On 2/8/13 11:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 06/02/2013 janI wrote: >> I assume (without really knowing it) that there is an easy "upgrade" path >> for extensions currently not being an oxt to become one. We need to >> document (if not already done) this "upgrade" in a way, that motivates >> the >> extension developers to do it. > > Same for me: enforcing OXT seems a good thing to do, and "deprecating" > the old style in 4.0 gives the proper notice to users and developers. > This assuming that it is straightforward to make an OXT package out of > all to-be-deprecated snippets: we should include a link to the procedure > in the release notes for 4.0. > > Regards, > Andrea.
it seems that nobody has stronger concerns against this proposal and I think no vote is necessary. I will draft a blog and a mail to our announce list that we will deprecate older package extensions with 4.0 and that we will support oxt packages only in the future. Keep in mind it will be an announcement only, nothing will change for 4.0 but potentially later for future releases. Just to inform extension developers in advance. Juergen
