2013/7/27 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini > <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2013/7/27 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net > > > >> wrote: > >> > Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : > >> > > >> >> A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for > >> >> http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and > >> >> http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector > >> >> > >> >> B) 4.0" has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For > >> >> example > >> >> http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist > >> 4.0 > >> >> among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, > see > >> for > >> >> example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. > >> >> > >> >> Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension > >> >> compatibility > >> >> list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file > >> again. > >> > > >> > > >> > But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change > and > >> he > >> > has to update the relevant field. > >> > There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the > >> extension > >> > has not been updated yet? > >> > > > > The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given > > extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't > > mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is > up-to-date. > > > > > > > >> > > >> > For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author > >> doesn't > >> > seem to be willing to update it... > >> > > >> > >> If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of > >> time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a > >> position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should > >> focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive > >> ones. > >> > >> This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: > >> > >> 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for > >> discussions about extensions. > >> > >> 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered > >> extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done > >> before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all > >> should have received the note. > >> > > > > We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to > > subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if > their > > extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension > page > > accordingly. > > > > Does it sound like a plan? > > > > Reminders are good. >
So what do we want to tell them, does anyone want to craft a draft message for AOOE authors? Roberto > > -Rob > > > > Roberto > > > > > >> > >> 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any > >> questions that came up. > >> > >> True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure > >> that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> -Rob > >> > >> > Hagar > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
