[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions
- Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions
- From: Jean Weber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 12:36:59 +1000
- To: email@example.com
IMO we should not be "promoting" extensions that are not in the LO
extensions repository... unless they are unusually outstandingly
helpful. We do have a generic statement that people can get extensions
from various places.
Also.... In a few cases, extensions we mention are now bundled with LO
itself & so the wording in the docs needs changing. In some other
cases, including with Calc, some extensions that might have been
listed in an earlier version of the documentation don't actually work
well with LO and should be dropped from our docs... whether they are
in the LO repository or not.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Tom Davies <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi :)
> I think it is ok now, to point to the OOo site for things.
> I agree it is better to point to LO sites where possible but we can be fairly confident in OOo Extensions working equally well in LO. Also when Oracle were running the OOo websites they kept dropping out from time-to-time. Now that Apache are running them they seem to be up all the time and we can be reasonably confident that they wont suddenly vanish over-night.
> The LO pages for Extensions are likely to continue to be more stable for LO than for Apache because LO has already done it's re-organising and Apache might still shift things around a bit to stream-line them a bit.
> Regards from
> Tom :)
> --- On Mon, 28/5/12, Jean Weber <email@example.com> wrote:
> From: Jean Weber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Impress Guide version LO3.4
> To: email@example.com
> Date: Monday, 28 May, 2012, 11:56
> Yes, good catch. I've been trying to find those and amend or omit them.
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, John Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Oops. The point to be made is that just changing the site name doesn't mean
>> the extension is there.
>> On 28/05/2012 11:42, John Smith wrote:
>>> Hi Jean
>>> Just to say that in the doc I'm working on now, there's a reference to two
>>> extensions on the LO extensions website, perhaps changed in an earlier
>>> version of the doc when going to 3.3, that is in error. What it refers to,
>>> appears to only be available on the OOo site. Searching on the LO site
>>> returns zero hits. I have marked it in the doc for further attention.
>>> On 28/05/2012 01:10, Jean Weber wrote:
>>>> While skimming through the Impress v3.4 chapters, I spotted a few
>>>> errors that are also in v3.5 (I missed them before). I'll fix in both
>>>> versions. The only one I recall right now is a reference to the OOo
>>>> extensions website, which should be the LO extensions website. I'll
>>>> let everyone know when I've done all the minor updates.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
|Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions||Tom Davies <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions||toki <email@example.com>|
|[libreoffice-documentation] Extensions||Tom Davies <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Last extra Math Guide section: Technical details
- Next by Date: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Impress 3.4 Guide published
- Previous by thread: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions
- Next by thread: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Extensions