On 1/6/12 4:55 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 6 January 2012 15:35, Rob Weir<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ross Gardler
...
As an IPMC member I would be concerned about a promise of breaking the
Sourceforge stranglehold on the extensions site for the reasons I
express above (ASF cannot benefit one organisation over another).
However, I am only a single member of the IPMC and others may not have
the same concerns.
"Stranglehold"? I think that inflammatory term is not apt. There
are other catalogs of OpenOffice extensions and templates.
I agree my language is too strong. Even without considering the fact
that there are other catalogues as you point out.
That being said, I had assumed that shipped AOO code would point to a
single, or even default site. Although the financial gain is not the
same I see this as being comparable to Firefox shipping with Google as
the default search engine. Mozilla can do this because of their legal
structure, the ASF cannot.
I believe we're talking about the website, not the product.
I seem to have been misunderstanding something about how the
extensions manager works. My fault for making assumptions. I imagined
it listing all available extensions within the application,
that was the initial idea but for specific reasons not implemented yet.
But it's the idea for the future and a long term solution.
Browsing directly form the app is a huge improvement and would increase
the user experience a lot i would say ;-)
However,
having actually looked at it, I see I am actually presented with a
single link to the extensions site. Sorry, I should have looked
earlier, would have saved us some time.
not only
The linked ext repo is the default and also used for updates of extensions.
Extensions from our repo don't contain an update Url. The extension
manager knows if no update Url is present the default repo has to be
asked for update info about this ext.
It's tricky and the technical details and relation are often really
important to understand.
Juergen
If that link were pointing at SF then I would be concerned me
(remember we are talking about at the point of graduation). If it
links to a website with multiple catalogues listed, or if there are
multiple links within the product my concern is no longer valid. Such
a modification is easy to make, even for 3.3.
Thanks for putting me straight.
When we talked in the past about enabling the product to point to an
extension website, I think the thought was that we'd point to an
Apache catalog that contained only officially released extensions,
e.g., ALv2, QA'ed, voted on by PMC, etc. That would be the safe thing
to do. With a public, open extension repository we cannot really even
vouch for them being entirely free of malware. It is really "as-is"
with a big disclaimer. So it would probably not be appropriate for us
to point to them by default in the product. (That was Dennis's
concern, as I understand it);.
Yes, this is the long term strategy we've been discussing and I think
it is a healthy goal. But does the AOO podling really want to limit it
to ALv2?
Ross
