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.


Robinson Tryon
QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
Volunteer Coordinator - LibreOffice Community Outreach

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

Reply via email to