see below please.
On 1 November 2012 22:21, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 5:07 PM, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Can "standard" loosely be defined as an extension: > > - is developed by people who have signed ICLA > > - uses the apache license header in the source files > > - is of interest to the general public in different countries > > - is willing to let the source be controlled/reviewed by committer. > > - accept a vote by the committers to be accepted > > > > If those points are fuillfilled we could add the project to "swext", and > > then it would automatically be integrated in the build and l10n process. > > > > Please help me out here, I am not sure if that is enough for the "apache > > way". > > > > There are probably two degrees of "standard" or "official" extensions. > > 1) An extension that is released with our binaries, e.g., it is > available "out-of-the-box", either automatically installed, or > available as an option in the installer. > That would be things like "wiki publisher" in swext, that still have the sun license and not the apache license. But that what actually what I was thinking about, and of course these extension MUST be part of the apache demands. We might include include in the setup package, but it should not be automatically installed, if that was the case the end-user would see it as an integrated part, and not an add-on. We should not take responsibility for the extension, but simply offer it. > 2) An extension that is developed and released by the project, and > published in the extension repository. > This is the current standard and should not be changed. the add on is optional > > The process for these would be nearly identical, differing only on > whether it is released standalone or bundled with the full AOO > installer. > and not to forget, the possibility of getting the UI translated and available all over the world. Can we collect statistics about which extensions is installed how often ?? > > -Rob > > > Jan. > > > > > > On 1 November 2012 21:24, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > > > >> Am 11/01/2012 01:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt<jogischm...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 11/1/12 12:39 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Am 10/27/2012 01:17 AM, schrieb jan iversen: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I see, I have to get used to this license issues (a long time ago I > >>>>>> believed open source was just open source, then I joined an apache > >>>>>> project). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> never mind. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Would it be to our advantage if we offered third party developers > >>>>>> (that is > >>>>>> how I see extension developers) the possibility to register a > language > >>>>>> file > >>>>>> and get it translated as part of the language packs ? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course it would be to our advantage; or let's say for the project > and > >>>>> software. A lot of extensions would be available in many languages. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, I don't know where we should draw the line to set a limit. > When > >>>>> we select here and there some extensions, then the other developers > will > >>>>> ask why not their extensions. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's quite simple I would say, if people want develop extensions under > >>>> ALv2 and want to contribute the code to the project. We can easy > create > >>>> a special section in our repo where we can host them. > >>>> > >>>> But this means they have to be handled in the same way as all other > >>>> stuff here. Means a new release have to be voted... > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> I think the important thing is this: We don't just want code. We > >>> want communities. So if an extension author thinks that their > >>> extension is generally useful and he/she wants to join the AOO > >>> community and work on the extension here, and allow others to work on > >>> it as well, then this is good. > >>> > >> > >> Of course, +1. > >> > >> > >> We can have a set of "standard extensions". > >>> > >> > >> So, we just need to define the standard. > >> > >> Marcus > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> And IMHO it's not possible to translate all strings for all extensions. > >>>>> > >>>>> But maybe others here have a great idea? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> we can't probably provide it and I think we have to do enough ;-). > But I > >>>> can think of an alternative service hosted somewhere else. > >>>> > >>>> Juergen > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Or should we just say extension developers does not concern us (and > >>>>>> help > >>>>>> AOO get more used) so we just look the other way ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe the right way is somewhere in the middle. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeah, maybe. ;-) > >>>>> > >>>>> Marcus > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 27 October 2012 00:58, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 10/27/2012 12:36 AM, schrieb jan iversen: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> While doing an update to the l10n workflow I think I found a > slight > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> problem. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Extensions offers the capability to integrate/extend our UI. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Assuming somebody writes an extension, and publishes it on > >>>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/****extensions/< > http://www.openoffice.org/**extensions/> > >>>>>>>> <http://www.**openoffice.org/extensions/< > http://www.openoffice.org/extensions/> > >>>>>>>> >how > >>>>>>>> does that get integrated into the > >>>>>>>> translation process ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Simply, not at all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I can see the sources are not integrated into our > "build > >>>>>>> --all > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --with-lang". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If I am right that they are not part of the general translation, > >>>>>>> then is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> that per design so or should it be different ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes, this is by design. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Extensions are offered to extent your AOO install at any point of > >>>>>>> time. > >>>>>>> These are developed by people that do not have to belong to our > >>>>>>> project > >>>>>>> (when we put aside some exceptions). They can act independently. > And > >>>>>>> therefore they are allowed to (or have to ;-) ) do all on their > own; > >>>>>>> incl. > >>>>>>> translation. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That applies for all extensions and templates available on: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - > >>>>>>> http://extensions.services.**o**penoffice.org < > http://openoffice.org> > >>>>>>> <http://**extensions.services.**openoffice.org< > http://extensions.services.openoffice.org> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - > >>>>>>> http://templates.services.**op**enoffice.org < > http://openoffice.org>< > >>>>>>> http://templates.**services.openoffice.org< > http://templates.services.openoffice.org> > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I might be following a wrong track here, but please forgive me > for > >>>>>>> trying > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> to make the l10n process as complete as I can. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Don't panic. That's a great goal and everybody is thankful to you > for > >>>>>>> doing this task. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Marcus > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >
