I think it's quite usual to create new templates by modifying existing ones. Furthermore I think there are 2 usual and intuitive ways to create these modified templates: (1) Open existing template > Modify > Save template as new template with different name possibly into a new category. This is currently possible with template manager. OK. (2) Copy existing template with a different name possibly into a new category > Open and modify new template > Save template. This is currently not possible, because the copy function does not exist within the template manager. Hence expected: Copy function within the template manager. Especially if you don't have admin rights on your system and you like to modify a predefined template, you need this function. In this case a predefined template is read-only and can't be modified. See also bug 103619 and bug 103714.
Hi Harald, (In reply to Harald Koester from comment #0) > I think it's quite usual to create new templates by modifying existing ones. > Furthermore I think there are 2 usual and intuitive ways to create these > modified templates: > > (1) Open existing template > Modify > Save template as new template with > different name possibly into a new category. This is currently possible with > template manager. OK. > > (2) Copy existing template with a different name possibly into a new > category > Open and modify new template > Save template. This is currently > not possible, because the copy function does not exist within the template > manager. Hence expected: Copy function within the template manager. File duplication is a file manager feature and believe we intentionally left it out of the newly redesigned template manager. If the feature was there, the user would still need to rename the template in the template manager on duplication and open up the template, modify it, and save template which would be a bad workflow compared to first workflow. > Especially if you don't have admin rights on your system and you like to > modify a predefined template, you need this function. In this case a > predefined template is read-only and can't be modified. Libreoffice would never be able to duplicate the predefined template file if its in a folder that the user doesnt have permission to, so not sure what is being said here. I tested editing one of the predefined templates in LO 5.1, which used the old template manager and came installed by default, and the infobar appeared stating it was read-only and i clicked the 'edit document' button, i modified the file and saved as a new template and it put it in the user-level template path ~/.config/libreoffice/4/user/template/ For me this is a WONTFIX. @Heiko, @Stuart, @Cor: Whats your take?
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #1) > File duplication is a file manager feature and believe we intentionally left > it out of the newly redesigned template manager. If the feature was there, > the user would still need to rename the template in the template manager on > duplication and open up the template, modify it, and save template which > would be a bad workflow compared to first workflow. Personally, I could use both just fine. I even think a copy functionality in the template manager is more logic. After all I'm managing templates there, and it is more direct then open existing and performing save as (though personally I'm fine to use that kind of indirect routes). So I would set to new.
(15:54:00) CorNouws: jphilipz_: save as to create a copy, is not as logic as copy to create a copy - just my opinion of course (15:54:48) jphilipz_: CorNouws: definitely its more logical in a file manager, but not in an application Maybe it's not too hard to see a template manager as a special files manager? In any case: I really love the current template manager much and much more than the old one. So this would be nice a cerise on the cake :)
We talked a lot about the template manager and rejected the file manager metaphor. While I personally disagree, the decision is clear. Hence, copy is out of scope.