Hi Hans Zybura,
On 04.06.2013 19:26, Hans Zybura wrote:
Hi, comments inline...
Crosspost to the api mailing list for a reason.
Regards, Hans Zybura
-----Original Message----- From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
[mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013
10:47 AM To: d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [AOO 4.0]:
migration of AOO 3.4.x/OOo 3.x user profile data - help needed
Hi,
small wrap-up at the top: - nobody prefers to migrate extensions
from AOO 3.4.x resp. OOo 3.x
A couple of month ago there was a heated dispute about introducing
incompatible changes for extensions in the addons.xcu (for negligible
benefit). One of the arguments meant to silence the critics was:
Well, it's no problem because we have an update mechanism for
extensions. I expressed doubts if the update mechanism would work.
Now it turns out I was wrong. I shouldn't have worried about the
update mechanism. Without migration, users will have to find and
reinstall all of their extensions anyway "by hand".
May be I should have said:
"Until now, nobody prefers to migrate extensions from AOO 3.4.x resp.
OOo 3.x".
The current update mechanism for extensions simply looks for a newer
version of the extension by use of a link provided by the extension
developer himself. We did that for our extension, but didn't have to
make use of it until now.
OO developers decided not to take into account compatibility issues
caused by introducing incompatible changes in addons.xcu. OK, so we
have to deal with it. To prevent any trouble for our customers, we
could very likely have provided an automatic update, so that an end
user wouldn't have noticed any problem at all after a successful
migration.
Now OO developers are about to make it impossible for extension
developers to simply provide an automatic update before or after the
migration to AOO 4.0. Without migrating extensions, there is no
automatic update path anymore.
Great user experience! Great experience for extension developers and
support folks!
I remember much talk about the "eco system of AOO" on this mailing
list. Is this what the talk was about?
I tried to get involved certain people on this topic.
I had send my intial post to dev@o.a.o and users@o.a.o. Sorry, that I
did not include api@o.a.o as I assumed that extension developers are
looking at dev@o.a.o.
The intention of this thread was not to present facts regarding the
development. It is meant to show on what I would like to work on for AOO
4.0 regarding the migration of the user profile and to get feedback on
it. (BTW, I had already started a discussion thread in January 2013
regarding the migration of the user profile - see thread "[IMPORTANT,
DISCUSS]: no migration/use of former user profile with AOO 4.0".)
I used terms like "I would like to ...", "My current preference is ..."
and "I need support and help ..." - I am not presenting facts.
I explicitly ask for help for these tasks.
I got no response and no feedback from users@o.a.o. I was disappointed
about it, because it means that nobody from users@o.a.o seems to be
interested to help/support me. From dev@o.a.o I only got feedback about
the risks of a user profile migration and that nobody prefers a
migration of the extensions.
I have taken your feedback as not constructive criticsm. Your feedback
sounds like that I decided that extensions will not be migrated. That is
not the case.
Earlier in January I already started a similar discussion - see above
mentioned thread. Here, no strong preferences regarding the migration of
extensions were given.
In this thread I expressed my willingness to work on the migration of
the user profile (which also contains the user installed extensions),
otherwise nothing will be migrated as stated in January. As this is not
a one-person show I asked for help and support. The only feedback I got
was that a migration might be risky and no one has preference to migrate
extensions.
Then I got your feedback which more or less killed my motivation to work
on the migration of the user profile.
May be you are volunteering to support me as you seem to be interested
in a working migration of the user profile?
Best regards, (a disappointed) Oliver.
more comments inline.
On 02.06.2013 13:17, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 29/05/2013 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
On 28.05.2013 18:23, Rob Weir wrote:
Do we need to worry about the "messy" profiles that occurred
from OOo 3.3.0 upgrades to AOO 3.4.0? That was when we saw
spell checking breaking, missing dictionaries, and crashes.
One of the nice things about a "clean start" with AOO 4.0 was
that we avoid these kinds of problems.
From my point of view AOO 3.4.x users which had problems due to
a "messy" profile and had solved these problems, can migrate
their profile to AOO 4.0. AOO 3.4.x users which does not had
solved their problems are able to suppress the migration of
their existing profile - see the corresponding FirstStartWizard
page for the user profile
migration.
I agree with Rob here that, since we had only a few widely
reported bugs in OpenOffice 3.4.1 and one of them depended on the
profile migration, we should be rather conservative.
I agree it's better not to migrate extensions, since some of
them might not work in OpenOffice 4 and their description.xml
file in most cases will only state that they need "OpenOffice 3.0
or later".
Yes, an easy reset of the user profile would be great.
This would be a very welcome improvement. Maybe technically this
could invalidate the current profile and ask the user to restart
OpenOffice, which would start on a clean profile. This would
offer a good user experience (not optimal, since the optimal one
would be triggered by a reinstallation too), and the right moment
for the cleanup would be just after the code that checks if
FirstStartWizard must be run and just before the profile is
loaded and locked (which means that the "invalidate" bit must be
set in a way that does not require profile access but probably a
simple filesystem access... OK, I'll stop here!).
Thus, I assume that the risk of a defect or a regression is low
when solving issue 122398 and 122397 for AOO 4.0, except the
issue which would be "copied" from a "messy" user profile.
This is a case to consider. So I would suggest to set the
default answer to "Don't migrate" for extra safety, especially if
we don't have an easy profile reset mechanism in place.
I agree. But it will cause translation effort - see screenshot of
FirstStartWizard migration page [1] String "...If you do not want
to reuse any settings in %PRODUCTNAME %PRODUCTVERSION, unmark the
check box." will be change to "...If you do want to reuse settings
in %PRODUCTNAME %PRODUCTVERSION, mark the check box."
Thus, send my your AOO 3.4.x or OOo 3.x user profile in a
compressed form (.zip file or .tar.gz file or ...) or let me
know, if you want to try my builds.
If you had a build available, it would be easier for the QA
volunteers to test.
Yes, that would be the best.
I will make the changes on trunk. Then the buildbot builds and the
snapshot builds can be tested. As all changes will contain the ID
of the corresponding issue in the submit summary, it will be easy
to revert these changes.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=80738
Best regards, Oliver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
