On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Andreas Mantke <ma...@gmx.de> wrote: > Am 13.08.2014 um 18:28 schrieb Robinson Tryon: >> I think there needs to be a better mechanism for QA (and others) to >> identify and flag/update extensions that have fallen-behind in >> development. > I got this ticket but the extension is flagged for LibreOffice 3.5 and > 3.6 only. If there is something broken with that versions it would be an > issue. > > If someone wants to work on that extension and create a new release for > LibreOffice 4.2 or 4.3 I'm happy to assist with the extensions-site. > > But I think it's not a good idea to delist/delete etc. an extension that > is flagged for an older version of LibreOffice. It may also be an issue > from the license perspective (depends on the license):
I'm more than happy to keep the extension listed on the site, especially if there's hope that someone else might see the extension and elect to update the code behind it to work with modern builds. That being said, I think our #1 priority with the extension site is providing a good experience to our userbase, so we need to make sure that the interface makes it abundantly clear which versions of LibreOffice are supported by a given extension. If someone tests an extension with a newer version of LO and it works (or fails), we should try to have some mechanism to make it possible for that information to be collected and provided in a structured fashion back to other users. People shouldn't just have to guess-and-check when installing extensions. --R -- Robinson Tryon QA Engineer - The Document Foundation Volunteer Coordinator - LibreOffice Community Outreach qu...@libreoffice.org -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
