Re: [xwiki-devs] [Contrib] Tour Application dependency in XWiki

On 07 Jun 2016, at 11:36, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote: So the main concerns are: A. moving (changing history, ids, versioning scheme, version compatibility, etc.) B. commit rights & ownership C. support definition

A. Maybe in the future we might want to create flavors that contain community applications, without the need to move them somewhere (like Mocca Calendar for example). I don't like moving things around, losing history, breaking ids, versioning, etc. It is an interesting topic because in the past years, when we experimented something, we first committed code outside of platform. So the move topic will happen for other apps too. B. Regarding commit rights, they can be set per repository. So we could indeed handpick apps and allow only committers to support them. Now this indeed implies changing some of our definitions and providing such a list of applications. Regarding ownership, I think preserving the initial owner of the app, gives the appropriate credits to him. From a community perspective I think is better for an app to be attribute to the initial committer, rather than switching the ownership to XWiki's Development Team. C. Now the problem is the 'support', since as you said it's hard for as committers to offer support for apps that are not in platform. Changing the commit rights from contrib to committers could be a solution, if the owner agrees. Now IMO we can easily change the definition of what 'support' means, we only need motivation and to see additional benefits. So I would: - ask the owner if he wants his app to be bundled by default - not move the app, just use as a dependency - ask if we can change the initial rights to allow committers + owner(s), instead of contrib. A note that for some apps, multiple people could be better suited to 'support' the app, rather than the committers group - ask the owner if he can 'support' the app. Bundling an app implies that the committers will support it, but additional owners can and should support it. If the owners would like to support the app, but they are not committers, I would not want us to be 'forced' to give commit rights just because we will need to move the app inside platform. Or for the owner to 'renounce' his app. - as part of the support agreement, request the app to have functional tests and have a job on ci. So the other problems remaining are different version schemes, compatibility and the list of bundled contrib apps: - Compatibility will be better since you could install new versions of the app, on older versions of XE. Now the testing will be more problematic (in mixing different version). - Compatibility field on e.x.o needs to be updated on every XE release. This could mean increased work for the RM or the owner(s). - The list of bundled apps can be generated using the 'bundled' property we have on Repository app. Anyway :) this implies some changes. I would like us not to move the app, but not sure how this will fully impact our current rules. Thanks, Caty On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: > >> On 07 Jun 2016, at 09:37, Guillaume Delhumeau < > guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Moving Tour Application into platform makes sense to me (it becomes a >> critical component and deserves a proper support). > > For me, it’s really about the definition of what the XWiki github org > represents. Right now with the new strategy == “Everything needed for the > default XWiki runtime, a.k.a base/default flavor” (what we’ve been calling > XE so far but that we’ll slim down a bit, for example by removing the Blog > app and move it to contrib). > > Now we could still decide to have some flavor in contrib and have the tour > app included in that flavor but not in “the default XWiki runtime”. In > practice this would mean promoting this flavor instead of the base/default > flavor. The question will arise anyway when we next talk about other > flavors that we may want to have in contrib such a KB flavor, workgroup > flavor, web flavor, etc. > >> However, the current >> application supports XWiki >= 6.4.1. By moving it to platform, we will > only >> support the last XWiki version. > > This is a tough topic indeed. For the tour there’s the solution of keeping > it in contrib and introducing a flavor but for CKEditor it’s harder to > justify that it’s not part of the base flavor IMO but maybe it’s possible > and we would offer only the wiki editor in the base flavor. Of course we > could modify our functional tests fwk to support running on various > versions of the dependencies and have CI builds to ensure that an extension > works with all versions but it’s not perfect and it would mean that for the > first time we would have code in the xwiki github org that would not use > the latest APIs/latest JDK features. > > The other option is Marius’s, i.e. accept that we hand-pick some > extensions from contrib that we bundle in the base/default flavor such as > the Tour app, CKEditor integration, etc. In this case, we would just need > to redefine what “xwiki github org” means. Saying “core component” would > not be enough, it would needs a more precise definition. > > Interesting topic ;) > > Any other option that we have? > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> 2016-06-06 15:31 GMT+02:00 Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt;et>: >> >>> >>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 15:24, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 06 Jun 2016, at 14:50, Marius Dumitru Florea < >>>>> mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Alexandru Cotiuga < >>>>>> alexandru.cotiuga(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As it was decided already, a Homepage Tour have to be implemented. >>>>> However, >>>>>>> no option regarding the place where the Tour Application should be >>>>> added as >>>>>>> dependency was discussed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are some possible options: >>>>>>> 1) XWiki Enterprise >>>>>>> 2) XWiki Platform Distribution >>>>>>> 3) XWiki Platform Helper >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) Is there any option to have the Tour Application as a part of the >>>>> Core ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What would be the best way to include the Contrib applications in >>> XWiki? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On this topic (sorry if I hijack your thread) I was wondering why > don't >>>>> we >>>>>> have dependencies from platform/enterprise to contrib. We have lots > of >>>>>> third party dependencies, contrib could be considered as such. >>> Moreover, >>>>>> we're in the process of moving non-core (vertical) extensions out of >>>>>> platform to contrib. It would be a pity to move something from > contrib >>> to >>>>>> platform and then back to contrib. I have the same issue with the >>>>> CKEditor >>>>>> Integration extension. We want CKEditor as the default editor, > bundled >>>>> with >>>>>> the default distribution, but do we need to move it to platform? Same >>> for >>>>>> the Welcome Tour. >>>>> >>>>> I’d personally not like this for the following reasons: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 1) I like that the XWiki runtime is all released at once with all >>>>> extensions making it using the same versions and verified to work >>> together. >>>>> >>>> >>>> XWiki runtime has lots of third party dependencies. Bootstrap, Solr, >>>> jQuery, just to name a few. I don't see how having the source code in > our >>>> repo (platform) makes a difference at runtime when the >>>> integration/functional tests verify they work together. >>> >>> Because they don’t! :) Just check any extension in contrib and you’ll > see >>> their func test (when they have some!) don’t test that they work with > the >>> latest version of XWiki… >>> >>>> 2) Support. The XWiki runtime is supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>>>> Extensions in contrib are not supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>>> >>>> >>>> So the FAQ application you moved out of platform is no longer supported >>> by >>>> the XWiki Core Dev Team? >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>>> The extension page >>>> http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/FAQ+Application >>>> doesn't reflect this. >>> >>> I added my name to the list as a supporter. I’ve kept “XWiki Dev Team” >>> because it's a past authors and it wouldn’t make sense to remove it. But >>> yes it’s no longer officially supported by the XWiki Core Dev Team. >>> >>> Note that e.x.o doesn’t say who maintains a given extension, it just > says >>> who participated to developing it ;) We’re currently missing the info on >>> whether the extension is actively supported and by whom. FTR Confluence >>> does this with a “supported” label that you can hover over and provides >>> info. For example: >>> > https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/nl.avisi.confluence.plugins.numbe… >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>> In addition xwiki-contrib is very open and anyone can make > modifications >>>>> there and quality is thus harder to guarantee. >>>>> >>>>> We defined the xwiki github organization as containing horizontal >>> modules, >>>>> ie modules that can be required for any flavor and both CKEditor and > the >>>>> Tour Application fit the need. By opposition to vertical modules which >>> make >>>>> sense only for some use cases (like the Meeting Manager app) and not > by >>>>> default in XE. We have the option of having flavors in contrib for >>> those if >>>>> we want though. For CKEditor it’s not a good thing since we’d like it > by >>>>> default. >>>>> >>>>> One alternative (which I’m not fond of at all) would be to have > ckeditor >>>>> as a separate git repo in the xwiki github organization. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Marius >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Alex