I emphasized that my practice is a personal one and I did not presume that it was shared by this project.
On the other hand, I am not so willing to anoint the Apache OpenOffice project as being "this project for many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases." Whether that was wise or not, I claim it is unwise of us for releases of Apache OpenOffice. I'm also amazed that anyone here would justify anything by saying we're no worse than Microsoft, in effect, with the arguably hyperbolic claim that "Microsoft breaks their plugins with every release and requires reinstall." - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 15:08 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is time to test) On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I recall the discussion about the BerkeleyDB. However, the dots with respect > to the current state and consequences for users were not connected for me > until I saw Jürgen Schmidt's reply today concerning the experience of Larry > Gusaas. > > My creation of this derivative thread was immediate. It was inspired by > situation being made so clear. > > I don't recall these consequences being so evident until the testing of the > "system integration" install versions began last week. As a matter of my > *personal* policy, I would never release in a way that automatically removed > previous versions, especially for a release under a reconstituted project. > But that's a matter of personal principles. > Your "personal policy" goes against the constant practice of this project for many many years, where point releases do overlay prior releases. > I do not have the experience and skills to make such changes to the Apache > OpenOffice code base. I do have the means to detect and demonstrate defects > and make Bugzilla reports. I can also recommend that the advice of RGB ES > and Eric b be drawn upon. And I agree with Larry and Jean that this is a > significant policy issue. > Please do. I'd love to see the BZ issues. This would make the question concrete rather than the rampant speculation I've otherwise read today. > Perhaps this issue could have been surfaced and considered before now. It > doesn't matter. It is clearly before us at this moment. > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 14:39 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all volunteers: It is > time to test) > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gus...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2012-03-05 3:30 PM Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> I'll put it to you quickly simple. If you have been paying attention >>> you will realize that we're discussing release blocking issues. >> >> >> I have been paying attention. Have you? >> In the thread "Calling all volunteers: It is time to test" you wrote >> >> "We could use help verifying the install in all real-world scenarios, on >> clean OS installs, >> as upgrades to previous versions of OOo." and >> "Please send a short note to the ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org telling us >> what platform and >> >> scenario you installed (fresh install, upgrade, install next to >> LibreOffice, etc.)." >> >> I did an install over OOo on my Mac and reported that it deleted the >> extensions in my user profile. >> >> Dennis started this thread "[EXTENSIONS][RELEASE] (was RE: Calling all >> volunteers: It is time to test)" to discuss if releases of AOO should >> overwrite the OOo version, thus deleting all installed extensions. >> >> Does this not require discussion? >> > > This has been known for several months and has been part of the 3.4 > plan. We discussed it extensively in early December. Certainly if > you have new information, new workarounds, new proposals, or even new > code, then I'm new we all would love to know about it. But if you are > just noticing this for the first time, you might want to check the > list archives to catch up on the previous discussion first. Search > for "berkeleydb". > > [ ... ] >
