I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think that happens that often

2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall)

3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so it's not a blocker

On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote: What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki project…

We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on our releases... Thanks -Vincent PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of the new model for example ;)

On May 16, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; wrote: > On 05/16/2013 10:54 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> >> On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne <

>> >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt;

>>>> I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: >>>> >>>> 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think

>>> >>> And it's surely not going to improve... >>> >>>> >>>> 2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done

>>>> >>> >>> Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote. >>> >>>> 3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so

>>> >>> It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you >>> simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the >>> Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git >>> integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious >>> solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard for >>> Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a >>> dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used to >>> and will simply can't, period. >> >> What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth

1) You should re-read the governance. It's a meritocracy, i.e we vote

2) It's all the devs that will bear the cost of maintaining the new

BTW none of us work on a windows environment and I think it's a bad idea

Again (in case you didn't understand) I'm ok on the principle of doing

We've had enough bad examples of the dev environment being broken for

So to reiterate and to be constructive, before we start any actual work

* see a list of windows coders who have expressed a need (apart from

* that we list what needs to be done precisely. I've identified some so

** the git path changes ** modify all the xwiki.org pages linking to code ** git history, will we loose ability to see history of files? ** others?

* to list who is ok to participate actively in the move * that we agree on a date so that it doesn't impact our planned roadmap Thanks -Vincent >> We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that

>> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of the

>> > > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu

On 05/16/2013 12:36 PM, Frédéric Bouquet wrote: The problem isn't IDE-related at all, it's about the filesystem. Windows doesn't allow creating files with a path longer than 255 characters, so it will fail at attempting to fetch the sources from GitHub. And that's not actually true, the filesystem itself does allow long path names, it's the Windows API that is broken. There are alternative APIs that allow longer path names (32k chars), but it seems that very few developers use those instead of the default ones (not even the official Windows applications seem to use those), so most applications are broken. This is why using cygwin works, because it correctly uses the modern APIs. And maybe in time other tools will work as well, but we can't say that "your tool is broken, use something else" when the tool works for 99.9% of all the other software packages. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365247%28v=vs.85%…

Hi, I'm not (yet ;)) a XWiki developper but concerning this issue with windows, I'd like to propose an other way of adressing it. Several developpers in my company work on windows + eclipse and encounter the same issue with bonita engine. They found a solution by closing all projects they don't work on, using the corresponding packages from a maven repository. It seems a bit painful at the beginning but with good practices, it's ok (by the way, working with eclipse with all projects open should not be simple). As far as I remember, when I was working on windows and idea, I never had the issue. Do you know if the issue is only with eclipse or append also when using maven in command line or using an other IDE ? Back to the main idea, instead of doing this huge refactoring which will impact all XWIki developpers, the alternative may be for one guy to try developping on windows with different IDEs and then provide a way of working on each environment. The cost of such work may be a few hours to find a solution and write some guidelines/good practices. The result for new developpers would be more or less as learning new coding rules. WDYT ?

On May 16, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: > > On May 16, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; wrote: > >> On 05/16/2013 10:54 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> >>> On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne <

>>> >>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt;

>>>>> I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: >>>>> >>>>> 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't

>>>> >>>> And it's surely not going to improve... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done

>>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote. >>>> >>>>> 3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so

>>>> >>>> It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you >>>> simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the >>>> Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git >>>> integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious >>>> solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard

>>>> Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a >>>> dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used

>>>> and will simply can't, period. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth

>> >> But this is why we have a democracy and not a dictatorship. If the >> community considers it is worth the effort, and at least some devs are >> willing to work on this, then I think it's their right to do this. > > 1) You should re-read the governance. It's a meritocracy, i.e we vote

> > 2) It's all the devs that will bear the cost of maintaining the new

> > BTW none of us work on a windows environment and I think it's a bad

> >> It's not a good move to veto the will of the community. > > Again (in case you didn't understand) I'm ok on the principle of doing

> > We've had enough bad examples of the dev environment being broken for

> >> Anyway, there are other reasons to make the change, not just Windows >> compatibility. It saves about 2 seconds each time a dev wants to go to

>> directory from the command line. Going into one subdirectory means >> having to press "x tab <right prefix of the submodule> tab". The first >> two keys are superfluous since they're the same all the time. The

>> the hierarchy, the longer the time it takes to go there. It adds up to >> more than an hour wasted per year per dev, and I don't think it will >> really take a whole month of every dev to do the migration. If

>> contributes and we do a systematic effort, it could be done in an hour >> with the right planning. > > So to reiterate and to be constructive, before we start any actual work

> * see a list of windows coders who have expressed a need (apart from

> * that we list what needs to be done precisely. I've identified some so

> ** the git path changes > ** modify all the xwiki.org pages linking to code > ** git history, will we loose ability to see history of files?

> ** others?

** what happens to the JIRA links to commits in the Commits tab? Will

Thanks -Vincent > * to list who is ok to participate actively in the move > * that we agree on a date so that it doesn't impact our planned roadmap > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that

>>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>> PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of

>>> >> >> -- >> Sergiu Dumitriu

On 05/16/2013 12:16 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: wrote: think that happens that often lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall) it's not a blocker for to I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki project… important changes and devs need to be ok. So if one or a few devs want to do this but some other don't for some valid reason then it's not going to happen until we reach a decision. environment, no just the dev who's willing to do the initial work. idea to implement support for something that we never use. It can only lead to something that gets broken frequently. To overcome this we'd need some windows agent and this means supporting that agent and making sure it works all the time (we tried in the past and failed for a very simple reason: none of the devs use windows and thus we don't care). this move but doing cowboy-coding without thinking about the consequences and letting other fix your stuff by only doing half of the work isn't my preferred style… week(s not so long ago that it's normal to want to be careful... a deeper everybody on this I'd like that we do more evaluation. This means: Florin who I know already) and who have a real will to participate after the move. Do we have at least one? This is not just about Windows. The committers that vote +1 vote for their own environment, not just to fix a problem for hypothetical contributors. And it's not about improving something for existing contributors, but removing a blocker standing in the way of future contributors. The easier it is for a new potential community member to join, the more of these tentative users will actually stick around. And XWiki isn't overwhelmed by the number of contributors to afford to voluntarily keep out those not motivated enough to actually try to find out why the checkout fails and what needs to be done to actually have a working environment and go through all the painful process of installing cygwin and the the command line tools that work with cygwin. far: Not really. In some cases we might have to add --find-copies-harder to some commands, but it should work out of the box for most files.

Viewing the commits that affect a file on GitHub might not list pre-move commits, but the history will s * The move will break uncommitted local changes, so all devs should try to commit their local changes, at least in a separate local branch if not on github. But devs shouldn't keep uncommitted changes anyway, right?

pulling for the first time, since everything will be moved around. * Existing pull request should still work, but Jira patches will break; they're probably broken already anyway, since we didn't really allow new patches to be put there for a while, and most of the paths have changed since 1-2 years ago.

* Does anything on Jenkins depend on paths? I hope not, configurations use module names, and they will continue to point to the right POM. * I guess this still counts as xwiki.org changes, but we should make sure the pages that work with remote files, like the syntax documentation and syntax completion report, will also need to be updated. * Existing links in emails (and other places with answers like stackoverlow) will be broken, but that already happens whenever we move a module, for example to make room for api+ui+test submodules, and this happened a lot recently, so it's not a new problem. * Most annoying: forgetting our own reflex of typing x+tab when changing the path :-) they still work? Yes, the existing commits will not change. migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on our releases... the new model for example ;) -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On 05/16/2013 12:16 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: This is not just about Windows. The committers that vote +1 vote for their own environment, not just to fix a problem for hypothetical contributors. And it's not about improving something for existing contributors, but removing a blocker standing in the way of future contributors. The easier it is for a new potential community member to join, the more of these tentative users will actually stick around. And XWiki isn't overwhelmed by the number of contributors to afford to voluntarily keep out those not motivated enough to actually try to find out why the checkout fails and what needs to be done to actually have a working environment and go through all the painful process of installing cygwin and the the command line tools that work with cygwin. Not really. In some cases we might have to add --find-copies-harder to some commands, but it should work out of the box for most files. Viewing the commits that affect a file on GitHub might not list pre-move commits, but the history will s * The move will break uncommitted local changes, so all devs should try to commit their local changes, at least in a separate local branch if not on github. But devs shouldn't keep uncommitted changes anyway, right? * Depending on how they're configured, our IDEs might freak out when pulling for the first time, since everything will be moved around. * Existing pull request should still work, but Jira patches will break; they're probably broken already anyway, since we didn't really allow new patches to be put there for a while, and most of the paths have changed since 1-2 years ago. * Does anything on Jenkins depend on paths? I hope not, configurations use module names, and they will continue to point to the right POM. * I guess this still counts as xwiki.org changes, but we should make sure the pages that work with remote files, like the syntax documentation and syntax completion report, will also need to be updated. * Existing links in emails (and other places with answers like stackoverlow) will be broken, but that already happens whenever we move a module, for example to make room for api+ui+test submodules, and this happened a lot recently, so it's not a new problem. * Most annoying: forgetting our own reflex of typing x+tab when changing the path :-) Yes, the existing commits will not change. > Thanks > -Vincent > >> * to list who is ok to participate actively in the move >> * that we agree on a date so that it doesn't impact our planned roadmap >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>>> We're going to loose at least a month before we've finished that migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on our releases... >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>>> PS: With the same group effort we could release a first version of the new model for example ;) >>>>

So here are the winners on platform/XE master: xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-administration/xwiki-platform-administration-test/xwiki-platform-administration-test-tests/target/smartgwt/com/smartclient/theme/enterpriseblue/public/sc/skins/EnterpriseBlue/images/Progressbar/progressbar_Disabled_v_empty_stretch.gif (270) xwiki-enterprise-installers/xwiki-enterprise-installer-generic/target/container/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.1-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui/5.1-SNAPSHOT/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui-5.1-SNAPSHOT.xed (296) which gives after refactoring core/administration/test/tests/target/smartgwt/com/smartclient/theme/enterpriseblue/public/sc/skins/EnterpriseBlue/images/Progressbar/progressbar_Disabled_v_empty_stretch.gif (174) installers/generic/target/container/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.1-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui/5.1-SNAPSHOT/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui-5.1-SNAPSHOT.xed (252) On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: started checking is the longest path we currently have. /Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git/xwiki-platform/xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-ircbot/xwiki-platform-ircbot-test/xwiki-platform-ircbot-test-tests/target/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui/5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT.xar Note that this kind of path does not exist, looks like you extracted a XE in your platform project for test purpose. The actual test data is extracted in /Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git/xwiki-platform/xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-ircbot/xwiki-platform-ircbot-test/wiki and /data/extension/repository is empty. > That's 375 characters > With the new rule that would be: /Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git/xwiki-platform/core/ircbot/test/test-tests/target/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui/5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT.xar > That's still 301 characters. > Thomas has done an extensive search and he'll be able to give more details on other long paths. > Also note that we have an issue at runtime with too long paths: > [2/11/13 1:22:10 PM] Ionut Maxim: ! C:\Users\max\Downloads\xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-4.5-rc-1.zip: The archive is corrupt The archive is corrupt > ... Cannot create xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-4.5-rc-1\data\extension\repository\org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui\4.5-rc-1\org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui-4.5-rc-1.xed > Total path and file name length must not exceed 260 characters > What we could do to solve both problems would be to reduce the path length used by the EM to store metadata. For example: /Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git/xwiki-platform/core/ircbot/test/test-tests/target/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/org.xwiki.platform%3Axwiki-platform-rendering-wikimacro-ui/5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/artifact.xar > which gives 236 chars. Still pretty close so another solution would be to use some random directory names (since the names are not used by the EM): /Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git/xwiki-platform/core/ircbot/test/test-tests/target/xwiki-enterprise-jetty-hsqldb-5.0.2-SNAPSHOT/data/extension/repository/dfdsf4fszz3lmbf567/artifact.xar > which would be around 200 chars. > Now what would be interesting would be to give indications to xwiki builders and xwiki users as to what is the max path prefix they're allowed to use for xwiki to build/work. In my example below I'm using "/Users/vmassol/dev/xwiki/git" chars (i.e. 28 chars). > Thanks > -Vincent > On May 16, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; wrote: >> On 05/16/2013 12:16 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> >>> On May 16, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: wrote: thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: think that happens that often lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall) it's not a blocker the for used to worth I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki project... are important changes and devs need to be ok. So if one or a few devs want to do this but some other don't for some valid reason then it's not going to happen until we reach a decision. environment, no just the dev who's willing to do the initial work. idea to implement support for something that we never use. It can only lead to something that gets broken frequently. To overcome this we'd need some windows agent and this means supporting that agent and making sure it works all the time (we tried in the past and failed for a very simple reason: none of the devs use windows and thus we don't care). doing this move but doing cowboy-coding without thinking about the consequences and letting other fix your stuff by only doing half of the work isn't my preferred style... week(s not so long ago that it's normal to want to be careful... to a first deeper to everybody hour work on this I'd like that we do more evaluation. This means: Florin who I know already) and who have a real will to participate after the move. Do we have at least one? so far: right? updated. they still work? roadmap migration completely and I'm really worried about the toll it'll have on our releases... the new model for example ;) >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs(a)xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On May 16, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: > > On May 16, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; wrote: > >> On 05/16/2013 10:54 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>> >>> On May 16, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Thomas Mortagne &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: >>>>> I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: >>>>> >>>>> 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think that happens that often >>>> >>>> And it's surely not going to improve... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote. >>>> >>>>> 3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so it's not a blocker >>>> >>>> It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you >>>> simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the >>>> Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git >>>> integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious >>>> solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard for >>>> Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a >>>> dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used to >>>> and will simply can't, period. >>> >>> What I'm saying is that I don't think it's worth the effort. By worth I mean the ratio between the effort and problems it'll require from us vs the # of windows dev not using cygwin that'll want to develop for the xwiki project… >> >> But this is why we have a democracy and not a dictatorship. If the >> community considers it is worth the effort, and at least some devs are >> willing to work on this, then I think it's their right to do this. > > 1) You should re-read the governance. It's a meritocracy, i.e we vote important changes and devs need to be ok. So if one or a few devs want to do this but some other don't for some valid reason then it's not going to happen until we reach a decision. > > 2) It's all the devs that will bear the cost of maintaining the new environment, no just the dev who's willing to do the initial work. > > BTW none of us work on a windows environment and I think it's a bad idea to implement support for something that we never use. It can only lead to something that gets broken frequently. To overcome this we'd need some windows agent and this means supporting that agent and making sure it works all the time (we tried in the past and failed for a very simple reason: none of the devs use windows and thus we don't care). > >> It's not a good move to veto the will of the community. > > Again (in case you didn't understand) I'm ok on the principle of doing this move but doing cowboy-coding without thinking about the consequences and letting other fix your stuff by only doing half of the work isn't my preferred style… > > We've had enough bad examples of the dev environment being broken for week(s not so long ago that it's normal to want to be careful... > >> Anyway, there are other reasons to make the change, not just Windows >> compatibility. It saves about 2 seconds each time a dev wants to go to a >> directory from the command line. Going into one subdirectory means >> having to press "x tab <right prefix of the submodule> tab". The first >> two keys are superfluous since they're the same all the time. The deeper >> the hierarchy, the longer the time it takes to go there. It adds up to >> more than an hour wasted per year per dev, and I don't think it will >> really take a whole month of every dev to do the migration. If everybody >> contributes and we do a systematic effort, it could be done in an hour >> with the right planning. > > So to reiterate and to be constructive, before we start any actual work on this I'd like that we do more evaluation. This means: > * see a list of windows coders who have expressed a need (apart from Florin who I know already) and who have a real will to participate after the move. Do we have at least one?

> * that we list what needs to be done precisely. I've identified some so far: > ** the git path changes > ** modify all the xwiki.org pages linking to code > ** git history, will we loose ability to see history of files?

> ** others?

** what happens to the JIRA links to commits in the Commits tab? Will they still work?

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; wrote: And it's surely not going to improve... Yes it's a huge change, that's why it's a vote. It's not as trivial as you seems to think and it also mean that you simply can't use the standard git tools in the Windows world like the Github application or Tortoisegit without speaking or any EDI git integration... so not it really can't be seen as some obvious solution. And it's not like using Cygwin was some king of standard for Windows dev. "use cyggwin" is easy to say but the reality is that a dev will try to clone XWiki repository with the git tool he is used to and will simply can't, period.

> Thanks > -Vincent > > On May 16, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Mortagne &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: > >> Reviving http://markmail.org/message/hlnqke3igkbec332 for as an official vote. >> >> We have waited way too long and I think we really need to find a >> solution even if none of the committers use Windows since a long time. >> Every time a Windows dev even think of contributing he is very quickly >> discouraged... >> >> As a reminder the issue is that working on XWiki source code is a pain >> for MS Windows developers because of the (impossible to understand I >> agree) limitation on path size. >> >> So the idea is to find a new logical rule to drastically shorten our >> paths and Sergiu proposed the following: remove duplicated information >> from our paths to maven modules. >> >> Here is an example: >> >> xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-rendering/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformations/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformation-macro >> (131 chars) >> >> would become >> >> core/rendering/transformations/macro (36 chars) >> >> So WDYT ? >> >> Here is my +1 >> >> I also find it nicer when navigating using cd and tab in a unix shell anyway. >> >> Planning to do it in 5.1 if everyone agree. >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne

I'm rather -0 ATM and very close to -1 because: 1) I haven't heard from a windows dev for a long time, I don't think that happens that often

2) It's a *huge* change and it should definitely not be done lightly. We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall)

3) Windows devs have a simple solution which is to use cygwin so it's not a blocker

Thanks -Vincent On May 16, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Mortagne &lt;thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: > Reviving http://markmail.org/message/hlnqke3igkbec332 for as an official vote. > > We have waited way too long and I think we really need to find a > solution even if none of the committers use Windows since a long time. > Every time a Windows dev even think of contributing he is very quickly > discouraged... > > As a reminder the issue is that working on XWiki source code is a pain > for MS Windows developers because of the (impossible to understand I > agree) limitation on path size. > > So the idea is to find a new logical rule to drastically shorten our > paths and Sergiu proposed the following: remove duplicated information > from our paths to maven modules. > > Here is an example: > > xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-rendering/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformations/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformation-macro > (131 chars) > > would become > > core/rendering/transformations/macro (36 chars) > > So WDYT ? > > Here is my +1

On May 16, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; wrote: that happens that often We would need to plan a period like 2 full days, all devs would need to stop working on what they do and help out. For example all pages on xwiki.org having some github links are going to be broken and will need to be updated (that's probably around hunded of pages overall) No not a blocker Agreed Sure but not at all cost. For example there are tons of dev environments we don't support. It's not because they exist that we need to support them. We need to remember that these dev envs must be first and foremost to make the life of those who code a lot for xwiki simpler. Supporting more env means more work. It's the same as supporting N databases or N browsers… Right now if we do the sam exercise as we did for the databases and the browsers we would never support the windows dev environment based on how many potential devs using windows we have or that we'll get… It's a nice to have but far from critical. Again, the only person I know who asked about this was Florin. And that was in 7 years…. Thanks -Vincent wrote: official vote. xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-rendering/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformations/xwiki-platform-rendering-transformation-macro anyway. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs