xwiki-devs

xwiki-devs@xwiki.org

9400 discussions

[xwiki-devs] [RELEASE] Let's Encrypt support

by Thomas Mortagne

I just released an extension to easily add support for Let's Encrypt in your wiki. The extension automatically register Let's Encrypt root certificate in the trust store at runtime to allow you to request Let's Encrypt signed HTTP servers. See http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Let%27s+Encrypt+suppor… -- Thomas Mortagne

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [ANN] Contrib Parent pom 6.4-3

by Thomas Mortagne

I just released a 6.4-3 version of the Contrib Parent pom. Mostly merged improvement I made in the 7.4 branch. -- Thomas Mortagne

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [XWiki Day] BFD#113

by Alexandru Cotiuga

Hello devs, Today is BFD#113: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiDays#HBugfixingdays Our current status for the 1 year period is 87 bugs behind. See: http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10000#Created-vs-R… Here's the BFD#113 dashboard to follow the progress during the day: http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=13630 Happy Bug Fixing Day! Thanks, Alex

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [ANN] VelocityContext versus ScriptContext

by Thomas Mortagne

Hi devs, I finally started the long waiting refactoring to deal with conflicting ScriptContext and VelocityContext. * they are now fully in sync (at least that's the goal when you use them properly :)) * VelocityContext moved to a more internal thing or at least very specific (use case where you execute yourself some Velocity code). In general if you want to set or access script bindings, do it trough ScriptContext. * new ScriptContextManager#getCurrentScriptContext which directly return a not updated ScriptContext. To be used when you want to set binding mostly and you don't care if it's up to date or not. If there is any chance you access anything in the script context it's safer to use #getScriptContext So if you have weird behavior with Velocity variable you know who to blame. Please report me anything that looks wrong on this area. -- Thomas Mortagne

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [ANN] XWiki 8.2.1 released

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

The XWiki development team is proud to announce the availability of XWiki 8.2.1. This is a bugfix release that fixes important bugs discovered in the 8.2 version. You can download it here: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Download Make sure to review the release notes: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotesXWiki821/ Thanks for your support -The XWiki dev team

8 years, 5 months

Re: [xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Committing date changes on document XML files

by Thomas Mortagne

Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent(a)massol.net> a écrit : > > > > On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: > > > >> I think I’d be in favor of: > >> * Have our xar:format remove the dates > >> * Have xar:verify fail if the dates are in the XML (thus our quality build > >> will fail if that’s the case) > >> * Have the import set the current date if no dates are defined (that’s > >> probably the case already, would need to be checked) > >> > > > > A side-effect of this is that, when you upgrade and extension, all the > > pages of the extension will be changed and set to the update date as their > > last modification dates, right? (i.e. it affects both fresh installs and > > upgrades) > > Isn’t this what happens now already, i.e. when an existing page is imported the current date is set (unless it’s a backup pack)? Yes EM does not take into account plumbing stuff like date and version. > > If the issue is about the diff, I guess we could have a diff that doesn’t take into account the dates (or a better algorithm could be to not update a page that only has the date metadata modified). It's already the case... > > > Thinking more about it, it could be problematic for all the pages of an > > extension that you upgrade to appear as being modified, even if nothing > > changed in them in that particular version. > > We should definitely not update pages with no changes. > > > Another minor negative side-effect would also be searching or listing > > documents and sorting them by the last update time. Of course, this would > > mostly affect admins or users with "show hidden documents" enabled. > > I we don’t update pages that haven’t been changed we won’t have this problem, right? > > > However, if you happen to also manage some content pages in your build > > (that are not supposed to be hidden), this becomes a nuissance. > > > > WDYT about the 2 problems? I guess we could always accept them and say that > > installs/upgrades are relatively rare and that the impact is minimal (and > > similar to an empty save in a document - something that can already be > > observed in practice in a document's history - so we don`t introduce > > anything new). > > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > > P.S.: Here`s an existing issue more or less related to this topic > > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-7058. Caty reminded me about it. > > And http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11764 > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > * Have AS and Watchlist exclude import / new wiki (already the case) > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> On 25 Jul 2016, at 14:08, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, devs, > >>> > >>> This interesting discussion [1] came up recently on a github commit that > >>> lead us to realise that a practice which we have been doing since forever > >>> is not documented in our best practices guides and that we also seem to > >>> lack consensus on it. > >>> > >>> It`s about the practice of skipping date field changes from document XML > >>> pages when committing them to source control. This includes doc date > >>> and contentUpdateDate > >>> fields, but also attachment dates. > >>> > >>> You can see some arguments on the discussion[1], but I also wanted to > >>> mention that this practice goes in line with what we do for document > >>> versions (which is handled by the xar:format maven plugin goal which we > >>> execute every time, before committing XML pages). If we are to update doc > >>> dates, then we should also increment doc versions, otherwise it does not > >>> make any sense. > >>> > >>> The idea was, AFAIR, that XWIki`s code pages should not generate any > >>> updates in the user`s wiki content, in any way, and that and update of > >> the > >>> code of a "system"/XWiki page should not show up as an update of *the > >>> user's content*, since it would otherwise confuse him. > >>> > >>> What we are currently missing from xar:format is exactly this: the reset > >> of > >>> XML page dates to have a clearer and more consistent date for XWiki`s > >> code > >>> pages. > >>> > >>> Your input is appreciated and the result of this discussion would be the > >>> update of our Development Practices [2] and Application Development Best > >>> Practices [3] pages. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Eduard > >>> > >>> ---------- > >>> [1] > >>> > >> https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb222862… > >>> [2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices > >>> [3] > >>> > >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra… > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> devs mailing list > >>> devs(a)xwiki.org > >>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devs mailing list > >> devs(a)xwiki.org > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > devs(a)xwiki.org > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs(a)xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [XWiki Day] BFD#112

by Alexandru Cotiuga

Hello all, Today is BFD#112: http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/XWikiDays#HBugfixingdays Our current status for the 1 year period is 95 bugs behind. See: http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10000#Created-vs-R… Here's the BFD#112 dashboard to follow the progress during the day: http://jira.xwiki.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=13628 Happy Bug Fixing Day! Thanks, Alex

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [ANN] XWiki 8.2 released

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

The XWiki development team is proud to announce the availability of XWiki 8.2. This release integrates CKEditor as the default WYSIWYG content editor. It also features a redesigned default homepage, a tour on the homepage to describe the XWiki user interface to newcomers, new default templates, a new application index in the drawer and a new administration UI to help manage available syntaxes. There are also minor improvements to the template providers, the Flamingo skin and Ratings. For developers, we have Livetable macro improvements and a long overdue change of behavior for the getRenderedContent() method. You can download it here: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Download Make sure to review the release notes: http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotesXWiki82 Thanks for your support -The XWiki dev team

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Committing date changes on document XML files

by Eduard Moraru

Hi, devs, This interesting discussion [1] came up recently on a github commit that lead us to realise that a practice which we have been doing since forever is not documented in our best practices guides and that we also seem to lack consensus on it. It`s about the practice of skipping date field changes from document XML pages when committing them to source control. This includes doc date and contentUpdateDate fields, but also attachment dates. You can see some arguments on the discussion[1], but I also wanted to mention that this practice goes in line with what we do for document versions (which is handled by the xar:format maven plugin goal which we execute every time, before committing XML pages). If we are to update doc dates, then we should also increment doc versions, otherwise it does not make any sense. The idea was, AFAIR, that XWIki`s code pages should not generate any updates in the user`s wiki content, in any way, and that and update of the code of a "system"/XWiki page should not show up as an update of *the user's content*, since it would otherwise confuse him. What we are currently missing from xar:format is exactly this: the reset of XML page dates to have a clearer and more consistent date for XWiki`s code pages. Your input is appreciated and the result of this discussion would be the update of our Development Practices [2] and Application Development Best Practices [3] pages. Thanks, Eduard ---------- [1] https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/commit/1938dd18e1d25b8c03e4cb222862… [2] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices [3] http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/ApplicationDevelopmentBestPra…

8 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [UX][Vote] Content Templates by default

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

Hi, By default there are not many page templates an user could see. In order for users to understand the power and purpose of XWiki, it would be helpful to add more content templates by default. Content Templates are templates that don't belong to a particular application, but provides an initial content structure. The templates will be suggested in the creation step. Here are some templates we could add by default: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/TemplatesDefault#HProposal 1. Article 2. Encyclopedia 3. Meeting 4. Simple Page You can test them on http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/TemplatesDefault/ (use the Create button) Please vote if you agree these templates should be added by default or otherwise let me know your feedback. Thanks, Caty

8 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

xwiki-devs