25 Jul
2016
25 Jul
'16
9:40 p.m.
Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent(a)massol.net> a écrit :
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.
would
problem,
right?
that
_______________________________________________
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
> 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
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 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
> 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
>>> 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