xwiki-devs September 2018

xwiki-devs@xwiki.org

12 participants
36 discussions

[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Use discourse for the "dev" mailing list

by Guillaume Delhumeau

Hi devs, I think we are now satisfied with our experimentation with the "users" mailing list on discourse. I propose you to move the "dev" ML too. My main point is that it allows advanced formatting (which is good when you have complex proposals), meanwhile the formatting is lost with our archiving tool like markmail (it's plain text). Here is my +1. Thanks, -- Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com) Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS Committer on the XWiki.org project

4 years, 10 months

[xwiki-devs] OpenCollective for XWiki Community

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

Hi devs, This is a proposal for the content we would have if we were to create an OpenCollective account for XWiki. Take a look at https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/XWikiOpenCollective The issues we need to solve / validate are: A. Decide on the URL name (xwiki is already taken by XWiki SAS) B. See if XWiki SAS can act like our Fiscal host C. Validate the tiers and content https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/XWikiOpenCollective#HTiers (we might need more details on how the "Bug Fixer" works in case we agree to it) Let me know what you think, Caty

5 years, 2 months

[xwiki-devs] [proposal] Process to handle Pull Requests

by Ludovic Dubost

Hi devs, I don't think there is currently a process that is in place to handle pull requests and I have the feeling that the way there are handled today is a bit random. There are usually comments sent out on each pull request but sometimes it seems that some pull requests are going in sleep mode and it's not clear who is in charge. I would like to suggest that a process is put in place where it's clear who is responsible for a pull request and a status is given to the contributors that propose that pull request. Something like: Assigned developer: XXXX Status: New -> new pull request, not yet assigned Assigned -> assigned to a developer, he is in charge of reviewing the pull request and ask for modifications or accept it. The developer can auto assign it to himself. If nobody does, we need to decide how they will be taken into account. ModificationsRequired -> for now rejected with comments. Contributor needs to apply comments and then change back to Assigned for further evaluation VoteRequired -> there are no more comments, but a vote is required as the changes to XWiki core are important WaitingFinalAuthorization -> optional step for complex patches where a additional authorization would be required (need to define who would be the persons that give the authorization) WaitingApplication -> there are no more comments and no changes or vote required. The pull request can be applied and is waiting for a developer to apply it Abandoned -> contributors is abandoning the pull request (cannot do the changes, no more time, etc..) Rejected -> pull request is rejected (quality not enough, etc..) Applied -> pull request is applied What do you think ? Ludovic -- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost

5 years, 2 months

[xwiki-devs] [contrib] Page Preview Popover extension request

by Stéphane Laurière

Hi all, I would like to contribute an extension that will display page preview popovers when hovering wiki links, similarly to what MediaWiki offers: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/05/09/page-previews-documentation/ Its name could be 'application-page-preview-popover' - what do you think? As discussed with Caty yesterday, the extension will use the Bootstrap popovers. Should you have any need or suggestion, please let me know. If the name is ok, can I ask you for the creation of a repository and JIRA project? Stéphane -- Stéphane Laurière XWiki www.xwiki.com @slauriere

5 years, 5 months

[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Drop support for IE11

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

IE is the last browser we are supporting at a particular version, see http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/BrowserSupportStrategy . For all the other browsers, we are supporting just the latest release. We are supporting the latest version of Microsoft Edge since XWiki 9.9, starting from 24/Oct/17. Microsoft Edge replaced Internet Explorer as the default web browser since the release of Windows 10 (launched Jul 2015). Internet Explorer 11 is maintained on Windows 10 for compatibility purposes, but is deprecated in favor of Edge and is no longer actively developed. We discussed dropping IE11 in the past Oct 6, 2017 (see https://xwiki.markmail.org/thread/qsrkka6zfrmyxv3d), but the vote failed. Some updated statistics: -------------------------------------------------- XWiki.org's 1 year traffic (between Sep 30, 2016 - Sep 30, 2017) compared to Oct 1, 2017 - May 31, 2018: - Internet Explorer dropped from (5.84%) to (4.65%) -- from this percentage, IE 11 usage has increased from (88.43%) to (88.76%) - Edge increased from (1.56%) to (1.84%). In terms of Worldwide market share for Desktops, for the past 12 months (according to http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/ ), we have Sep, 2016 - Sep, 2017 compared to May 2017 - May 2018: - Internet Explorer dropped from 8.21% to 6.97% - Edge dropped from 4.3% to 4.15% In May 2018, Global Market Share Worldwide for All Platforms contains: - Chrome 58.09% - Safari 13.78% - UC Browser 8.16% - Firefox 5.27% - Opera 3.68% - Internet Explorer combined is at 3.08% (with IE 11 having 2.65%. IE11 in August 2017 had 3.04%) - Edge combined having 1.91% (Edge combined in August 2017 had 1.8%) - etc. -------------------------------------------------- In terms of statistics, IE11 is more used than Microsoft Edge. The only argument of dropping IE11 is that it's a browser that is deprecated for about 3 years, and it's limiting the usage of newer specifications (like CSS Flex, Grid, etc.) I'm curios about how this period of supporting both IE11 and Edge went, and if you have other examples of things you wanted to use and are not supported by IE11. Thanks, Caty

5 years, 6 months

[xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Get rid of sonar.xwiki.org?

by Vincent Massol

Hi devs, Context: * I lost the config on ci.xwiki.org to push maven results to sonar.xwiki.org. I can find them back for sure but will take me a bit of time. * We don’t use sonar.xwiki.org that much * We now have https://sonarcloud.io/organizations/xwiki/projects to which we can push results from our builds * https://sonarcloud.io/organizations/xwiki/projects is always up to date in term of sonar version and we don’t need to maintain it So my proposal is to decommission sonar.xwiki.org and to configure https://sonarcloud.io/organizations/xwiki/projects the way we want (I already did that a bit but we can tune it more) and modify our maven build to push to it. WDYT? Thanks -Vincent

5 years, 6 months

[xwiki-devs] [Discussion] Coding practice for location of internal package name

by Vincent Massol

Hi devs, On Matrix/IRC, I’ve posted the following: " * Guillaume Delhumeau: BTW your naming is strange for the internal package * for ex: package org.xwiki.notifications.preferences.internal.email; * normally we put internal just after the main package part * ie. * org.xwiki.notifications.internal.* * and org.xwiki.notifications.* for public classes * see http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/CodeStyle/JavaCodeStyle/#HPac… * General rule is org.xwiki.(module name).internal. * I see thomas has done the same “error" for org.xwiki.job.handler.internal and org.xwiki.job.handler.internal.question . So maybe there's something to discuss/change * I guess we have a mix of both now so we should discuss it and adjust our rules if need be “ So I think we don’t have all the same rules/understanding of the definition at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/CodeStyle/JavaCodeStyle/#HPac… I’d like to discuss with you to see what you prefer and adjust our rules so that it matches what we do in practice. Any take in this? Thanks -Vincent

5 years, 6 months

[xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] Finish refactoring for xwiki configuration directories

by Vincent Massol

Hi devs, Context ====== Clemens fixed a bug at https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15163 and while doing so inroduced a new system property to override the location of the xwiki.properties file. I commented at https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15163?focusedCommentId=98075&page=com.a… Even though it’s not necessary to introduce a new system property just for the need of this test (it’s easy to refactor the code to not need this IMO), it raises the question of what we want to do to make the configuration simpler in XWiki (simpler config, simpler upgrades, etc). History ====== We discussed this a few times in the past: * March 2010: http://markmail.org/message/6cvm5hocvtbqtgp6 * June 2012: https://markmail.org/message/3aq2bjrb6a2ip2ri Note that the June 2012 proposal was agreed. Globally this is what we implemented since the June 2012 proposal: * XCOMMONS-187: The Permanent Data directory resolver should support System Property "xwiki.data.dir". More specifically the code is here: https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-commons/blob/55569d3466dc0ea36f6964474973f7a… * XWIKI-13867: Search xwiki.cfg in /etc/xwiki/ first. Code is here: https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/973d4e9c6ad02dbb31d94fe96df9c1… * XWIKI-13868: Search xwiki.properties in /etc/xwiki/ first. Code is here: https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/93f02215783ac0f4030fe3062cac4d… I’d like to note that I don’t remember discussions/proposals for XWIKI-13867/XWIKI-13868 and I commented on http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-13867 and didn’t get any response from my various comments. Current behavior ============= So right now the behavior is the following on config files (I’m excluding the recent change of Clements, see below in actions): * If xwiki.cfg exists under the. "java:comp/env” JNDI key, then it’s used * If not found, then search for it in /etc/xwiki/xwiki.cfg * If not found, then default to WEB-INF/xwiki.cfg * If /etc/xwiki.xwiki.properties exist then it’s used * if not found, search in WEB-INF/xwiki.properties (as a ServletContext resource) * If not found, then default to an empty configuration Discussion/Proposal ================ * I think we should ask Clemens to rollback the introduction of the xwiki.properties.default.dir system property and to just make the test work without introducing any system property. I can help Clemens do that. * I propose that instead we continue implementing the June 2012 proposal defined at https://markmail.org/message/3aq2bjrb6a2ip2ri and introduce the xwiki.config.dir system property. * Right now I don’t like the solution introduced by /etc/xwiki/* because they don’t allow supporting several instances of XWiki on the same machine. However, the introduction of xwiki.config.dir system property would fix it. * We could also introduce the user home dir location as a location where xwiki config files would be looked for. * We also need to generalize the config files to hibernate.cfg.xml and clustering config files (jgroup files), and logback. See https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/AdminGuide/Backup#HConfi… WDYT? Thanks -Vincent PS: Sorry for the long mail, I had to do a lot of archeology to research this… Took me a while ;)

5 years, 7 months

[xwiki-devs] [Need proposal] How to show "conflicting" macro parameters

by Thomas Mortagne

Hi xwikiers, In the contact of bringing new Page concept (OK 7.4 is starting to get old) to the API and macros too we decided (1) to introduce a "page" shortcut property (even if we keep the reference/type for other types). While it's nicer for wiki syntax, one issue is that on WYSIWYG macros UI side, which display all properties, it means ending up with conflicting parameters that needs to be displayed as such. I don't really have much clue on how best to display this so I'm searching for ideas :) Then I will add in the macro descriptor what's required for whatever UI we want to build (group and sub groups of properties, etc.). 1: http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/DeprecatingSpaceAndSpaceRef… Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagnes

5 years, 8 months

[xwiki-devs] [UX] Simpler Upgrades

by Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)

Hi devs, I've heard that the upgrade process is a complicated process and relies on a lot of manual operations. I haven't investigated the technical solutions we have at our disposal, but I tried to image the desired UI an Administrator would want when upgrading: * be notified that a new version is available: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/Upgrade/SimplerUpgrade… * have an upgrade section in Administration where Distribution and Extensions can be checked for new versions and upgraded / backed: https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/Upgrade/SimplerUpgrade… https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/Upgrade/SimplerUpgrade… A more detailed proposal at https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/Upgrade/SimplerUpgrade/ So, what are your thoughts on this? Thanks, Caty

5 years, 8 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

xwiki-devs September 2018