On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote: > Le 10/02/2013 21:21, Rob Weir a écrit : > >> Did you not notice the title of this thread? Has it entirely escaped >> you that we're talking about 0^0 here? If you want to start another >> threat about extensions, then go ahead and I will comment there. But >> anyone of the intelligence of a grapefruit would not find it strange >> that I am discussing only 0^0 in this thread. > > > And have you read my previous message? > I don't understand why there is almost nothing aired when there are talks > about breaking the compatibility of ALL the extensions because of a minor > issue. And here you're challenging a change that will affect very few users. > > You told in your first message that you were concerned that the change would > break the backward compatibility. > But are you not concerned by all the users having their extensions > deactivated by a minor API change??? >
Just because I don't hijack this thread to discuss an unrelated issue does not mean anything. I am also against torture, high public debt and rap music, but that does not mean I am going to discuss them in this thread. And it certainly does not mean that my silence on these topics in this particular thread means that I approve of them. -Rob > There is your other message: > Le 09/02/2013 18:40, Rob Weir a écrit : >> >> I've added a new section to the 4.0 Release Notes for tracking changes >> that impact backwards compatibility: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes >> >> This would include changes to the public interfaces of AOO, including >> incompatible changes to API's (including spreadsheet functions), file >> formats, etc. > > > But I don't see any reference to the extensions issue. > > If there is a real problem to be talked about, it's more the API change that > would break extensions compatibility. > Honestly, I don't care about the 0^0 issue. Not enough users will be > impacted. > > Hagar
