23 Jun
2016
23 Jun
'16
9:32 a.m.
On 23 Jun 2016, at 09:26, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<fun, please don’t consider it seriously>
I agree with this but just for the fun of it (cannot resist, sorry ;)):
If you push this reasoning you could also consider moving everything from the xwiki github
org into the xwiki-contrib org... But wait, this is the same as actually moving everything
from contrib to the xwiki github org too and relaxing committership rules :)
</fun, please don’t consider it seriously>
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
xwiki-contrib
release).
the
release
While I agree with your reasoning about why we like the move to contrib for
extensions, if you remember well our discussion about the repositories, the
reason that we have somehow abandoned the idea of a xwiki-extension repo
was mainly to avoid moving sources from one repository to another.
I am still convinced that the drawback of moving sources is worse than the
risk of seeing very bad quality code being committed to a contrib
extension. Just look at the CKEditor one which live in contrib since a
while, does it receive any bad contribution (or even an external
contribution at all) ? I doubt, and if anything bad happen, I am
convinced Marius will notice and react. So I am not sure your fears are
justified at the moment.
If our community were growing more, and the quality of some extensions
start to be an issue, it will still be the time to move them to a safer
place, or to strengthen the access right on contrib repositories. But I
would like to trust the community to be responsible, and that this time
will never happen. I would like to hope for the best, which would be that
our community will grow thanks to how easier it will be to participate, and
that good developers will join and help improve the overall quality. Let’s
us not under estimate how responsible the OS community could be. On 22 Jun 2016, at 10:02, Marius Dumitru Florea
<
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I’m transforming the brainstorming that was started in the thread
> http://markmail.org/message/exlndbq3tw2thmmu into a VOTE mail since
this
> is a very important decision.
>
> So I’m asking you to vote for defining a new direction for the XWiki
Core
> Dev Team (i.e. for the XWiki GitHub
Organization). The need was
triggered
>> by the Tour and CKEditor extensions which are currently in >> and that we want our users to have by
default. For more details see
this
>> thread:
http://markmail.org/message/exlndbq3tw2thmmu
>>
>> So here’s the strategy:
>>
>> * Make XWiki Github org == minimal runtime, where minimal means “basic
>> wiki” (page edition, history, linking, wiki markup, etc). The notion
of
>> “basic wiki” would need to be better
defined but this can be done
later
on.
Tour
> * Provide a "Base Flavor" which
corresponds to this “basic wiki”, as
part
>> of xwiki-platform (this would be xwiki-platform-distribution).
>> * Provide another flavor, the "Default Flavor” which would add some
>> hand-picked third-party extensions (i.e. from contrib) such as the app
>> and CKEditor (to start with, we could also add the markdown syntax for
>> example which is one of the most asked syntaxes). Note that this
Default
>
Flavor would actually be a “replacement" of xwiki-enterprise.
>
> * The Default Flavor would have at least the same release cycle as the
> base flavor but it could have more releases (if some of the bundled
> third-party extensions has some important bug fixes or new features
that we
>> want to offer quickly without waiting for the next base flavor >
I don't think we need to release the Default Flavor more often than the
Base Flavor because with this new strategy the users can upgrade
individual
> extensions (those that are not in the Base Flavor) without upgrading WAR.
As I said, if we find some important bug (for example) and this bug is
only in one of the 3rd party extensions, it would be a pity not to just the Default Flavor IMO and wait for 2 months
more. Even if users can
upgrade their extensions, it’s better that users new to XWiki
download/install the best possible version right away instead of having
to
upgrade.
We’ll see when the need arises but I don’t think we should stop ourselves
from this possibility. Technically this means putting the Default Flavor
in
a separate github repo (same as xwiki-enterprise
being in a separate
repo).
We need to discuss how we do it:
- consider it’s XE for now and just add the 2 deps of Tour and CK to XE
- introduce a new repo for the default flavor and do the build for it and
deprecate XE in favor of it. For now we probably need to hardcode the
flavor id in the platform WAR till we’re ready to have the flavor
selection
screen at startup (and for HSQLDB/Jetty packaging
we need a hard-coded
flavor anyway).
I`m personally sensing that we may have a bit of a confusion here between
the notion of separate release cycles and the repo in which an extension
should be located.
AFAIU, the top priority and the actual problem that we want to fix here
(mainly for our users and XWIki`s flexibility) is to allow extensions to
have independent release cycles. Moving stuff to contrib just got somehow
into the discussion as a consequence of the old way we used to handled
things (xwiki org = monolith, single version; contrib org = distributed;
independent versions).
In the past, people (including myself) were pushing to move modules to
contrib for the independent versioning feature of contrib, but not
necessarily for the "openness for anyone to commit" feature of contrib.
That last feature was actually a downside to the quality aspect. If we
handle independent versioning within the xwiki GitHub organization, then we
will no longer have this downside and we will be able to properly control
the quality. This would mean that the Default Flavor would be in a repo
under the xwiki org (similar to xwiki-enterprise, as Vincent's proposal)
and I would even go as far as suggesting that all the dependencies of the
Default Flavor should be located/moved within the xwiki org, perhaps in
some xwiki-extensions repo (that we were talking about at some point).
Thanks,
>
> I agree that this might sound a bit like going in circles, but IMO it`s not
> entirely true, now that we introduce independent versioning in the
> discussion, since it fixes a lot of problems we have in the previous
> discussions were we were wrongly using Contrib, to compensate for it, since
> the xwiki org was a big monolith.
>
> Now what happens to the remaining modules inside xwiki-platform and the
> Base Flavor, I would guess that, at least at the beginning, they will
> continue to function as a monolith, at least until we decide to tackle the
> notion of "core" dependencies and if we want to do something about them
> (see my note about this on the previous thread).
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Eduard
>
> So, having that in mind, I would think of some questions:
> -
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> Currently the users cannot upgrade the Blog because the new version of
>>> the Blog depends on a new version of the XWiki WAR. With this new
>> strategy
>>> the users will be able to upgrade the Blog (considering that the Blog
> is
>>> not part of the Base Flavor).
>>>
>>> On the same topic, we have the Extension Updater administration section
>>> where users can check for extension updates. The problem is that the
>>> extensions included in a flavor are considered dependencies of the
> flavor
>>> and thus are installed as dependencies which means the Extension
> Updater
>>> cannot separate them from other technical dependencies and thus won't
>> check
>>> for their updates. Ideally a flavor should be a pack of extensions that
>> are
>>> installed explicitly (not as dependencies). This way the Extension
>> Updater
>>> can propose updates and at the same time the users can uninstall
>> extensions
>>> from a flavor without removing the flavor.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marius
>>>
>>>
>>>> * The consequence is that the XWiki Dev Team would need to be a bit
> more
>>>> careful to monitor the quality of bundled third-party extensions in
>> contrib
>>>> (check commits, do some smoke testing, etc). Note that the goal of the
>>>> Default flavor would not be to offer verticals (for this there should
> be
>>>> some contrib flavors) and thus it wouldn’t bundle a lot of third-party
>>>> extensions. Basically we’ll need to validate the version of those
>>>> third-party extensions that include in the flavor.
>>>>
>>>> My POV is that globally this would offer more flexibility for our
> users
>>>> (they’ll be able to install extensions such as CK and Tour in older
>> XWiki
>>>> versions and they’ll get more frequent releases) at the cost of some
>>>> overhead to develop extensions that work in several versions. The dev
>> team
>>>> is pretty small and thus it means developing a bit less fast but it’s
>>>> probably as important, if not more important, to make the code we
>> develop
>>>> available in older xwiki versions, as XWiki gains traction.
>>>>
>>>> Here’s my +1
>>>>
>>>> Please cast your vote.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent