I don't see an XML descriptor at extensions.openoffice.org ? Should it be at a URL such as https://extensions.openoffice.org/description/2006 ? On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:53 PM Pedro Lino wrote: > All extensions are now at https://extensions.openoffice.org/ > If your extension is hosted at the

Re: extensions description xml doesn't exist

All extensions are now at https://extensions.openoffice.org/ If your extension is hosted at the new address maybe it needs a little URL editing Hope this helps... > On February 24, 2019 at 1:07 PM John D'Orazio < > john.dora...@cappellaniauniroma3.org >

Re: Extensions website outage

Andrea Pescetti wrote: Thanks! Sites are indeed back and pages are shown correctly. Still, users are reporting that they cannot download extensions so I guess this is not fixed yet, right? I mean, the pages are displayed but the files are not available for download yet. Answering myself: a

Re: Extensions website outage

Dave Brondsema wrote: https://templates.openoffice.org/ and https://extensions.openoffice.org/ are back up. Thanks for your patience. Thanks! Sites are indeed back and pages are shown correctly. Still, users are reporting that they cannot download extensions so I guess this is not fixed

Re: Extensions website outage

https://templates.openoffice.org/ and https://extensions.openoffice.org/ are back up. Thanks for your patience. On 3/2/18 12:08 PM, Dave Brondsema wrote: > On 3/2/18 2:29 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: >> 2018-03-01 21:23 GMT+01:00 Andrea Pescetti : >> >>> Dave Brondsema

Re: Extensions website outage

On 3/2/18 2:29 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > 2018-03-01 21:23 GMT+01:00 Andrea Pescetti : > >> Dave Brondsema wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> I currently get this on https://extensions.openoffice.org/ for the record: "Sourceforge

Re: Extensions website outage

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 11:29 PM, Roberto Galoppini > wrote: > > 2018-03-01 21:23 GMT+01:00 Andrea Pescetti : > >> Dave Brondsema wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> I currently get this on

Re: Extensions website outage

2018-03-01 21:23 GMT+01:00 Andrea Pescetti : > Dave Brondsema wrote: > >> On 3/1/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> I currently get this on https://extensions.openoffice.org/ for the >>> record: >>> "Sourceforge project sites are currently under maintenance. Please

Re: Extensions website outage

Dave Brondsema wrote: On 3/1/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: I currently get this on https://extensions.openoffice.org/ for the record: "Sourceforge project sites are currently under maintenance. Please check back later.  We thank you for your patience." Correct. We will be prioritizing

Re: Extensions website outage

On 3/1/18 12:08 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > FR web forum wrote: >> Unable to connect :-( >> http://status.apache.org says that all is ok > > Extensions is not hosted at Apache. It is hosted by SourceForge, and > apparently > they are having issues: > > https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops > > I

Re: Extensions website outage

FR web forum wrote: Unable to connect :-( http://status.apache.org says that all is ok Extensions is not hosted at Apache. It is hosted by SourceForge, and apparently they are having issues: https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops I currently get this on https://extensions.openoffice.org/ for the

Re: extensions and dictionaries

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:44:10 +0200 David Billing david.j.bill...@gmail.com wrote: No links to extensions seems to work. I'm trying to get dictionaries in english. http://extensions.openoffice.org/ Kind regards David Billing The SourceForge servers, where he files are stored, seem to be

Re: extensions and dictionaries

We're on top of the problem, hope to be able to provide an update soon. Roberto 2015-07-16 20:53 GMT+02:00 Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie: On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:44:10 +0200 David Billing david.j.bill...@gmail.com wrote: No links to extensions seems to work. I'm trying to get

Re: Extensions website managment

Thanks Marcus for raising it to my attention. 2015-04-21 19:06 GMT+02:00 Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de: Am 04/21/2015 08:43 AM, schrieb FR web forum: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126253 Someone to have a look on this one? looks like as Roberto could help here. About to write

Re: Extensions website managment

Am 04/21/2015 08:43 AM, schrieb FR web forum: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126253 Someone to have a look on this one? looks like as Roberto could help here. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

Just wondering what would be considered the fix for this, someone mentioned implementing more logic in the Netbeans plugin. Would a plausible solution be to have Netbeans generate each add-in as a singleton? Or is there maybe a better fix from the open office end in the way it implements the java

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

On 01/10/14 12:19, Carl Marcum wrote: On 10/01/2014 02:25 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 01/10/14 02:19, Carl Marcum wrote: Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

Does this mean it's a bug in the way open office is implementing the java add-ins generated by the NetBeans plugin? (I'm the one that opened the issue about this in the forum, seeing I'm trying to create a Writer add-in using the NetBeans plugin.) don John R. D'Orazio cappellano coordinatore

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

On 01/10/14 02:19, Carl Marcum wrote: Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was intended behavior or not. I have ran into this problem in an extension that I started

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

On 10/01/2014 02:25 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 01/10/14 02:19, Carl Marcum wrote: Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was intended behavior or not. I have ran into

Re: [EXTENSIONS] how is the extension constructor called

Amenel, I am cross posting to dev since the original message didn't get copied: On 09/30/2014 09:39 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Hi Carl, I don't know whether it was intended behavior or not. I have ran into this problem in an extension that I started writing in May or June and it was an issue

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: update NetBeans plugin

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:54:16 +0200 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have checked the AOO API plugin for NetBeans, especially NB 8 together with AOO 4.1.0. Some changes were necessary to make it working and more changes to replace deprecated APIs ;-) For now it work on MacOS

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: update NetBeans plugin

On 06/04/2014 10:54 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, I have checked the AOO API plugin for NetBeans, especially NB 8 together with AOO 4.1.0. Some changes were necessary to make it working and more changes to replace deprecated APIs ;-) For now it work on MacOS and will do some further tests on

Re: Extensions wish list placementt?

On 3/24/14 5:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 3/22/14 12:27 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 20/03/2014 Kay Schenk wrote: Every once in a while a

Re: Extensions wish list placementt?

On 3/22/14 12:27 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: On 20/03/2014 Kay Schenk wrote: Every once in a while a topic arises on this list and gets a response like that might be a good idea for an extension. Right, but most of the

Re: Extensions wish list placementt?

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 3/22/14 12:27 AM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 20/03/2014 Kay Schenk wrote: Every once in a while a topic arises on this list and gets a

Re: Extensions wish list placementt?

On 20/03/2014 Kay Schenk wrote: Every once in a while a topic arises on this list and gets a response like that might be a good idea for an extension. Right, but most of the times it is just a wish. The API available to extension developers does not allow to do everything. So it is very

Re: Extensions wish list placementt?

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: On 20/03/2014 Kay Schenk wrote: Every once in a while a topic arises on this list and gets a response like that might be a good idea for an extension. Right, but most of the times it is just a wish. The API

Re: [ABCD/02][2013/10/30] Re: Extensions

2013/10/31 jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com: On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past, we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so that we can target at least the top 100/200. I don't if you

Re: Extensions

2013/10/31 jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com: On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained' and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. Let's take Extension 6318 as an example.

Re: Extensions

2013/10/30 Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: Also, Filter option on site Extension need to has option for what version of AOO you want to find extension.

Re: Extensions

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/10/30 Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: Also, Filter

[ABCD/02][2013/10/30] Re: Extensions

On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: I can take care of delivering the mass mailing as we did in the past, we probably need a bunch of volunteers to test those extensions so that we can target at least the top 100/200. I don't if you mean: * Each individual is to test 100 - 200

Re: Extensions

On 10/30/2013 05:28 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: A) Despite we'd love to be able to distinguish between 'maintained' and 'umaintained' extensions there is no easy way to tell. Let's take Extension 6318 as an example. http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/extension-6318 Μaintainer:

Re: Extensions

This is update of proposal: 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version of extension. Note: button will be added if exist new version. Marks and buttons will be on preview page, as result of

Re: Extensions

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: This is update of proposal: 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and with button with link to the page where exist new, compatilble version of extension. Note: button

Re: Extensions

2013/10/29 Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: This is update of proposal: 1) Mark all unmaintained extensions on our site (With appropriate mark, and with button with link to the page where exist new,

Re: Extensions

@Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: Also, Filter option on site Extension need to has option for what version of AOO you want to find extension. I do not know how I droped this from my Proposals. Regards, Wlada 2013/10/29 Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com 2013/10/29 Kay

Re: Extensions

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: @Kay: In my earlier mail of this discussion: Also, Filter option on site Extension need to has option for what version of AOO you want to find extension. I do not know how I droped this from my

Re: Extensions

On 10/25/13 4:59 PM, Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: I wrote: (...) live AOO because nothing works there. It should be:(...) leave AOO because nothing works there. if an author of an extension is not interested to support AOO anymore we can't change it. Juergen Wlada 2013/10/25 Vladislav

Re: Extensions

if an author of an extension is not interested to support AOO anymore we can't change it. If extension is under some open source licence AND if author has no interest to maintain his extension, what is problem that we made corrections? Regards, Wlada 2013/10/28 Jürgen Schmidt

Re: Extensions

If you wish I might do the same for oootranslit, or if you're already in touch with the original author please make sure he/she does the update or ask him/her to send me a note. I sent a mail to the author of OooTranslit, also on forum, but he never answered. If you can, please try. Our plan A

Re: Extensions

2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com: If you wish I might do the same for oootranslit, or if you're already in touch with the original author please make sure he/she does the update or ask him/her to send me a note. I sent a mail to the author of OooTranslit, also on

Re: Extensions

Why should we mark them? If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version which can run on AOO4.0. Where we can add this marks, buttons?Before

Re: Extensions

2013/10/28 Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com: Why should we mark them? If there is some warning mark, visually you will in easier way to know that this extension is not compatible with AOO4.0. We can even more. We can (near that mark) add button for link to the version

Re: Extensions

On 25/10/2013 Rory O'Farrell wrote: I urge the preservation of old unloved extensions; users with computer skills could often extract the code and modify it to their requirements, as I have recently done myself. Clear marking of an extension as 4 compatible would be helpful. Indeed the idea of

Re: Extensions

Solution: rather than deleting/moving the extension, we should work on the maintainer side and have an unresponsive maintainer policy like many other projects do. An extension can be reassigned if the maintainer is not responsive. The new maintainer can add new releases or edit the

Re: Extensions

On 25 October 2013 01:59, Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com wrote: 2) In future we must made restriction for those extensions on our site I don't get what you would restrict. Do you mean that you would hide all extensions that are not compatible with 4.0? I think they

Re: Extensions

On 10/25/13 1:25 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: We had in Serbia simmilar problem with one of the most-frequently-used extension in Serbian. Thanks for Jörg Schmidt he made version for AOO 4.0, but we have still some problems here, because old version of this

Re: Extensions

I wrote: (...) live AOO because nothing works there. It should be:(...) leave AOO because nothing works there. Wlada 2013/10/25 Vladislav Stevanovic stevanovicvladis...@gmail.com Yes, we can do this. It must be marked in anyway. But the situation is more complex. AOO now suffer because

Re: Extensions

On 10/25/2013 12:48 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/25/13 1:25 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: We had in Serbia simmilar problem with one of the most-frequently-used extension in Serbian. Thanks for Jörg Schmidt he made version for AOO 4.0, but we have still some

Re: Extensions

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:50:40 -0700 Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: On 10/25/2013 12:48 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 10/25/13 1:25 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: We had in Serbia simmilar problem with one of the most-frequently-used extension in

Re: Extensions

Ok, as I can see we have consensus about marking all uncompatible extensions. Also, I think taht we need to improve search filter for versions AOO or Ooo. Now, how goes practical action? Who maintain this site Extension? Is there some procedure what we must respect? Regards, Wlada 2013/10/25

Re: Extensions

Please check the documentation to update your extension for 4.0 http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0#API_changes_between_3.4_and_4.0 Changes can be as simple as just add the few new tags on the XML from the xcu. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:47 PM,

Re: Extensions

Vladislav Stevanovic wrote: We had in Serbia simmilar problem with one of the most-frequently-used extension in Serbian. Thanks for Jörg Schmidt he made version for AOO 4.0, but we have still some problems here, because old version of this extension is still visible on AOO Extension site! It is

Re: Extensions

2) In future we must made restriction for those extensions on our site I don't get what you would restrict. Do you mean that you would hide all extensions that are not compatible with 4.0? I think they can stay... Maybe it is possible to add a warning to the extensions that do not have

Re: [Extensions website] Timeline don't work

2013/8/14 FR web forum ooofo...@free.fr Hello list, For the last 3 recents OXT, timeline don't work: http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/search?query=sort_by=createdsort_order=DESC Download numbers seems to be not tracked. Actually the timeline works only for extensions hosted on the

Re: [Extensions]User reports problem updating an extension

2013/7/31 Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.com A Spanish user report problems updating an extension http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/professional-template-pack-ii-spanish (a translation to Professional Template Pack II - English) As you can see, there are two download entries:

Re: [Extensions]User reports problem updating an extension

2013/8/1 Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com 2013/7/31 Ricardo Berlasso rgb.m...@gmail.com A Spanish user report problems updating an extension http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/professional-template-pack-ii-spanish (a translation to Professional Template Pack II -

Re: Extensions need approval?

I got a remark from the author: it seems that authors have to write to a mail address to ask for approval, which he did. So was there a delay in the handling of the queue in that mailbox or is there a problem with the mail address? Don't take me wrong, it's not about criticism, it's just to

Re: Extensions need approval?

2013/7/26 Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net I got a remark from the author: it seems that authors have to write to a mail address to ask for approval, which he did. Yea, I can confirm the author wrote our website email address and I just replied, but he didn't ask to publish his

Re: Extensions need approval?

2013/7/25 Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net Related to this post: http://forum.openoffice.org/** en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7t=**63081#p279610http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7t=63081#p279610 It seems that a new version of the page related to the French dictionary needs

Re: Extensions need approval?

Works fine indeed. Many thanks fo rthe reactivity Roberto! Hagar Le 25/07/2013 22:54, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : 2013/7/25 Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net Related to this post: http://forum.openoffice.org/**

Re: Extensions site spam

Hi Ariel, 2013/4/22 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org: Hi Michael Bauer reported that there is spam in this comment: http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/faclair-afb#comment-6584 Eliminated. It would be nice to implement a mechanism for extensions owners to delete spam on

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt

On 2/8/13 11:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 06/02/2013 janI wrote: I assume (without really knowing it) that there is an easy upgrade path for extensions currently not being an oxt to become one. We need to document (if not already done) this upgrade in a way, that motivates the extension

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt

Jürgen Schmidt wrote: it seems that nobody has stronger concerns against this proposal and I think no vote is necessary. I will draft a blog and a mail to our announce list that we will deprecate older package extensions with 4.0 and that we will support oxt packages only in the future. You

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt

On 06/02/2013 janI wrote: I assume (without really knowing it) that there is an easy upgrade path for extensions currently not being an oxt to become one. We need to document (if not already done) this upgrade in a way, that motivates the extension developers to do it. Same for me: enforcing

Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt

+1 I assume (without really knowing it) that there is an easy upgrade path for extensions currently not being an oxt to become one. We need to document (if not already done) this upgrade in a way, that motivates the extension developers to do it. rgds Jan I. On 6 February 2013 17:04, Jürgen

Re: [Extensions website] Manage files

Can't you just unpublish it? In the new dictionaries I uploaded today, I made a mistake and had to unpublish a release. But I believe you already found the solution, since I can't see version 1.2.1 any longer at Yes, I unpublished this release but I can't recreate it with same release. If I