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

git add --interactive On 07/27/2016 03:59 AM, Alexandru Cotiuga wrote: > I'm +1 for not committing date changes and it would be helpful to

> them at some point, since I need all the time to edit files to commit

thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com >> wrote: > >> Le 25 juil. 2016 18:31, "Vincent Massol" <vincent(a)massol.net> a

>>> >>> >>>> On 25 Jul 2016, at 18:20, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>

>> 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

(that’s >>>>> probably the case already, would need to be checked) >>>>> >>>> >>>> A side-effect of this is that, when you upgrade and extension, all

>>>> 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

doesn’t update a an 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

>>>> 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

>>>> (that are not supposed to be hidden), this becomes a nuissance. >>>> >>>> WDYT about the 2 problems? I guess we could always accept them and

>> 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

>>>> 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

>> 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

>> to >>>>>> lack consensus on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It`s about the practice of skipping date field changes from

>> XML >>>>>> pages when committing them to source control. This includes doc

to >>>>>> mention that this practice goes in line with what we do for

>>>>>> versions (which is handled by the xar:format maven plugin goal

update >> doc >>>>>> dates, then we should also increment doc versions, otherwise it

>> not >>>>>> make any sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea was, AFAIR, that XWIki`s code pages should not generate

>>>>>> updates in the user`s wiki content, in any way, and that and

*the XWiki`s >>>>> code >>>>>> pages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your input is appreciated and the result of this discussion would

>> the >>>>>> update of our Development Practices [2] and Application

-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs