+1 I like the fact that we don't move things around and that we support old versions of XWiki. We still need to clearly define what Base Flavor / Default Flavor include and how contrib users will create new Flavors on top of them. We still need to define the versioning scheme for the extensions that will go in the Default Flavor or in other possible future 'supported' contrib Flavors. (especially since you said they could have multiple releases) (maybe something like 8.2.1-x, although might be strange that you could install an 8.2.1-1 version of Tour in a 6.4 XWiki. Maybe we could use the year like 2016-1-1 or I don't know we need to think about it). And we need to see where we document what each Flavor contains and the procedure to add/remove extensions in the Flavors. Thanks, Caty On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: this Core triggered xwiki-contrib this part Default that release). more be XWiki develop is _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 21 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi, +1. Even if it would imply a bit more work and management, I think it was unavoidable due to XWiki`s platform nature. My only note was about the mention on the previous thread that EM would/could not be considered part of the base flavor, in that I`m not sure I agree with that and, again, due to the platform nature of XWiki, EM should be considered core.

We were even discussing in the past that the minimal distribution could be EM *alone*... so I can`t agree now with removing it. I know it was just an idea, just want to clarify it.

Thanks, Eduard On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Alexandru Cotiuga < alexandru.cotiuga(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: > +1 (not binding) > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < > valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> +1 >> >> I like the fact that we don't move things around and that we support old >> versions of XWiki. >> >> We still need to clearly define what Base Flavor / Default Flavor include >> and how contrib users will create new Flavors on top of them. >> We still need to define the versioning scheme for the extensions that > will >> go in the Default Flavor or in other possible future 'supported' contrib >> Flavors. (especially since you said they could have multiple releases) >> (maybe something like 8.2.1-x, although might be strange that you could >> install an 8.2.1-1 version of Tour in a 6.4 XWiki. Maybe we could use the >> year like 2016-1-1 or I don't know we need to think about it). And we > need >> to see where we document what each Flavor contains and the procedure to >> add/remove extensions in the Flavors. >> >> Thanks, >> Caty >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Denis Gervalle &lt;dgl(a)softec.lu&gt; wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >>> 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 >> xwiki-contrib >>>> 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. >>>> * 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 > Tour >>> 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 >> release). >>>> * 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. >>>> >>> >>> IMO, the overhead will depends on the needs, but what will be a net >>> benefice is not to artificially raise extensions requirements when > there >> is >>> no change, or when the change does not implies the need for a recent > API. >>> >>> +1, of course :) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Here’s my +1 >>>> >>>> Please cast your vote. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent

On 22 Jun 2016, at 10:02, Marius Dumitru Florea &lt;mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: +1 On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: 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 the WAR.

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

On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:13, Eduard Moraru &lt;enygma2002(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: 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). 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

Hi, On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: xwiki-contrib this of later Tour Default release). the release to in repo). selection 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).

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: - is flavor Updater more be users _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Eduard Moraru &lt;enygma2002(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: “basic for the the can ourselves Flavor and we 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. Thanks, not since the of section that the should third-party dev it’s -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs