On 11/25/13 9:19 AM, jan i wrote: > On 25 November 2013 08:56, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/23/13 5:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Andrew Rist wrote: >>>> On 11/22/2013 1:52 AM, jan i wrote: >>>>> Not having the binaries on apache.org is for sure the simplest >> solution, >>>>> and if we can decide that, then I am sure infra wont have a problem. >>> >>> Actually, it was Infra who pushed for having the Apache mirrors as a >>> secondary mirror network, after we followed their advice not to offer >>> binaries from the Apache mirrors as a primary channel due to >>> size/bandwidth constraints. I like the idea to have a secondary mirror >>> network at Apache, while I find it too much if this delays our releases >>> or requires us to change our processes. >>> >>>> what if we have single install with all langs at apache.org? that way >>>> it is there, but considerably smaller from a real estate perspective but >>>> allows us to preserve binaries. >>>> For user downloads @ sourceforge, we continue to have the 1 per lang >>>> downloads that focus on the user. >>> >>> This sounds odd at first, but it could actually be a good solution. The >>> multi-language build can be added to the SourceForge ones with minimal >>> overhead, and it can be uploaded to the Apache mirrors very quickly. We >>> would still have the possibility (this is an important one) to measure >>> interest for the individual language builds by analyzing the SourceForge >>> download data, while we would have the multi-language build available on >>> both SF and Apache for archival and for those users who find this easier >>> than download language packs. >> >> To repeat myself such a mulit-language install set make only sense from >> my pov if the underlying code is able to select the UI language >> automatically and chose the correct one for the office UI. Minimal >> requirement would be an enhanced first start wizard that allow easy >> selection of the preferred language. >> >> Keep in mind we are producing an end user application and this kind of >> configuration should be done automatically for the user because many of >> our users would be confused. >> > which is why we still have full language sets on SF, where our downloads > happen. > > but I do think you put our users lower than they are, there are also many > users who install a en-US package and then additional languages, simply > because we live in an international world.
these users are definitely not the group of users I have in mind and they belong in a group of more experienced users which is fine. I am not against a mulit-language set but I would like to do it more user friendly. We talk here about an quick ad-hoc decision and people give their +1 but nobody volunteered to make it complete. This is something that I simply don't like and ii is my very own opinion. Juergen > > rgds > jan I. > > >> >> Juergen >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
